mksioux

Again, I suspect the answer may have something to do with what the new nickname is. It's hard to have these discussions about "no nickname" versus "new nickname" in the abstract. For me, it all depends on what "new nickname" is. "No nickname" is a lot better than scores of suggestions I've seen on this thread, but it's not better than all of them.

I can't speak for others, but for me personally, it's less about the Sioux nickname and more about my fear of how bad the new nickname is going to be. The status quo is not ideal, but it's acceptable. The new nickname is unknown. I'm really skeptical of this process and am not confident that a good nickname will be chosen. I will grant you that a good nickname is better than no nickname. All things being equal, I think UND should move forward with a new nickname. But no nickname is better than a bad nickname. The problem is that everyone has their own ideas on what is good and what is bad. You give me a nickname and I'll tell you if I prefer it to no nickname. There's the rub.

I'm not a fire Hak guy, so you all don't take this the wrong way. But I found the pregame speech by the BU coach to be markedly different than anything you normally see from Hakstol. The BU coach exuded confidence and really seemed to set his team up to recognize the moment and to seize the opportunity. It seems like Hak is mostly about "take care of your business" and "do your work." The lunch pail philosophy is great for the grind of the regular season (don't get too high, don't get too low), but it seems to be lacking when it comes to the biggest stage at the Frozen Four. Of course, we didn't see Hak's pregame speech, so maybe I'm wrong. And I know pregame speeches don't win games, except for in the 1980 Olympics. Just my impression.

There would be a very strong waiver argument if the NCAA changed its position at this point. The NCAA signed an addendum to the settlement agreement and removed UND from the list of schools subject to the policy at a time when UND did not have a nickname. The NCAA, in effect, said that UND was in compliance with the settlement agreement. There is no specific reservation of rights language that one would expect to be included in the addendum if the NCAA wanted to preserve its right to place UND back on the list if it didn't enact a new nickname within a certain amount of time. Even if you think the NCAA was giving UND a break based on the law that prohibited UND from picking a new nickname until 2015, there would have been language about that in the 2012 addendum. The NCAA likely would have set a new deadline. None of this is contained in the 2012 addendum. This would be an easy call for a judge.

This addendum to the settlement agreement convinces me that the NCAA considers UND to be in compliance with the Settlement Agreement without a nickname. There's really no other logical way to interpret it. This is likely why the committee and President Kelley have said "no nickname" is an option. But I know many of you won't see it that way. I'm not saying "no nickname" is the best way to go. Many of you have good arguments for why UND should adopt a new nickname. But please stop using the Settlement Agreement as the basis of your argument.

The key word here is "remains" which means "to continue in the same state; continue to be as specified." This proves my point. As of September 24, 2012, the NCAA considered UND to be in compliance of the Settlement Agreement. On September 24, 2012, UND did not have a nickname. Figure it out.

Thanks for finding this. Here is the relevant part: For those of you that like to strictly construe paragraph 2(d) of the settlement agreement as not allowing "no nickname" and think this is a black and white issue -- Please tell me why the NCAA, as part of an addendum to the settlement agreement in September 2012, would affirmatively remove UND from the list of offending schools when it was, according to you, in violation of the settlement agreement? Anyone who can find a copy of the actual 2012 addendum to the settlement agreement (rather than just the press release), please post.

We can agree on that. I don't expect "no nickname" to be a finalist. We just disagree on the reasons why. Why did the NCAA affirmatively take UND off the sanctions list when it was "clearly" in violation of the agreement at the time?

Then you're not trying hard enough. The NCAA took UND off the list of schools subject to sanctions in, or around, September 2012 - at a time when UND had dropped the Fighting SIoux nickname, but had not completed a transition to a "new nickname." That tells me that in September 2012, the NCAA didn't particularly care that UND didn't have a nickname and didn't consider it a violation of the settlement agreement. And presumably UND has not received anything from the NCAA since that time.

Keep in mind the context of what has happened since 2012: On February 29, 2012, the NCAA wrote a letter to UND placing UND back on the list of schools subject to the policy. This letter is available here: http://www.uscho.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012-02-29_LeBel.pdf After UND subsequently retired the Sioux nickname, the the NCAA took UND off that list. In fact, in September 2012, UND and NCAA reached a new agreement that revised the original agreement that allowed the Ralph to keep more Sioux logos than the original settlement agreement contemplated. That agreement is mention in this story (and others), but I've never seen a copy of this revised agreement. http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/27/ncaa-north-dakota-reach-agreement-on-removal-of-fighting-sioux-imagery/ While I've not seen any documentation from September 2012, I think it's relatively clear that it resulted with UND being off the list of schools subject to the sanctions. Thus, this is not a situation where the NCAA just hasn't acted yet to put UND back on the list of schools subject to the policy. This is not a situation where the NCAA might just be monitoring the situation and choosing to delay enforcement of a right. Instead, the NCAA acted affirmatively to take UND off the list, while, according to you all, the settlement agreement called for UND to be placed on the list of schools subject to the policy. Why would the NCAA do this? And, if they did, they certainly would have reminded UND that they had not completed the transition to a "new nickname" in violation of the settlement agreement and the NCAA would have reserved their rights to place UND back on this list if it didn't soon adopt a new nickname. Any lawyer worth a dime would have made sure to tell its client to reserve its rights, particularly at a time when they're renegotiating part of the settlement agreement. And, if that happened, I seriously doubt President Kelley would say "no nickname" is an option. He'd be waiving that 2012 agreement around telling everyone "no nickname" is not an option. If anyone has any documentation from 2012 after UND was reinstated, I'd love to see it. I can't find copies anywhere on the internet. That documentation might shed light on this issue. And for those that want to attack me as delusional and as someone who wants to cling to the Sioux nickname through no nickname, I'm not even firmly in the "no nickname" camp. I have serious reservations about this process, but given the right nickname, I think a new nickname probably the better way to move forward. But I like clarity rather than absolutists on this board that take one sentence in isolation and run around like they know everything. Based on what is publicly known about this issue, it's not as black and white as you people seem to think. To me, the more valid concern is that, while the NCAA probably never thought about "no nickname" being a permanent option during the settlement agreement or when it removed UND from the list in 2012, it may not like it if "no nickname" is ultimately chosen as a permanent solution. If that happens, the NCAA may try to use the language from the settlement agreement to put UND back on the list. That's a real concern. But don't go around pretending you know exactly why the NCAA put that clause in the settlement agreement because you don't. Finally, for the record, I don't agree with NoiseInsideMyHead's analysis either. The NCAA does not have to sue UND for damages. All the NCAA has to do is put UND back on the list and then UND would be the party that be forced to go to court to try and get removed. Monetary damages have nothing to do with this discussion.

I am well aware of what the settlement agreement says. I have been for years. I may have been the first poster to raise this issue the day the settlement agreement was posted online. Your certainty as to the intention of the parties for the wording of that clause is what I was asking about. There is nothing "obvious" about the intentions of that clause or whether the NCAA would have an issue with UND not having a nickname. It is entirely possible it was drafted that way because nobody drafting the agreement contemplated UND going without a nickname.

Link please? Unless you were involved in the lawsuit or have inside knowledge, I don't think you can say "precisely why" that clause is in the settlement or whether the NCAA would take issue with no nickname.

Why do you say "public vote" is yet to be defined? President Kelley already defined it - anyone who wants to vote, can vote. By his own definition, that means Gopher fans, Bison fans, and anyone else in the world can have just as much of a say as you and me. One can hope that people smarter than President Kelley will explain to him why that is a bad idea and hopefully he'll change is mind - or at least declare that voting must be done in-person or through the US mail, to limit the impact of his definition. If they combine President Kelley's definition of "public vote" with easy internet voting, all the finalists better be bullet-proof.

It's pretty simple: Good nickname > no nickname Bad nickname < no nickname. It all depends on how much confidence one has in the process, the people, and the ultimate result.

Yep. This can't stand. There has to be some control over who can vote on this. Having the committee choose the nickname would be better than this. We can't leave it up to deadspin to choose our nickname. Someone needs to have a talk with Kelley and explain why this doesn't work.

It strikes me as extremely naive on President Kelley's part. He apparently thinks everyone on the internet has good intentions.

This is unfortunate. Allow the people who want to sabotage this process the right to vote? That's what's really happening? If there is a weak link as a finalist, that will be the nickname. All it will take is one post from the idiots at deadspin, and it's over. There is no room for error from this committee when they announce their finalists.

Sums up this thread perfectly.

Even though the final score of the 06 game was close, it didn't feel like a close game. BC led 3-0 after 1, 5-2 after 2, and 6-3 late in the 3rd. UND scored its 5th goal with only about 12 seconds left. The outcome of the game never felt in doubt. At least not to me. But you're right, it wasn't a blowout.

I'm pretty sure the fact that the local high school team in UND's back yard uses the name is a little more relevant to the uniqueness issue than some obscure community college in Arizona. I agree that it's not unique and shouldn't be chosen, but not because of the reason you listed. In my opinion, I don't think unique means that no other team anywhere can have it. It just can't be a nickname where a sizable percentage of people (that relate to, or interact with, the UND community) will think about another team when they hear it. That's why, for me, nicknames like Jets, Oilers, Roughriders, Warriors, etc. don't pass the unique test. But if only some obscure community college somewhere in Arizona uses a name, I don't think that's reason enough to automatically exclude it from consideration.

Maybe, but don't you think what the people in Grand Forks thinks kind of matters? I won't go on my Roughriders rant again, except to say we can do better than stealing the nickname of the local high school team. Great nickname if Red River HS hadn't taken it first. But they did. Let's move on.

Some of the criteria is pretty subjective, but I hope uniqueness is one of the criteria they adhere to. I'm not saying that the nickname can't be used by any other team on the face of the Earth, but can't we do better than copying the nickname of the closest NHL team? I get an aviation themed nickname, but there are other options that are more unique.

I don't think some of you understand the definition of unique.

I'm not sure what the gripe is with the pat-down. It was hardly even a pat down. Put your arms up, two pats and your're through. Have you been the X recently? It's the exact same thing there. As for the re-entry thing - perhaps the Target Center could have done it better and will improve on that - but nobody is talking about the REASON for it is because the NCHC chose to have two games per ticket. That never happened at the X and we have no idea how well the X staff would have implemented such a policy. In my opinion, the gripe on this issue is more with the NCHC than the venue.

Tickets are sold.