82SiouxGuy
-
Posts
5,777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by 82SiouxGuy
-
-
Do they or do they not call the sports teams North Dakota since we were relieved of the old Nickname? Yes or No? Spectre??? Phil Spectre??? Never heard of her...
The sports teams have always been known as North Dakota, as long as UND has had sports teams. Plus they had real sports nicknames in addition, names like Flickertails and Sioux, up until they were forced to quit using Sioux and forced to go without a nickname for 3 years.
-
We could be NAIA champions every year in everything!
That would be tough to do in hockey since I'm pretty sure the NAIA doesn't have hockey. The other choice for hockey would be club team (unless the CIS would let UND in as tSic suggested).
-
-
-
I think it's also important to point out that NCAA sanctions aren't necessarily designed to directly limit free speech. Take the South Carolina sanction for example. The NCAA has acknowledged the state is free to fly its flag, but if they do, South Carolina member institutions cannot host NCAA tournament events.
UND is also free to use the Fighting Sioux nickname, but if they do the NCAA has a list of sanctions that would be imposed.
-
As I recall free speech does not include shouting 'fire in a crowded theater'. (assuming there is no fire) In the context we are addressing It does include using the dreaded "S" word at a sporting event.
You are not allowed to shot "fire in a crowded theater" because that could cause harm to others if it caused a panic. That is a completely different situation. Better examples of speech that can be limited would be schools limiting articles that are printed in the school newspaper because the administration found them objectionable, and not allowing students to make an obscene speech at a school sponsored event. Both of these were upheld by the courts.
-
So, if we have a nickname and people still cheer "Go Sioux", which they will for years to come, and the NCAA "hears about it", they'll sanction UND. If we don't have a nickname and people still cheer "Go Sioux", which they will for years to come, and the NCAA "hears about it", they'll sanction UND.
The message from the NCAA was that they wouldn't force UND to choose a nickname as a part of the settlement agreement; but if they don't choose a nickname and others complain, then the NCAA will impose sanctions against UND. They didn't make that threat if UND chooses a nickname. Choosing a nickname shows that UND is making an effort to move on to a new nickname. Choosing to go without a nickname does not show the same level of commitment to moving away from the Fighting Sioux name.
-
1
-
-
Oh, boy. Here we go again. Ask jdub or 82SiouxGuy about how wrong they were on that one. . . . Or, just read the first half of this thread.
The fact that the NCAA has chosen not to use the settlement agreement to force UND to pick a name does not prove that we were wrong in believing that the NCAA could have made that choice. They found an easier way to get what they want. They have already stated that they will enforce sanctions if they believe fans using the name is a problem. This is a group that set up sanctions against every school in the state of South Carolina because there was a single confederate flag flown in a corner of the state capital grounds. They have the power and the will to create sanctions when, and for whatever they want. They have already given a broad idea of the reasons they will use. Giving them a reason to put UND back on sanctions, when they have already said that was an option for them, is pure foolishness.
-
1
-
-
Idaho AD Rob Spear says FBS is what's best for Vandals right now
So Spear wants to be in a conference with geographic integrity and not lose out on the big payouts that come with playing the FBS schools.
Sounds a lot like what SiouxVolley has been talking about.
Where does he say Idaho's future is in an FBS Big Sky?
Try a little critical thinking. How many Division I football conferences cover territory anywhere near Idaho? The answer would seem to be the Pac 12, Mountain West, and Big Sky. What are the chances of Idaho getting into the Pac 12? None. What are the chances of Idaho getting into the Mountain West? Probably pretty slim. What other current FBS conference is any where near Idaho? None. Therefore, for Idaho to be in a conference with geographic integrity and also get the big payouts of being FBS, the most likely scenario would be to have at least a part of the Big Sky move to FBS. That's why GeauxSioux suggested that it sounds a lot like what SiouxVolley has been talking about.
-
3
-
-
They can build a 30k stadium for all I care. They only avg about 9k for each game which comes in at about 6k light of the 15k minimum ncaa requirement. You going to guarantee they make those numbers as well?
not to believe this will happen, but I think schools like Idaho have proven that 15, 000 attendance average rule is a joke.
2013 MAC Football Attendance Averages
Buffalo 22,736 Ohio 20.672 Northern Illinois 20,669 Toledo 18,467 Akron 17,850 Western Michigan 17,347 Kent State 17,018 Miami 15,935 Massachusetts 15,830 Ball State 13,817 Central Michigan 13,224 Eastern Michigan
4,051
School 2014 average Change from 2013 National rank (of 128) Ohio 20,515 -1% 96th Buffalo 20,403 -10% 98th Toledo 19548 +6% 103rd Central Michigan 16,306 +23% 110th UMass 16,088 +2% 112th Miami (Ohio) 15,906 -1% 113th Western Michigan 15,625 -10% 115th Bowling Green 15,228 -1% 116th Eastern Michigan 15,025 +271% 118th Northern Illinois 13,563 -34% 121st Kent State 13,544 -20% 122nd Ball State 9,389 -38% 127th Akron 9,170 -49% 128th That 15,000 average per game seems to be a real problem for the MAC, doesn't it.
-
If you believe fans from one school complaining about another schools fans can make the NCAA play mommy, you're nuts!
It will be the administration from another school complaining to the NCAA, not the fans from that school.
-
Ummm what?! The last two places there (mi-Mexico and Dickeys) didn't have a drive thru. How well did that work out?
Dickeys had a drive thru as far as I know. The only time I went there I went through the drive thru.
-
Duals between the big teams get a lot of people by the looks of it. Iowa would be third in average attendance compared to hockey if I'm looking at accurate charts.. And Minnesota would be fourth.
Penn St vs Iowa had 16Kish.
I doubt NDSU could ever pull that but if it gets more people going to the duals that's great. Wrestling is honestly one sport the state could be very very good at if we ever can get the best kids to stay in state.
The TV viewing numbers for college wrestling could be EPIC, ... said no one ever.
-
I've asked people within UND and they didn't know. They didn't specify whether that meant the question hadn't been asked or the NCCA declined giving an answer but the way it was presented, I believe the latter to be the most likely explanation. Take it for what its worth. There are people that should have a definitive answer on the question but to date, there has not been a public comment on it that I'm aware of, even if it is that the NCAA has declined to take a stance at this time. I agree fully that whatever questions that have been asked should be made public, regardless of the answers.
Most large organizations aren't going to issue what amounts to be a legal opinion about a hypothetical situation. The NCAA has always been careful about those situations. I would be shocked if the NCAA answered the question and have said so before. But I haven't had an opportunity to ask anyone whether the NCAA has been asked or not. But any official correspondence or communication in a written or electronic form would be available through FOIA requests.
-
1
-
-
Okay, 82SiouxGuy clarified that he doesn't have any concrete evidence.
How about anyone else, though?
Where is your concrete evidence?
-
And that's more than fine that you believe this. All I've wanted to know is if anyone has any concrete evidence that the NCAA will slap sanctions against UND more than four years after UND was seemingly in violation of the settlement agreement. I am not asking about people's opinion on the matter.
So, I'll be more direct, has anyone been told by a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? Has anyone read anything from a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions?
You have a nice double standard. You want concrete evidence from everyone else, but you haven't provided any concrete evidence that the NCAA won't slap sanctions on UND. Just because they haven't so far doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to do so, and doesn't mean that they won't in the future. You provide some concrete evidence that the NCAA either can't or won't decide to sanction UND if they permanently go without a nickname and we can continue the discussion. Otherwise you are just spouting your own opinion, and not even admitting it is just an opinion.
-
And yet, it removed UND from sanctions. Get real.
It mentioned nothing about the nickname part of the issue. The addendum only applies to the specific issues that were addressed in the addendum. You can't extrapolate the addendum to address everything else. So no, it did not explicitly remove UND from sanctions. It says that UND will not be on sanctions if they follow the settlement agreement as amended to include the changes in what can be displayed at REA.
-
And if that is the case, UND could do a better job of marketing and branding. University of Michigan doesn't seem to have an issue with selling merchandise, branding it's school name, or having one of the most recognizable school songs in the country, all of which have nothing to with wolverines.
Go Blue?
Sorry, there is a major difference marketing and branding one of the best known schools in the country, and a smaller state school that is much less well known. Also, that well known school has been branding that school name and image for more than 100 years, while UND is trying to rebrand after losing the Fighting Sioux nickname.
-
This is the credited response.
Most of you are neglecting to consider that the original settlement agreement said transition to a new nickname "on or before August 15, 2011". UND did not do that, and NCAA put UND on sanctions for the 2011-2012 season. Then UND dropped "Fighting Sioux" in June 2012, and the NCAA and UND "amended " the settlement agreement to remove UND from sanctions on September 24, 2012.
END OF STORY.
The Settlement Agreement was amended to change the terms regarding the display of Fighting Sioux imagery within Ralph Engelstad Arena. The purpose of the Addendum was not to remove UND from sanctions.
-
4
-
-
You're reaching. The NCAA will not hand out sanctions for not breaking a rule. The NCAA would be forced to hand out sanctions to other schools with no nickname (yes i know there are only a couple and are small schools but the point is the same), the NCAA would set precedent with und. If you simply want a new nickname just say it, others have. The thinking that the big bad NCAA will come down on us when we've already went through the process of removing the nickname and logo are ridiculous. The NCAA would be forced to adopt a rule that every school must have a nickname and that would have to be done very soon.
Pay attention to more than hockey. I've listed a lot of reasons in other threads that explain why UND should have a nickname. A few of those include marketing and branding; something that can be used for cheers, chants, songs; creating an identity that current and future students can identify with, etc. This discussion is about other potential issues. This penalty is written into the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA would not have to adopt a new rule, and they wouldn't have to apply this to any other schools. We've even had a real attorney say that this is a possibility. So forgive me if I decide not to take your legal advice.
-
4
-
2
-
-
Takes two to tango, chief. Have your legal eagle buddy Scott explain mutual assent as a predicate to contract formation. Listen to yourself. You would have us believe that UND willingly and knowingly signed on the dotted line when one possible outcome would be the whole enchilada of NA nickname sanctions imposed anew for having no nickname at all? Come on. That's utterly preposterous.
Not nearly as preposterous as this entire conversation.
-
Don't you think the new logo will catch on since it is such an inspiring representative of what UND stands for? You really think if people can still buy sioux apparel that fans will never adopt the new logo even with the new athletic branding and broadcast marketing changes? UND is already losing a lot of money by retiring the logo and I don't see it ever getting back to the level it was at with the sioux logo. The logo Brien created does have a lot of meaning to the sioux people. They are the ones who gave us the approval to use it by voting for it and by a traditional ceremony. Of course they have no legal right to it without UND's permission. UND probably would have hadboth tribes in favor of they would have shared the revenue from the logo/name. We would still be ahead financially after paying the tribes a portion compared to what we have lost in sales and th sales level that we will never reach again.
The logo was created approximately 2000. The traditional ceremony that has been discussed happened in 1969. The ceremony had nothing to do with the logo. The logo itself doesn't have any significant meaning to the majority of tribe members. They may like it, but it doesn't have any deep meaning to them. Actually, since a Chippewa designed it there are a lot of Sioux tribe members that don't like it.
Yes, if people have a chance to buy Sioux stuff, a significant group of them will buy that and not accept a new nickname and logo. If it is not available some of those people will buy the new nickname and logo. That group is totally separate from the group that will buy the new stuff no matter what, or the group that will never buy the new stuff. The Standing Rock Tribal Council has been officially against UND using the Fighting Sioux nickname since at least 1992. They wouldn't even take phone calls on the subject after the NCAA policy was put in place in 2005. They were asked about whether they wanted money, they said that it would be selling out to take money in return for use of their name. The Standing Rock Tribal Council had no interest in allowing UND use of the name for any reason.
-
Agree. The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname. The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters. As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal.
Forest for the trees, my boy, forest for the trees. The parties clearly did not anticipate at the time the agreement was entered into that "no nickname" was even remotely a possibility. Therein lies the problem. To impose sanctions for a rule that is not being violated defies logic and common sense. The excruciating and painstakingly literal interpretation espoused by you and others is a nullity. A fiction.
There is no way that anyone with a straight face and a shred of common sense can arrive at the conclusion that UND should suffer penalties intended to punish users of NA nicknames when UND is not itself using a NA nickname. To read the contract that way is absurd.
ScottM is an actual attorney. He has shown in the past that he has a good understanding of legal issues. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the law. You have no idea what the attorneys on either side anticipated or understood at the time of the agreement. It is possible that the NCAA knew that if UND went without a nickname they would have a group of fans trying to keep the Native American nickname alive and in unofficial use. They probably knew that because people at Marquette have tried to keep an old Native American nickname alive long after it was changed. Furthermore, they would like to eliminate the use of such nicknames and imagery as much as possible. Picking an actual new nickname would go further to decrease use of the old nickname than going without a nickname. I think I will go with Scott on this one.
-
Sanctioned FOR WHAT?
What NCAA rule is being violated? Is there a "no (alleged) breach of contract" rule? What is that, a lack of institutional control, or an improper recruiting violation?
Please elaborate. These wildly imaginary and unfounded fears are an embarrassment to the state, and are dragging down the entire cause.
Have you read the Settlement Agreement? You keep going on and on about it, but it doesn't sound like you have actually read it. In Section 2 d (page 5) it plainly states that if UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy. The Policy refers to the policy against the use of Native American nicknames and imagery that was announced on August 5, 2005. That is the rule being violated, it's actually a clause in a contract between UND and the NCAA, and that is what UND agreed to when they signed the Settlement Agreement. I didn't imagine the Settlement Agreement.
t:
Grand Forks Economy
in Community
Posted
Three miles between interchanges is a long way in town. If you look at places like Fargo, Bismarck, Dickinson, Sioux Falls, and many other communities you will see interchanges at somewhere between 1 and 2 miles (most are close to a mile apart until you get toward the edges of town). They want to build up retail along the frontage roads, including the rumors about an outlet mall, and it makes it more difficult to get visitors to drive a mile or more on a frontage road to try to find a store or mall. The Merrifield exit is great to create a truck bypass over the river rather than driving through town. 47th is a better location for building the frontage road network. Both will probably happen at some point in the next 10-15 years.