82SiouxGuy

As I have pointed out in the past, it is far more likely that the NCAA would impose their own sanctions if they believe that UND isn't living up to the Settlement Agreement. They would put UND back on the sanctions list. They would prevent UND from hosting playoff games. They would encourage other schools like Minnesota and Wisconsin to stop scheduling games. It is very unlikely that they would go to court to address the issue. Their actions are written right into the Settlement Agreement. UND would have to be the one to take the issue to court. The reward for the NCAA would not be monetary. UND would not be hurt by the monetary penalty. They would be hurt by the sanctions, the same sanctions that caused UND to give up the Fighting Sioux name in the first place.

Fighting Sioux is the nickname that needed to be replaced. But the school has always been called North Dakota. Therefore it would not be a new nickname since it has been used for well over 100 years. More importantly, most people that are in favor of North Dakota actually want UND to go without a nickname. They are 2 separate things, although the discussions have combined them into one. Several people have argued that Flickertails would not have been an option since it was used in the past. It could have been argued that it wasn't a current nickname, so it might be a new nickname. I haven't considered it since I knew that Flickertails was never going to be considered as a replacement name. Finally, I know that ScottM is an attorney and he has shown that he knows something about the law during past discussions. I think I will trust his comments more than other anonymous posters that haven't proven themselves.

The generally recognized format for sports nicknames is the name of the school or organization or location followed by the team nickname. For example, University of North Dakota ... Fighting Sioux, or North Dakota State University ... Bison, or Los Angeles ... Dodgers. If you are saying that you want to use North Dakota as the nickname, then the result is University of North Dakota North Dakota. Or in your other example it would be The State University and School of Mines at Grand Forks North Dakota. If you are claiming that they are just going to be identified as the University of North Dakota or North Dakota, then you are not using a sports nickname. The Settlement Agreement specifies "choosing a new nickname", not just ending the use of Fighting Sioux. The University of North Dakota has also used North Dakota for a lot more years than it used Fighting Sioux. Teams were identified as North Dakota the entire time they were also called Fighting Sioux. Therefore, North Dakota cannot be called a "new nickname".

You missed the financial competition part of my argument completely. If the Spirit Lake tribe, for instance, were selling merchandise saying Fighting Sioux and using the Bennet Brien logo, a lot of people would buy that rather than buy merchandise that says North Dakota or Roughriders or whatever name is chosen, and would continue to call the teams Fighting Sioux. Those dollars would be going to Spirit Lake rather than UND. If that Fighting Sioux merchandise is not available, then at least some of those same people are going to buy merchandise that says North Dakota or the new nickname. Those dollars go to UND. Allowing the tribes to use the nickname and logo would divert sales of merchandise away from UND merchandise to Fighting Sioux merchandise, and therefore would divert income away from UND. UND would be foolish to give away something that is going to divert income out of its bank account into the tribes band account. The logo itself does not include any words, it is an artistic rendition of a Native American. It was designed by a member of the Chippewa tribe. The Sioux tribes have no claim to it in any way. UND is the connection between the logo and the Fighting Sioux name. The tribes had nothing to do with that connection. Does the Cherokee tribe deserve rights to money or a logo from Jeep because Jeep has made the Cherokee 4wd vehicle for many years? No, they don't. Your logic is flawed. The tribes have no legal or moral rights to the UND Fighting Sioux logo. If they were given the logo they would be able to reap rewards from that. But UND doesn't owe them anything, and it would be a big mistake for UND to give them the logo.

The Addendum talks about changes in requirements for facilities to meet the Settlement Agreement. It does not talk about changes in nickname. That means that all other requirements of the Settlement Agreement, other than the changes outlined in the Addendum, need to be met. The Settlement Agreement specifically says "new nickname". Since the Addendum doesn't address the nickname, it can not over rule the requirement for a new nickname that is listed in the Settlement Agreement. To say otherwise is pure conjecture on your part, it is not a fact.

Yet your position is based only on your opinion and you have no credible evidence or any other source. Maybe it would help if you would admit that rather than trying to pass that opinion off as fact.

I believe that is Jack Michaels home run call when he does baseball play-by-play. IIRC his mom is named Marge.

I forgot about the Spring of 2012. There was a short time where the sanctions did apply. But the sanctions ended as soon as UND was able to drop the nickname, which was after the vote in June 2012. That put UND back in compliance with the Settlement. The Addendum did not drop UND from the sanctions list. Nothing about the Addendum talks about UND going without a nickname no matter what you keep saying.

The NCAA lifted sanctions against UND on October 26, 2007 when the Settlement Agreement was signed. The Addendum did not lift sanctions, it just enforced the Settlement Agreement.

Funny, we're not afraid of stating our opinions here any more than you are. Some of us just realize that there may be other issues that need to be addressed. The NCAA isn't speaking, so no one knows what they are going to do. All we can do is review the public information, like the Settlement Agreement, and look at their track record in enacting policies. But it would be irresponsible if the UND administration didn't review any potential problems and address them.

The NCAA removed UND from the sanctions list when UND signed the Settlement Agreement several years ago. You seem to have missed that fact. They would have to actively put UND back on the list, and only if they decide that UND did not live up to the Agreement. Your opinion is that the NCAA would have put UND back on the list immediately after the state forced UND to stay without a nickname until 2015, or immediately after that deadline was met. You have no proof of that other than your opinion. Many of us are of the opinion that the NCAA is giving a grace period as long as UND is making attempts to move toward a new nickname. We have no proof of that and have stated that. Several have also offered the theory that the NCAA could enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement at any time after the deadlines written in it, they don't have to enforce those deadlines specifically on those dates. UND hosting a regional and not being on the sanctions list fit within the theories of the NCAA giving a grace period and extending deadlines. You have offered no real proof that your opinion is any more valid than any other opinion.

I realize that not everyone who is currently supporting the choice of going without a nickname are in the FS Forever group. But I don't think that going without a nickname would have much traction without the FS Forever group. For instance, the rally last week was led by someone wearing a Fighting Sioux hockey jersey, and all reports are that there were chants using the Fighting Sioux name. The rally being planned when school starts is being organized by another group that still supports the Fighting Sioux name. A lot of social media wanting to go without a nickname includes posts saying FS Forever or something similar. It doesn't seem like there would be a lot of people supporting the no nickname option, at least so vocally, without that group.

I see the continuing support for keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname as relentless, and believe that going without a nickname is just a continuation of that effort. I think that both can harm the University. The University is important to me so I continue to do what I can to protect it. So yeah, I'm going to be relentless during this process.

The majority doesn't always have all of the information, and aren't always paying attention to the entire issue. Not all of the majority may have the best interests of the institution at the top of the list. That's why you hire (elect) people to run the government. That's why you hire people to run institutions like UND.That's why this wasn't a completely democratic process. They brought in a committee of people that represented the major stakeholders in the University. That committee decided that going without a nickname was not best for the University. I agree with them. The committee studied the issue for many hours, much longer than a lot of people that weren't part of the committee. The committee members were much better informed than the majority of people. I believe that too many of the people that are supporting going forward without a nickname are doing so based on emotion, not facts. They are doing so based on what they want, not what is best for the University. They are still too attached to the old nickname, whether they still believe the name can come back or not. I also find it interesting that they think they know better than the 1,100 other NCAA members that have nicknames. There are reasons that nicknames were chosen or developed at every NCAA school in the country other than Hollins University, a small women's only school. Decisions like this need to be made based on facts, not emotions.

I agree that you can't draw definite conclusions from the reactions on social media. In the post I mentioned social media I was using his own arguments against the poster. He has talked about all of the support for no nickname on social media, yet tried to say that only a small part of the people that want to go without a nickname are doing it to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname alive. So I pointed out that most of the people on social media that are trying to keep the no nickname option are also posting Fighting Sioux Forever or something else about keeping the Fighting Sioux name. I base my opinion that less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND want to go with no nickname on the total information I have available to me. I base it on what I've seen and heard from all sources. It is my opinion. From all of my experience and reading, a strong majority of the public are ready to move on from this whole nickname debate. One of the problems with keeping it in a vote is that the vote right now would be 6 ways. No nickname could possibly get a plurality under these conditions, which would help keep it alive. Besides, elections are like sporting events, the best option (or team) doesn't always win. If people aren't all excited about a single nickname choice, they may not vote in the election. At the same time, the group promoting no nickname could get all of their supporters to vote. So apathy for a specific nickname could throw the vote to the no nicknames even though a large majority want something chosen. Most of all, keeping no nickname as an option clouds the entire issue. A lot of the people that are supporting the no nickname option are not going to drop their support of the Fighting Sioux nickname or their opposition to any new nickname whether no nickname loses in an election or not. I have outlined some of the reasons that having a nickname are important. Going without a nickname shouldn't even be an option. This process should be about what is best for the University and the athletic department, going without a nickname is not what is best for either. Even the nickname choice committee agreed with that position after spending many hours working on the process. It is time to drop that option and make a decision between the actual nickname choices.

There are 2 parts. First, keeping the nickname out there and active would increase the number of people that continue to use the Fighting Sioux nickname and cut into the number of people that start using a new nickname. The new nickname may have a hard time becoming accepted and successful because of the competition. It could fail completely. That would not help UND in any way, and it would be a mistake for UND to help encourage that by letting the logo go. Second, people would be buying Fighting Sioux merchandise that may instead be buying new UND merchandise. Not a lot of people would be buying both, it would be one or the other (or neither). That would be taking dollars directly out of the UND athletic department. That would just be stupid of UND. Finally, there is always the chance that the NCAA could see it as encouraging the fans to continue using the old nickname (because it actually would be encouraging the fans to do that). The NCAA could decide to punish UND again. Giving the logo to one of the tribes would be setting up UND and a new nickname to fail. The tribes had absolutely nothing to do with creating the logo or building the logo, so they have no claims on the logo.

I wasn't at the game, I watched it from home, so I can't comment on that game. Smaller arenas are often louder since there is less volume to fill. That was one of the differences between the old Ralph and the new.

UND has the right to transfer or assign the logo to any Sioux tribe as a part of the Settlement Agreement. However, they would lose control of the logo. That would not be in the best interests of UND. Therefore, that option will not be used at any time soon.

It has seemed to me that there have been fewer people yelling Sioux at the end of the anthem at most games over the past few years. The only times it has seemed as loud as in previous years were at a few of the rivalry type games where it was a full house of people that were already amped up. There are only a few people that still yell in the area where I sit at hockey games, and even less at football games. I don't go to enough basketball games to have a good reading.

Online, non-scientific polls have no reliability at all. Most of those polls allow someone to vote as many times as they want. That alone makes those polls null and void. The average person doesn't take part in those polls, often only the ones that are most vocal take part in them. The group that wants no nickname thought they were losing that option, so they are naturally more likely to take part in such a poll. I am very sure that the actual group supporting no nickname is much less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND.

Most chants I've heard at games have included the Fighting Sioux nickname, although I believe they have been fewer than in previous years. There have been very limited attempts to write new cheers, chants or songs with no nickname.

The majority of postings on social media that support not using a nickname include statements like "Fighting Sioux Forever" or include some other support of the Fighting Sioux nickname. If you are going to use social media as any example of the support of no nickname, then you have to accept that a large portion of them are people that still want to use the Fighting Sioux nickname either as an official or unofficial nickname.

Scenario 3 does not equal scenario 1. It's more likely that they are not willing to make a legally binding statement on a situation that does not officially exist yet. Most lawyers will recommend such a policy.

If you read the Addendum, it actually says that UND will be removed from the list of institutions not in compliance with the policy, if it has not already been removed from the list, provided the University remains in compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the Addendum. The bulk of the addendum is related to changes at REA. It does not say that UND is in compliance, nor does it say anything about UND not having a nickname at that time. UND was not considered on the list and were considered in compliance with the Settlement Agreement before the Addendum, so the Addendum just confirmed it. The Settlement Agreement also provides for adding UND back on the list of institutions not following the policy if UND does not adopt a new nickname.

I've said this before, I would be shocked if the NCAA issued any kind of statement either way about UND having a nickname or not having a nickname during this process. That isn't their style. After UND makes a decision, if UND decides to continue going without a nickname, and if the NCAA decides they don't like it, then the NCAA would make a statement. The statement would either invoke the settlement agreement or the Executive Committee could create a new policy requiring a nickname. But, I would be surprised if the NCAA allows themselves to get involved before they absolutely have to do so. They would prefer to have the issue go away on its own if possible.