Big Sky Bluffing?

First off, I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, I agree with Rob Port of Sayanythingblog on a lot of things when it comes to politics, but on this issue he is dead wrong. Today's ruling by the North Dakota Supreme Court puts UND's Athletic Department in a very bad situation, now they really get to find out if the Big Sky Conference is bluffing, "if" the Fighting Sioux nickname law isn't voted down or killed by the NDSC.

I am going to take the word of the UND athletic department over a political blogger. Who are you going to believe? 

While it might only be three B1G teams that won't play UND in any sport, two of those teams (Wisconsin and Minnesota) in college hockey, those teams bring a lot of money when they play the Fighting Sioux in hockey at the Ralph Englestad Arena. 

So that point is flawed and a little disingenuous from a hockey point of view. Not being able to play Minnesota and Wisconsin in college hockey after the 2012-13 season would be a fatal blow to the University and could cost the University of North Dakota a lot of money.

Would you rather see some random team every other season or would you like to play Wisconsin and Minnesota on a "semi" regular basis?

Wisconsin has stated they want to continue the series between the two teams but won’t if UND keeps the Fighting Sioux nickname.  According to Chuck Schwartz of Bucky's Fifth Quarter, "assuming North Dakota works out their nickname issues, it seems likely that the Badgers will continue to play Denver and North Dakota one series per year for the foreseeable future."

Lastly, some suggest we should discount Dale Lennon, Tim O'Keefe, Dave Hakstol and Chris  Mussman who some have accused of being  liars or stooges for the UND administration and the Big Sky Conference.  

Today's decision by the North Dakota Supreme Court puts that match up in jeopardy.
I will always love the Fighting Sioux nickname but where were these people 3-4 years ago? That was the time to stand up and fight. Why now?

Related articles

• So Who is bluffing? (ndgoon.blogspot.com)
• The Legislature's response to the SBoHE (ndgoon.blogspot.com)
• They aren't listening - Fighting Sioux nickname (ndgoon.blogspot.com)
• Big Sky Conference not Bluffing. (ndgoon.blogspot.com)

Developing - NDSC rules against NDBoHE

University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux athletic logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This just in the North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled against the North Dakota Board of Higher. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled against the North Dakota Board of Higher Education.

ND Courts ---- The Justices signing this majority opinion would exercise this Court's discretionary original jurisdiction and decide now the constitutionality of the legislative enactment requiring the University of North Dakota ("UND") to use the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo. We conclude the question of the constitutional authority of the Board of Higher Education, in contrast to the constitutional authority of the legislature, is properly before this Court and is ready to be decided. Those Justices writing separately, however, conclude the issue is not properly before this Court at this time, is not ready to be decided and they will not decide the issue at this time. The necessary number of Justices required to decide the merits is lacking and for this reason we must deny the application of the State Board of Higher Education.

This ruling by the North Dakota Supreme Court puts UND in a precarious situation with the Big Sky Conference. Of course this is a little breathing room after Montana put themselves in the cross hairs with their on campus scandal where they fired the Athletic Director and the head football coach.

Edit: Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner  ruled that there is no matter of urgency at this time, if there was the State Board of Higher Education would have filed in court last year after the Fighting Sioux nickname law was passed in March of 2011.

[¶37] It is clear that the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 15-10-46, the statute asserted to be a problem, is not a matter of urgency. If it were so, the Board would have challenged its constitutionality, as it could have done, immediately upon its signature by the Governor on March 15, 2011, one year ago, or any time thereafter. The fact that it did not do so until now indicates this is not a matter of urgency.

Related articles

• Fighting Sioux nickname supporters tell ND Supreme Court that 1969 ceremony precludes 'civil interference' (ndgoon.blogspot.com)
• The Legislature's response to the SBoHE (ndgoon.blogspot.com)
• So is the Fighting Sioux nickname on the way back (ndgoon.blogspot.com)
• They aren't listening - Fighting Sioux nickname (ndgoon.blogspot.com)