Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 . . . . is what so many people oddly seem to fear around here. But if we look at reality and undisputed facts, we know the following is true: Fact 1: NCAA removed UND from sanctions when UND did not have a nickname. Fact 2: NCAA awarded UND the right to host hockey regionals when UND did not have a nickname. Fact 3: NCAA has not placed UND on sanctions even though the statutory "cooling off" period ended months ago, and there is still a possibility that UND does not adopt a new nickname. But, despite these undisputed facts, some of you believe that "no nickname" will result in the NCAA putting UND back on sanctions, refusing to award regionals to UND, and blowing up Grand Forks with the Death Star. Some people are clearly speculating and offering conjecture as to what the NCAA bogeyman might or potentially could do to UND; i.e, the argument that the NCAA is acquiescing to "no nickname" so long as UND is continuing a transition to a new nickname. Can you guys provide a source, or is it just your honest opinion? Others offer strained legal opinions as to what the NCAA is legally allowed to do under the terms of the settlement agreement. Again, can you guys provide a source, or is this just your honest, internet message board legal analysis? Ready, set, go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 . . . . is what so many people oddly seem to fear around here. But if we look at reality and undisputed facts, we know the following is true: Fact 1: NCAA removed UND from sanctions when UND did not have a nickname. Fact 2: NCAA awarded UND the right to host hockey regionals when UND did not have a nickname. Fact 3: NCAA has not placed UND on sanctions even though the statutory "cooling off" period ended months ago, and there is still a possibility that UND does not adopt a new nickname. But, despite these undisputed facts, some of you believe that "no nickname" will result in the NCAA putting UND back on sanctions, refusing to award regionals to UND, and blowing up Grand Forks with the Death Star. Some people are clearly speculating and offering conjecture as to what the NCAA bogeyman might or potentially could do to UND; i.e, the argument that the NCAA is acquiescing to "no nickname" so long as UND is continuing a transition to a new nickname. Can you guys provide a source, or is it just your honest opinion? Others offer strained legal opinions as to what the NCAA is legally allowed to do under the terms of the settlement agreement. Again, can you guys provide a source, or is this just your honest, internet message board legal analysis? Ready, set, go! I can only speak for myself but since this has not been addressed by the committee or UND administration, it is as much my opinion as the above is your opinion. I cannot give you specific facts in regards to UND however facts can be given of how the NCAA plays by its own rules and doesn't like its member institutions giving it a black eye. Especially member institutions that are not the key money makers. I can also tell you I reached out to members of both committees and asked the question above and recieved the answer from numerous that "they hadn't thought about it but it was definately worth looking into." Can you provide a source, other than your own interpetation of the agreement that clearly states UND moving forward with no nickname satifies what was agreed upon by the NCAA and state of North Dakota? I would say that in all your facts above, UND could make the arguement they were doing what they could to move towards a new nickname however if/when the option of no nickname is selected that arguement can no longer be used. At that point, UND is one "Siouxper Drunk" scenario away from a NCAA institution having egg on its face and someone asking how no nickname moved UND away from the Fighting Sioux nickname. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 I can only speak for myself but since this has not been addressed by the committee or UND administration, it is as much my opinion as the above is your opinion. I cannot give you specific facts in regards to UND however facts can be given of how the NCAA plays by its own rules and doesn't like its member institutions giving it a black eye. Especially member institutions that are not the key money makers. I can also tell you I reached out to members of both committees and asked the question above and recieved the answer from numerous that "they hadn't thought about it but it was definately worth looking into." Can you provide a source, other than your own interpetation of the agreement that clearly states UND moving forward with no nickname satifies what was agreed upon by the NCAA and state of North Dakota? I would say that in all your facts above, UND could make the arguement they were doing what they could to move towards a new nickname however if/when the option of no nickname is selected that arguement can no longer be used. At that point, UND is one "Siouxper Drunk" scenario away from a NCAA institution having egg on its face and someone asking how no nickname moved UND away from the Fighting Sioux nickname. Regarding bold point number one: Explain how the NCAA's decision to remove UND [no nickname] from sanctions is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA awarding and allowing UND [no nickname] to host a regional is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA's decision not to place UND [no nickname] back on sanctions despite the expiration of the "cooling off" period is my opinion. Regarding bold point number two: Ugh! Twamley is so incompetent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 So, a guilty until proven innocent approach then? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Regarding bold point number one: Explain how the NCAA's decision to remove UND [no nickname] from sanctions is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA awarding and allowing UND [no nickname] to host a regional is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA's decision not to place UND [no nickname] back on sanctions despite the expiration of the "cooling off" period is my opinion. You got about 3 or 4 very legitimate responses to this yesterday. Apparently none of them satisfied you. You still haven't acknowledged that the NCAA not only plays by their own rules, they also have the power to make or change them as they please and have shown no issue in being hypocrites or singling out individual institutions as they please. Even more so when they need a distraction from a P5 school doing something dumb. What benefit is there to leaving UND open to that scenario when the fix is simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Regarding bold point number one: Explain how the NCAA's decision to remove UND [no nickname] from sanctions is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA awarding and allowing UND [no nickname] to host a regional is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA's decision not to place UND [no nickname] back on sanctions despite the expiration of the "cooling off" period is my opinion. Regarding bold point number two: Ugh! Twamley is so incompetent! I gave it my best guess in the 2nd paragraph. It would be pretty easy to argue that for the last 3 years and nearly 8 months, UND has been doing what it could to move towards a new nickname. Again, this is as much my opinion as your original post is your opinion. If everything is satisfactory, someone who met with the NCAA face to face could come out and say as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 UND is one "Siouxper Drunk" scenario away from a NCAA institution having egg on its face and someone asking how no nickname moved UND away from the Fighting Sioux nickname. Let me save you the suspense.... UND will forever be a few malt liquors and an SU student, or equal, away from these incidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 I gave it my best guess in the 2nd paragraph. It would be pretty easy to argue that for the last 3 years and nearly 8 months, UND has been doing what it could to move towards a new nickname. Again, this is as much my opinion as your original post is your opinion. If everything is satisfactory, someone who met with the NCAA face to face could come out and say as much. You could have just said "I don't have any sources or facts to back up my opinions." Unlike you, however, I have pointed out that the NCAA has lifted sanctions against UND and awarded home playoff games to UND despite the school's absence of a nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 You got about 3 or 4 very legitimate responses to this yesterday. Apparently none of them satisfied you. You still haven't acknowledged that the NCAA not only plays by their own rules, they also have the power to make or change them as they please and have shown no issue in being hypocrites or singling out individual institutions as they please. Even more so when they need a distraction from a P5 school doing something dumb. What benefit is there to leaving UND open to that scenario when the fix is simple. So again . . . you're simply speculating that the NCAA bogeyman will lay the hammer down on UND. Do you have any concrete evidence or facts to support your opinion that the NCAA will do this? Because it seems like the NCAA has taken quite the opposite stance since UND retired "Fighting Sioux" and went forward with no nickname; i.e., removing UND from sanctions and awarding regionals to UND. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Let me save you the suspense.... UND will forever be a few malt liquors and an SU student, or equal, away from these incidents. But if they have a new nickname nobody will care-not UND's fault. If they keep the elephant in the room, in the room, it will be a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 But if they have a new nickname nobody will care-not UND's fault. If they keep the elephant in the room, in the room, it will be a big deal. Same scenario goes for North Dakota nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 You could have just said "I don't have any sources or facts to back up my opinions." Unlike you, however, I have pointed out that the NCAA has lifted sanctions against UND and awarded home playoff games to UND despite the school's absence of a nickname. Why were the sanctions lifted? Because UND was in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Why were they in compliance? Because they had announced they were retiring the Fighting Sioux nickname and transitioning towards a new nickname, playing out exactly as the Settlement Agreement stated. Is picking "no nickname" considered a transition to a new nickname in the eyes of the NCAA? No one knows. If it is, what can the NCAA do once they see that UND has now encouraged an environment where Fighting Sioux is the de facto nickname and continued to be widely used even though it has been retired? Whatever they want. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Same scenario goes for North Dakota nickname. Unless the name is the University of North Dakota North Dakota, its not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 But if they have a new nickname nobody will care-not UND's fault. If they keep the elephant in the room, in the room, it will be a big deal. Fair observation. But I highly doubt the media would have ignored the "Sioux-per drunk" t-shirts even had UND been playing under a new nickname at the time. The media loves sensationalism, and the gf herald has exhibited a shockingly poor sense of journalistic integrity by sensationalizing social media outbursts at the expense of, well, journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 So again . . . you're simply speculating that the NCAA bogeyman will lay the hammer down on UND. Do you have any concrete evidence or facts to support your opinion that the NCAA will do this? Because it seems like the NCAA has taken quite the opposite stance since UND retired "Fighting Sioux" and went forward with no nickname; i.e., removing UND from sanctions and awarding regionals to UND. BB, they're afraid of their own shadows... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 BB, they're afraid of their own shadows... Or they keep up to tabs on how the NCAA governs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 Why were the sanctions lifted? Because UND was in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Why were they in compliance? Because they had announced they were retiring the Fighting Sioux nickname and transitioning towards a new nickname, playing out exactly as the Settlement Agreement stated. Is picking "no nickname" considered a transition to a new nickname in the eyes of the NCAA? No one knows. If it is, what can the NCAA do once they see that UND has now encouraged an environment where Fighting Sioux is the de facto nickname and continued to be widely used even though it has been retired? Whatever they want. So the state's prohibition against transitioning to a new nickname until January 1, 2015 is "transitioning towards a new nickname" in your eyes. hmmmmm? I know you believe the NCAA does "whatever they want." The question is, however, what sources do you that show that the NCAA will do "whatever they want" to UND despite the NCAA not having done, well, anything to UND since Fighting Sioux was retired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Fair observation. But I highly doubt the media would have ignored the "Sioux-per drunk" t-shirts even had UND been playing under a new nickname at the time. The media loves sensationalism, and the gf herald has exhibited a shockingly poor sense of journalistic integrity by sensationalizing social media outbursts at the expense of, well, journalism. Exactly right. But the media could not turn to UND for a comment anymore because they moved on and did everything they were supposed to do to solve these issues. "Take it up with the group that did it"...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 So again . . . you're simply speculating that the NCAA bogeyman will lay the hammer down on UND. Do you have any concrete evidence or facts to support your opinion that the NCAA will do this? Because it seems like the NCAA has taken quite the opposite stance since UND retired "Fighting Sioux" and went forward with no nickname; i.e., removing UND from sanctions and awarding regionals to UND. Do you have any concrete examples of the NCAA showing compassion on issues? Particularly one where there was lawsuits and settlement agreements and the other party decided to at best, not follow the spirit of the agreement and at worst, flat out violate it? Again, UND was removed because they were following the steps outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Until you have concrete proof that the NCAA has accepted that if UND stops the process and selects "no nickname" and is fine with it, your theories hold no more water than anyone else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Or they keep up to tabs on how the NCAA governs. Yes... The sky is falling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Regarding bold point number one: Explain how the NCAA's decision to remove UND [no nickname] from sanctions is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA awarding and allowing UND [no nickname] to host a regional is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA's decision not to place UND [no nickname] back on sanctions despite the expiration of the "cooling off" period is my opinion. Regarding bold point number two: Ugh! Twamley is so incompetent! The NCAA removed UND from the sanctions list when UND signed the Settlement Agreement several years ago. You seem to have missed that fact. They would have to actively put UND back on the list, and only if they decide that UND did not live up to the Agreement. Your opinion is that the NCAA would have put UND back on the list immediately after the state forced UND to stay without a nickname until 2015, or immediately after that deadline was met. You have no proof of that other than your opinion. Many of us are of the opinion that the NCAA is giving a grace period as long as UND is making attempts to move toward a new nickname. We have no proof of that and have stated that. Several have also offered the theory that the NCAA could enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement at any time after the deadlines written in it, they don't have to enforce those deadlines specifically on those dates. UND hosting a regional and not being on the sanctions list fit within the theories of the NCAA giving a grace period and extending deadlines. You have offered no real proof that your opinion is any more valid than any other opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Exactly right. But the media could not turn to UND for a comment anymore because they moved on and did everything they were supposed to do to solve these issues. "Take it up with the group that did it"...... Same would go for no nickname, ND, sun whatever's, etc... "Not our problem...we dropped that name." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 So the state's prohibition against transitioning to a new nickname until January 1, 2015 is "transitioning towards a new nickname" in your eyes. hmmmmm? I know you believe the NCAA does "whatever they want." The question is, however, what sources do you that show that the NCAA will do "whatever they want" to UND despite the NCAA not having done, well, anything to UND since Fighting Sioux was retired? You think it is just a coincidence that the processes were started shortly before that date? And that maybe the NCAA was clued in on that? What benefit does the NCAA gain by taking UND and the State of ND to court or an unnecessary PR black-eye if UND had informed them that as the "cooling off" period neared completion, they would finish the transition, which is exactly what happened last fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 So the state's prohibition against transitioning to a new nickname until January 1, 2015 is "transitioning towards a new nickname" in your eyes. hmmmmm? I know you believe the NCAA does "whatever they want." The question is, however, what sources do you that show that the NCAA will do "whatever they want" to UND despite the NCAA not having done, well, anything to UND since Fighting Sioux was retired? The NCAA acknowledged that UND was trying to move away from the nickname when the state legislature was trying to force them to keep the nickname in the past. Could it be that they acknowledged that there was nothing UND could do once the state legislature put the 3 year cool down period into play and again acknowleded UND was doing what it could to move away from the name, which was use only North Dakota as state law was forcing them to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 Do you have any concrete examples of the NCAA showing compassion on issues? Particularly one where there was lawsuits and settlement agreements and the other party decided to at best, not follow the spirit of the agreement and at worst, flat out violate it? Again, UND was removed because they were following the steps outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Until you have concrete proof that the NCAA has accepted that if UND stops the process and selects "no nickname" and is fine with it, your theories hold no more water than anyone else's. Yes, in September 2012, NCAA lifted sanctions against UND [no nickname] during a time that UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname. The NCAA awarded regionals to UND [no nickname] at a time that UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname. These are the facts; I don't need any more concrete examples than that. And it's fine if you want to speculate about the possibility of the NCAA creating new policies or changing the rules as they go. But just admit that it's your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.