The Sicatoka

So he's looking to build the Colorado answer to Shattuck - St. Mary's.

Not going to say they are set in stone; however, going after all "human" nicknames, after they couldn't get all the Native American nicknames, is something I don't expect them to try for a couple reasons: - They couldn't get all the "race, ethnicity, or national origin" names because of a few power players, so why do they think they can get "all humans" done? - Going after "all humans" brings in even more power players to the fight against them (and the NCAA hates losing) It comes down to this: the NCAA was tired of hearing the haranguing by a few dedicated career protesters over a couple nicknames so they ham-handedly tried something that partially worked. It hit the little guys. As long as they don't hear those nicknames, and don't hear the associated haranguing, they'll ignore the nickname issue. But as they said, as soon as they start hearing the noise again, they bring the sanctions out again (most likely by some new ham-handed policy).

An arrest yesterday of a UND faculty member. If he's guilty I hope he gets everything coming his way. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/crime-and-courts/3812542-updated-und-department-chairman-arrested-allegedly-possessing-child

I didn't say UND folks weren't in Bismarck, GF, Minot, etc, etc, in the same roles, did I? Fargo has need just as the rest.

So Fargo has doctors, lawyers, judges, pilots, ... < You made it so easy it had to be said. >

Main problem with "Sundogs" (besides the cutesy sUNDogs aspect) ... The first to put the name out there was BRIDGES, the UND group that was the main force behind losing the old name and putting all of us through this. Nope, can't support it for that reason alone.

A donation to upgrade the Winter Sport Building was leveraged by Gino. The donation included putting the man's name on the building. The guy ran a casino in Las Vegas. Some folks had problems with this man. This was circa 1987. You can do the math from there.

That was more early 1990s, wasn't it? (Baker was UND president from 1992-1999.) How about the late 1980's when a donation was made to do renovations to the Winter Sports Building (aka REA 1.0). Tom Clifford had to deal with a firestorm then.

The NCAA has already once listened to and supported the folks who didn't like hearing "Sioux". If those folks call again, and complain again, the NCAA will blow them off this time? In a word, no, they can't, otherwise they'd be two-faced against their own PC backers and positions. The NCAA has already all but said (via UND's Peter Johnson's statement) they're waiting by the phone for the next complaint call so they can drop the hammer.

The NCAA policy is framed around "race, ethnicity, or national origin" and they couldn't even enforce that one fully. See: Fighting Irish, Seminoles, Vandals, Utes, Spartans*, Trojans*. If they try again, Roughriders would be in category with Minutemen, Mountaineers, Volunteers, and (gulp) Cowboys. Sooners, Hoosiers, Cornhuskers, and Boilermakers probably fall in the category also. I'm not sweating Roughriders in light of those. * Sparta and Troy were city-states, or "nations of origin" by today's standards.

Knowing they changed the bylaws to allow ExecComm such powers, that's the approach they'd take, and I think you just wrote the update to their policy. I'd bill them.

That's printed on their business cards. It's their motto. (Yeah, that's a flip response, but if you look at their track record of policies and investigations it's their pattern all too often.)

Now who's fear mongering?

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.