mksioux

You just drafted a pretty good Recital to the addendum to the Settlement Agreement. If the NCAA actually shared your understanding of the original settlement agreement, any semi-competent lawyer would have included a similar Recital in the addendum and you just demonstrated that you'd make a better lawyer than the actual lawyers the NCAA employed. That's quite a compliment considering the fact that the NCAA employed three high-priced law firms in this lawsuit and a Fargo attorney who went on to become a judge. * to quibble just a bit - "continue to leave them off" the list is not accurate. UND was ON the list when it failed to retire the Sioux name by Aug. 15, 2011 (to refresh your memory, the 2012 west regional games against W. Michigan and Minnesota, the UND hockey team could not wear their Sioux uniforms despite the fact that UND was still the Sioux at that time). After UND dropped the Fighting Sioux nickname, the NCAA affirmatively took them off of the list (hence, the word "remove" in paragraph 3 of the addendum). We're not talking about a failure to enforce. Rather, we're talking about an affirmative act to remove UND from the list. That makes all the difference in the world.

I'll answer these questions, but I first need to understand your position. Is your position: a) that UND was in compliance with the Settlement Agreement on Sept. 24, 2012, or b) UND was not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement on Sept. 24, 2012, but the NCAA cut UND some slack given the state law prohibiting UND from adopting a new nickname before 1/1/15

Does "completed" mean that it needed only to do one step toward completion? I'm confused because I thought I had to read the Settlement Agreement literally. If "new" has to mean "new" then doesn't "completed" have to mean "completed?"

Paragraph 2.d. states: "If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy." (emphasis mine) So should the original settlement agreement be read literally or not? Because, you know, I thought that was your whole point.

Was UND in compliance with the Settlement Agreement on September 24, 2012?

I'm not forgetting it. I'm not shying away from it. I'm not going to explain this again because we're way past the point of beating a dead horse. On the other hand, this myth needs to stop. So I'll ask you a question instead. Was UND in compliance with the Settlement Agreement on September 24, 2012 when the NCAA signed the addendum?

Para. 3 of the addendum states that UND "will be removed" from the list upon signing the agreement. But, really, it doesn't matter whether the addendum officially removed UND from the list, or whether it was just an acknowledgement that UND removed itself from the list when it retired the nickname. The point is that in September 2012, when the addendum was signed, UND did not have a new nickname and had not "completed" a transition to a "new nickname" but was reinstated anyway.

Sic, you're grasping at straws. There's nothing about "transition" in the addendum, or a requirement that UND continue with a transition or about completing a transition to a new nickname. It doesn't reference a requirement for a new nickname, or make reinstatement dependent upon a new nickname or a transition to a new nickname. All of this at a time when, according to you, UND was in violation of the agreement for failing to "complete" transition to a new nickname by the deadline. If the NCAA was cutting UND a break and reinstated UND despite the fact that UND was in violation of the original settlement agreement, there would definitely be something about that in the addendum. There would have been a reference to the fact that UND had not completed transition, as was required in the original settlement agreement, but the the NCAA was reinstating UND anyway, subject to a continuing transition to a new nickname. There probably would have been a new deadline set forth for completing the transition as well. Yet, none of this is in the addendum. The addendum references only the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo as the basis for removing UND from the list. The addendum stated UND was in compliance with the agreement as of that date and removed UND from the list. You and JDub are searching way too hard for meaning in the addendum that isn't there.

All true. Moreover, by saying "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement" the NCAA was saying that UND was in compliance at the time the addendum was signed. At the time the parties signed the addendum, UND did not have a nickname. Again, this issue is settled.

Look up the definition of "remains." And not the one about a dead body.

Look at the definition of "remains" and put it in context.

Look at the actual addendum to the settlement agreement. There is nothing about UND adopting a new nickname, only the fact that UND dropped the old nickname. Yet, the NCAA took UND off the list anyway. Which, according to you, UND was in violation of the settlement agreement at the time. Your theory doesn't hold water. It's not consistent with the addendum to the settlement agreement. It's not consistent with the NCAA's actions since the settlement agreement. And it's not consistent with statements from the committee, and it's not consistent with President Kelley's statement saying no nickname is an option.

I prefer that UND adopt a new nickname, assuming it's not bad. I just want clarity. People should decide their position based on accurate facts. If you want a new nickname, argue the merits of it, but don't rely on the settlement agreement and say having no nickname is not an option.

Sorry, you're wrong. The NCAA already blessed not having a nickname in the addendum to the settlement agreement. The NCAA affirmatively took UND off the list after UND officially dropped the nickname and that was confirmed in writing though the addendum to the settlement agreement. At this point, the clause you are all relying upon for your argument is moot.

<Sigh> This issue is settled. I don't remember which thread and I'm not going to dig up the documents again. But the NCAA affirmatively took UND off the sanctions list at a time when it did not have a nickname. (This isn't simply a situation where the NCAA has not enforced an agreement, it took an affirmative action.) The NCAA stated in the document UND was in compliance with the agreement. I'm sorry Sic et. al., but you all are wrong. UND can go without a nickname and be in compliance with the agreement.

Right, but that's the case regardless of whether UND gets a game on Root. By getting a game on Root, it actually makes it more difficult for most UND fans to watch it.

Good news for overall exposure. Bad news if you actually want to watch the game. Root games black-out Big Sky TV.

I don't think it's a Title IX problem. That could be managed relatively easily as part of an overall trimming of sports offerings. I agree that it is perceived as this insurmountable PR problem. It's pretty clear that nothing will happen to womens hockey under the current AD, but I hope once the new AD comes in, he will take a serious look at dropping the sport. Womens hockey gets Grade A coverage from Schlossman at the Herald, is second to none in terms of funding, plays in a beautiful facility, had two local superstars come through the program, and yet it still doesn't draw flies. It is a non-revenue sport with a revenue sport budget. It is not sustainable. Neither Bemidji, SCSU, Mankato, or Duluth are comparable. None of them are DI, they have none of the costs associated with FCS football, and none will have to deal with FCOA for their football programs. Minnesota, Ohio State, and Wisconsin are also not similarly situated because they have enormous overall budgets that can absorb the huge losses associated with womens hockey.

Not directed you, but I hear over and over that womens hockey is untouchable. Why is that the case? I understand Title IX, but it seems to me that if the appropriate number of mens sports/scholarships were cut at the same time, it could be done. From what I hear, womens hockey is terribly expensive and the biggest drain on the athletic department. At some point, it seems like someone who is serious would have to take a look at it. I bet people thought football at UNO was untouchable at one time. But the bottom line is the bottom line. Also, it seems like its just a matter of time before someone realizes baseball doesn't make much sense at UND. It will never be competitive at the DI level, UND's primary conference doesn't sponsor it, and few people attend games or follow the program. UND is in a perilous position because it has already committed 18+18 FCOA for hockey -- a problem most of UND's competitors don't have to deal with. Once NDSU and others at the FCS level announce FCOA for football, it will be a game changer. UND will have to do something to stay competitive while balancing the books.

The bill allowing legal representation for students charged with serious disciplinary charges by Universities passed the legislature with some amendments. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3726871-legislature-oks-bill-allowing-students-attorneys-take-part-disciplinary I think this makes the process more fair and am glad this passed. But I also agree with David Hogue that Universities have no business adjudicating issues like sexual assault. Granting the accused the right to a lawyer is better than railroading them, but even with this change, universities are not equipped to adjudicate serious criminal charges like sexual assault. If a rape is alleged, police should be called and the matter should be handled by the legal system.

Who copied who in that case? I doubt BC copied the high school. Same with the Ames, Iowa comparison. I doubt Iowa State copied Ames High School. There's nothing wrong if the local high school team wants to copy the local university. There is something wrong with the university copying the local high school. IMO.

I didn't know about Liberty. It will be interesting to see if that will be enough for other schools to follow suit. Perhaps if Liberty already has one foot out the door to FBS, it won't cause the domino effect. I was just a little concerned with the comment only referencing the Big Sky because FCOA is more important in who you recruit against than it is who you play against. In UND's case, that isn't necessarily the same. But I suppose Faison didn't have to specifically mention NDSU by name because if NDSU does it, I'm sure Montana and Montana State will follow suit. At least I think that would be the case.

I don't necessarily mind that UND is monitoring the landscape for football, but I didn't really like Faison's comment referencing only Big Sky schools. Yes, UND is in the Big Sky, but I think monitoring what the other 3 Dakota schools do is as important, if not more important, than what the Big Sky schools do. I'm sure Faison will be monitoring those schools as well, but it's somewhat interesting that he only mentioned the Big Sky. The bottom line is that if any of the Dakota schools offer FCOA for football, UND must as well. In fact, I'd say the only acceptable landscape where UND doesn't offer FCOA for football is if none of the FCS schools do it. If any of them do it, there will be a domino effect and UND has to be a part of it, preferably sooner rather than later.

Good point. Between North Dakota's open records laws and UND's ridiculous procedures, it would definitely be a sh!tshow. Although it looks like Bubba was ultimately a good selection, the process of hiring the football coach was laughable and the it would ten times worse for hockey. I doubt many fans who are primarily hockey fans even realize how bad the process would be. All applicants are published in the Herald (depressing the pool of candidates), the process is dragged out to last forever with no possibility of a quick hire - even if the AD is targeting a particular coach, and the HR department selects the finalists based on a "points process" as if they're hiring a chemistry professor. It's a real gem of a process. Hakstol was hired internally, so we haven't seen what North Dakota's stupid hiring laws would like in the internet age when applied to hiring the head hockey coach at UND.

Standing Rock silenced itself by refusing to vote on the matter. I can understand why some at Spirit Lake are disheartened that Standing Rock did not follow suit with a referendum, but their anger should be directed at Standing Rock for refusing to engage in the matter, or against the NCAA for setting up the policy and the namesake exemption in the first place. Regardless, the Sioux had a voice and were not silenced. I'm not sure what they're talking about with the sealed court records. The 2007 article about the court seal states that the seal was only temporary and expired on November 5, 2007. http://www.parkrapidsenterprise.com/content/und-nickname-lawsuit-records-remain-sealed-0 Unless there was a subsequent order sealing records, there shouldn't be anything still subject to seal.