The Sicatoka

I don't know. Only the complainant and the NCAA would know for sure ... and maybe UND. I am willing to say this: After 'Goon' got UND to go on the record, I suspect the usual complainant's from the "58202" are firing off the correspondence to the NCAA.

(Reposted from "Nodak" thread) It's no longer "fear mongering" (as some called it) when the NCAA has told UND if the complaints about hearing the old nickname continue sanctions will follow. Basically the NCAA has called the "no nickname" bluff: Even they recognize it's a way to keep using the old nickname. They are just waiting for the complaint as a trigger to bring the sanctions.

Kozek: the glass tester.

There's your problem: You expect them to make sense. What you need to do is look at what they've already done and expect more of the same.

Precisely. And the NCAA has effectively said that's their plan if they start getting complaints from people hearing the old nickname. And nothing stops them from doing it.

It's no longer "fear mongering" (as some called it) when the NCAA has told UND if the complaints about hearing the old nickname continue sanctions will follow. Basically the NCAA has called the "no nickname" bluff: Even they recognize it's a way to keep using the old nickname. They are just waiting for the complaint as a trigger to bring the sanctions.

You're thinking outside groups. I'm with ScottM; I expect there to be a Judas or two at UND more than willing to turn us over for crucification.

That's how we got here in the first place! --> Opposing fans didn't like UND fans chanting "Let's go Sioux!" And the NCAA didn't play mommy; they played "who's your daddy."

There's a lot of "told you so" back slapping going on around here. Both sides can claim that because of one sentence: Remember when I asked what fraction of "no nicknamers" wanted that so they could keep on using the old nickname. Well, that's been acknowledged by the NCAA right there. And they're just waiting for it because they love to use their sanction hammer.

I'm sticking with my stated position: The clearest way to ensure no future NCAA sanctions is to pick a new nickname. As Peter Johnson said: The clearest way to ensure no future NCAA sanctions is to pick a new nickname. Why let complainers control us even further.

To "no nickname" fans living in denial: If there's one thing we all should have learned by now, it's that the NCAA can do whatever the < bleep > it pleases. What is the NCAA's ultimate goal? To make sure the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo disappears. If the NCAA perceives that having no nickname is simply a pretext for continuing to use the old nickname, don't think that the organization is above finding a reason to revisit the issue. They just fired a warning shot saying they will. Wise up. And let's not forget about our "friends" in the Big Sky who let us join their conference on the basis that they wouldn't have to deal with the Fighting Sioux controversy any longer. If the issue continues to come back, they will be putting pressure on the NCAA ... and UND. Are we prepared to go conference shopping again knowing that the Summit want's no part of us, either?

Along the same lines of the "won battle, lost war" thought, ... The nickname protesters (especially those on campus) have just given the "go" on sending letters to the NCAA about how the last three years of "no nickname" is fostering an environment where the old nickname continues on and they keep hearing it. And the NCAA has said they'll act on their complaints. What I believe is both sides were right on this one: No nickname complies with settlement agreement. Point for that side. No nickname harboring or fostering an environment where the old name lives on leading to NCAA sanctions all over again. Point for that side. It's like the NCAA read this site and figured out how to both make everyone right and wrong at the same time.

Like I said before, spectacularly played by the NCAA: They hold to their "you're free to choose any nickname you want" stance; yet, they also hold their "if people complain we'll hit you with sanctions" position.

If UND chooses "no nickname", if (WHEN) the first "but we still hear that old name because they haven't picked a new one complain" comes in the NCAA Executive Committee can (will) pass a policy immediately that mandates you have an official nickname.

I'll put $20 on the under.

Let turn on the NCAA translator for a few of you: When the NCAA says: " ... the NCAA believes other schools will complain ... " The NCAA means: " ... we already have a few lackeys and minions lined up to complain ... " "It's good to be the king." -- The NCAA

For those who didn't follow Goon's link:

Spectacularly played by the NCAA. They hold to their "you're free to choose any nickname you want" stance; yet, they also hold their "if people complain we'll hit you with sanctions" position. That statement really puts the "no nickname" folks in a position: Are you "no nickname" to be no nickname, or so you can keep saying the old nickname (and run the real risk of sanctions).

Thank you for your input. It'll be taken under advisement. But since you're free to give athletic department advice, here's some in return: Move into the twenty-first century by getting your athletic participation ratio (68 men/32 women) into alignment with your general student body ratio (56 men/44 women). I'm sure that'll be taken under the same advisement.

How does someone pop off seven rounds into two different houses in West Fargo and the cops find the casings and there are no witnesses? That's a block off of a busy street (13th Ave) and by Gordman's and two churches. I love how the Forum did no favors for the guy who assaulted his wife; the Forum mentioned the guy had been seeing TWO other women. I wonder if the TWO other women knew about each other before that.

Just flyin' by the seat of my pants on that one.

P.T. Barnum thanks you for making him right yet again.

There has been a plan and a process since at latest December 6, 2011. Micromanage my statements if you will, but the statements from UND on December 6, 2011, are clear. It's going to happen. I dare say that because the plan and process was cranked back up the minute the law allowed it.

You missed it. Lay out the timeline. The press release was December 6, 2011. It said: So UND had a plan and a process in mind. The announced it officially on at least December 6, 2011. However, the law was enacted (by governor's signature) on November 9, 2011. Of course UND had not started the process: it was illegal to do so as of November 9, 2011. But, they had an announced plan and process. And they acted on it as soon as they were legal to.

That is the final milestone to knowing you've made it.