mksioux

I'm sorry to all you kool aid drinkers, but this team sucks. I have no idea how they won last week. Just god awful. Next week will be a blood bath.

I am satisfied with the voting process. Lots of mistakes were made in the process, but at least they got the voting process right. The big thing was eliminating the right to vote to any North Dakota citizen. That would have been a disaster. I think the list of voters eligible is exactly correct. I also like the second-round voting with the top-two vote-getters. That will insure that a nickname can't be chosen with a small plurality of the vote. As for the no-nickname not being an option, that was entirely foreseeable. I never thought Kelley would allow that. I just wish he had scrapped it from the very beginning of the process. In any event, I'm ready to move on. I just pray that Sundogs does not somehow win the voting process. I'm voting for Roughriders.

If the comment from the USD AD is correct and USD is going to follow suit, I don't see any serious potential of MVFC schools putting a coalition together to stop this. If USD is going to do it, I suspect that at least half the MVFC will do it as well. I have no idea if there will be a movement among FCS as a whole to stop it, but I doubt it. If such a movement were viable, it probably would have already been started. In the Big Sky, I can't imagine the Montana schools sitting idly by while MVFC schools start adding FCOA.

I've always believed NDSU would take full advantage of this opportunity. I would have been surprised if they didn't. So I hope UND has been preparing for this move by NDSU, and what will likely follow from other schools. I think there will be a handful of other FCS schools that follow suit. I hope UND has known this was a distinct possibility and has a plan in place to act rather quickly.

It'll be interesting to see if UND takes a "wait and see" approach, like they did with the move to DI. The decision to "wait and see" on DI put the athletic department back more than a decade. We still have not dug out of that short sighted decision. It is absolutely critical that UND match this right away. Like the move to DI, I view this as inevitable. UND would be much better served to get out in front of it and use it as an advantage, rather than wait 4 or 5 years and then try to catch up again.

Keep lumping everyone together if you want. I realize you think it helps your argument if everyone who disagrees with you is a uninformed foaming-at-the-mouth hockey-only rube that sleeps at night in their Fighting Sioux footie pajamas. But it actually doesn't. I'm not part of the "Sioux crowd' whatever that even means. I fully understand and have long-ago accepted that Fighting Sioux is never coming back nor would I ever advocate for it to come back, given the indefinite sanctions that would come with it. I'm a UND football fan just as much as hockey, maybe even more. Yet I still (partially) disagree with you. Imagine that!

That's never really been my goal in this discussion. I think there are good reasons to move-on. That's a good debate. I just don't like scare tactics and misinformation to be the basis to convince people we have to enact a new nickname now. More specifically to your point, I'm not 100% convinced it's inevitable. There's a big difference between the NCAA mentioning future sanctions in a conversation with a UND administrator (probably at the urging of the UND administrator) and actually going through with it. Could the NCAA do it? Yes. Is it certain they will? No. There is a potential for PR backlash. To the average person, sanctioning a school for not having a nickname is beyond ridiculous. The NCAA may ultimately decide it's not worth it. Of course, UND would need to assume the NCAA is not bluffing and have a plan in place to avoid sanctions. On a personal level, I'd be fine with enacting Roughriders now and getting it over with. But when I start looking at the other finalists, delay seems much more appealing. I know the committee was comprised of good people doing their best, but it's just amazing to me how bad the finalists are. Put it this way, if my choice is between Sundogs and delay, I would absolutely and unequivocally choose delay.

There are four angles to this issue as I see it. First, from a pure legal standpoint, I believe the NCAA would lose in court if it invoked the settlement agreement and imposed sanctions against UND for not choosing a new nickname. It may have had a chance prior to the 2012 amendment, but it would have almost no chance now. Whether fans continue to use the Sioux nickname or whether the NCAA receives complaints from other member institutions is irrelevant as to the settlement agreement. I know the NCAA is a big powerful organization and the association is "their game" and we're just playing in it etc. etc. That has nothing to do with the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is a finite legally binding contract. The NCAA simply cannot make stuff up as it goes along when it comes to the settlement agreement. It can't say one day that UND is in compliance with the settlement agreement despite not having a nickname after the deadline, and then change its mind years later based on new criteria. It can't start unilaterally adding clauses and conditions about fans' use of the old name and creating new standards to govern the contract. Second, everything I said above depends on the State of North Dakota actually defending UND in the event the NCAA imposes sanctions based on the settlement agreement. I have real doubt whether there is any appetite by State leaders to be in court with the NCAA again, even if UND has the winning argument and is 100% legally correct. So my legal opinion is tempered by the reality on the ground. If UND is not going to defend its rights, the NCAA can do what it wants. So, yes, the NCAA could invoke the settlement agreement and impose sanctions. They'd be legally wrong, but that doesn't much matter if the other side doesn't fight back. Third, the NCAA has other avenues to impose sanctions against UND, whether it's based on a violation of some other existing policy or by enacting a new policy. Fourth, in my opinion, none of this really matters because just by mentioning the possibility of future sanctions, the NCAA has given President Kelley enough of an excuse to enact a new nickname. I'd be shocked at this point if Kelley actually chose no-nickname. But I've been wrong before, so you never know. My main goal in all of this discussion going back several months is to try to convince some of you that you were, and are, wrong on the first issue. Secondary to that, I believe there is an avenue where UND could go without a nickname until the NCAA actually tells UND it has to enact a new one. It's perhaps a little dangerous to do that, but I think UND could minimize the risk of sanctions by learning and understanding the process in which the NCAA would go about imposing sanctions in the future based on this new criteria, and having a plan in place to enact a new nickname quickly to avoid sanctions.

I don't view it as playing chicken. I'm not questioning the NCAA's authority and I don't advocate going back to court. I'm just saying that waiting until the NCAA actually says it is required (and then doing it) is an option.

Perhaps not. That's a debatable point. I have no problem with that debate and think there are good reasons for moving on now and choosing a new nickname. I just want people to acknowledge it's an option.

Because the NCAA acknowledge that going without a nickname would NOT violate the settlement agreement. So whatever sanctions the NCAA may impose on UND in the future would not be based on the settlement agreement.

You set up an assumption that all of the people advocating to stay without a nickname are not being honest. Your assumption is incorrect. Different people want to stay without a nickname for different reasons. Many will acknowledge that going back to the Fighting Sioux is not an option, and would not support that option. For those people, wanting to stay without a nickname IS being honest. You may not agree with their opinion, but to call them dishonest just shows you're being intellectually lazy by lumping them all together. Moreover, there is a huge difference between staying without a nickname and returning the Fighting Sioux. Returning to the Fighting Sioux would result in immediate sanctions; staying North Dakota would not. If the NCAA takes action on some sort of new policy/rule/sanctions, UND would have to adopt a new nickname at that time and nobody who is remotely informed and serious would oppose it. Nobody who is at all serious is suggesting that UND should play under sanctions indefinitely. To ensure that UND is not blindsided with sanctions would require knowing more about what basis the NCAA thinks it can sanction UND for not having a nickname and what procedure it would have to go through to impose sanctions. I admit I don't have all the answers on this question, but neither do any of you. <SIGH> I won't go into this for the umpteenth time, but you are wrong.

Yes, there is some semantics going on here. You and I (and others) have been arguing with others for quite some time about whether choosing no nickname would violate the settlement agreement. For me, it was an exercise of analyzing legal documents. That is where I made my strongest opinions. I was tired of seeing posters take one sentence in isolation and claiming it was a black and white issue. After looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the 2012 addendum, I was relatively convinced that not having a nickname would not be a violation of the settlement agreement. We appear to have been vindicated on that point. But doesn't mean the NCAA couldn't find another basis to sanction UND. On that issue, yes, the NCAA has apparently threatened sanctions if UND does not adopt a new nickname, if fans "use" the old nickname (whatever that means), and if they receive complaints from other institutions. I say "apparently" because we don't have the source communication of what the NCAA actually said to UND, just a UND administrator's summary or interpretation of the communication. We also don't know if UND invited the threat so it had a scapegoat to take no-nickname out of consideration. Moreover, we don't know whether the NCAA would actually go through with such a policy. I know to many posters on here believe that if the NCAA says something, you can take it to the bank. But I'm not so sure. There's a big difference between threatening sanctions and actually going through with it, particularly in case like this where 99% of the public would think sanctioning a school for not having a nickname is beyond ridiculous. The NCAA bit off more than they could chew with the original 2005 nickname policy. The NCAA had to back-peddle and quelled the outrage by creating the namesake exemption within a few days after the original policy was enacted. Personally, I think the NCAA would think twice before creating another policy that sanctions a school for, of all things, not having a nickname. But that is just speculation. My larger point is that there would be time to adopt a new nickname if the NCAA actually decides to go through with a policy. And given how bad the finalists are, I don't think it would be a horrible thing to have to do this a second time. Having said all that, if they choose Roughriders, I'd be willing to move on and you can disregard everything I just wrote.

To be fair, the email did not 100% confirm that no nickname will not result in sanctions. It confirmed that choosing no nickname will not violate the settlement agreement. There's a difference there. Your ability to properly analyze a legal document has been vindicated, but I wouldn't go much beyond that given what we know at this point.

Under my hypothetical, UND would not be doing this every few years. Just one more time. Under my hypothetical, UND chooses no-nickname now and if the NCAA enacts a new policy in the future affirmatively requiring a new nickname, UND simply chooses one at that time. In my opinion, whatever process is used at that time couldn't possibly be worse than the one that we just went through and it is highly doubtful it could yield a worse set of finalists. Moreover, no-nickname will not be an option and everyone (who is even remotely rational) will realize that and accept that. I'm not necessarily arguing that's the best way to go, just throwing it out there for discussion. I'm not convinced it would be the end of the world.

Perhaps. But even if not, there are nicknames that were summarily rejected in Round 1 of this process that are much better than 4 of the 5 finalists.

One argument in favor of choosing no nickname and risk doing this again in a few years is because the list of current finalists is unbelievably bad. I'd take my chances starting from a scratch in a few years and coming up with a better nickname. Plus, I think a new nickname would be more palatable to more people in a few years than it is now. For the record, I'd be fine if Roughriders is chosen now. I'd choose a "do-over" over any of the other four finalists. But there is an argument to be made it wouldn't be the end of the world to choose no nickname now and see if the NCAA actually has the stones to enact a policy that would sanction a school for not having a nickname. If the NCAA actually does it, then adopt a new nickname.

I agree. It would be very interesting to see when the NCAA communicated this position to UND. I wouldn't be surprised if it was recently and Kelley will cite this as a reason to remove no-nickname from consideration. He's probably quite relieved the NCAA threw him a bone and volunteered to be the scapegoat. All speculation of course. Whether the NCAA would have actually gone through with sanctioning a university for not having a nickname, we'll probably never know.

I did. I'm sorry the nuance of my position was lost on you.

First of all, we're all assuming that UND's statement accurately describes the NCAA's position and what the NCAA told UND officials. It's probably an incomplete summary. Perhaps it was in writing and there is an open-records request to be made for enterprising reporter or blogger. But, for now, it's all we have to work with. Granted, UND's statement does not say sanctions would come from a new policy. I'll give you that. It does say, however, that choosing no nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. Moreover, it does not say that the settlement agreement would be the source for future sanctions. I'm coming at this from a legal perspective. If the NCAA chooses the settlement agreement as its vehicle to sanction UND, and UND challenges it in court, I'm relatively confident that the NCAA would lose. I'm not going to go over all the reasons for that again. The statement by UND to Goon validates my position that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. The part of the statement about how fans "use" the old Sioux nickname and other universities complaining is not anywhere in the settlement agreement, or the 2012 addendum to the settlement agreement. I struggle to see how the NCAA can unilaterally insert some new undefinable standard into the settlement agreement and claim that it governs the contract between the parties. However, I don't disagree that the NCAA has other vehicles to sanction UND in the future by enactment of a new policy or by an amendment of the 2005 policy.

No.

No. If the NCAA sanctions UND at some point in the future for not having a nickname, it will have to be through a new policy handed down by the Executive Committee. The NCAA has now twice confirmed that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement.

Correct. When UND sued the NCAA, it's best argument was its breach of contract count, which argued that the NCAA bylaws did not authorize the Execute Committee to enact the 2005 policy and that only the membership, as a whole, could enact such a policy. As a result of the lawsuit by UND, the NCAA changed its bylaws shortly after the settlement agreement to specifically authorize the Executive Committee to make these types of policies without a membership vote. Thus, UND may have won the battle in the lawsuit, but still would have lost the war. That is why the criticism of the "surrender agreement" is unwarranted. UND was going to lose the issue even if it won in court. The settlement agreement bought UND three years to get tribal approval. Unfortunately, there was an utter lack of leadership after the settlement agreement and there was no serious effort to get tribal approval until it was too late. To your point, yes, the Executive Committee could easily, and quickly, enact a new policy requiring the use of a nickname. I know this nuance will be lost on a lot of people, but that is DIFFERENT than saying having no nickname violates the settlement agreement. It does not.

I have no problem with this argument. There are still lots of reasons to pick a new nickname. I just have a problem with all the bar-stool lawyers on this site who take one sentence of a settlement agreement in isolation and think they're Clarence Darrow all of a sudden.

There are two ways UND can be sanctioned under the existing framework. 1) if it is in violation of the policy, or 2) if it is in violation of the settlement agreement. UND is not in violation of the original policy because it no longer uses a nickname that violates the policy. The NCAA has now confirmed that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. How fans "use" a nickname that is not sanctioned by the University has no basis in policy or contract. There's nothing in the original policy or the settlement agreement that talks about fans continuing to "use" a nickname, whatever that even means. From a legal standpoint, this is pure lunacy. If the NCAA wants to sanction a school over how fans "use" a nickname that is not actually used or sanctioned by the University, the NCAA will have to enact a new policy. I'll stand by what I've said since reading the settlement agreement addendum months ago. Not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. That much has been confirmed. Whether the NCAA would enact a new policy to sanction UND based on what "fans" do is a new argument and new debate. But people will read what they want to read into this latest statement. The message board debate on this has grown tiresome to me.