82SiouxGuy
-
Posts
5,777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by 82SiouxGuy
-
-
Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. The reason for the agreement in the first place was because "Fighting Sioux" was the nickname, not "North Dakota." Following the logic of your argument, "Flickertails" could not have been an option for a "new" nickname either because it was previously used by UND. Because the agreement apparently fails to define "nickname" the door is open to using "North Dakota" as a nickname. If the NCAA wanted the generally recognized (by whom?) format for sports names and wanted to exclude "North Dakota" as a nickname, they should have put it in the agreement. Finally, I apologize for using an obnoxious number of "quotation marks."
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.
-
Does the agreement provide a definition of "nickname". Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "a shortend version of one's name." You could easily make the case that "North Dakota" is a nickname of "The University of North Dakota" or even better, it is a shorter version of "The State University and School of Mines at Grand Forks" which is how UND is referenced in the century code.
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".
-
Your right about part 1 and what could happen with competing logos. I do think UND will be able to market the new logo with or without the logo and all it will take is time.
I disagree with your part 2. The ncaa has a legal agreement with UND that hey can let spirit lake use and sell merchandise with the logo. They cannot punish us if we follow the agreement. Just because they didn't create or build the logo does not mean they do not have the right to use it. It's their name that we are using and with UND's permission they have every legal right. Keeping the logo from them is as hostile and abusive as using the logo at UND.
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.
-
Which means that UND fulfilled its obligation under the original agreement; hence, the NCAA removed UND from the list of school's that were in violation of NCAA policy and the NCAA has not enforced sanctions against UND since then.
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.
-
And again, the purpose of this thread was to establish if anyone had any credible evidence and sources or if people are just assuming that the NCAA had no reason to enforce sanctions.
If the latter, that is fine. All I'm asking is whether that stance is based on a credible source or based upon the poster's opinion or assumptions.
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.
-
Could someone elaborate on the "Track it down Marge" quote. I'm clearly missing a joke here.
I believe that is Jack Michaels home run call when he does baseball play-by-play. IIRC his mom is named Marge.
-
Don't know if you're a hockey guy, but remember 2012 regionals when the University North Dakota Fighting Sioux were prohibited from playing as the Fighting Sioux? UND was put back on sanctions after the settlement agreement, but you seem to have missed that fact.
Winner, winner! While I don't recall anyone admitting that in the past, I am glad you have brought clarity to the issue and informed the fine posters of siouxsports.com that the threats of future NCAA sanctions are simply opinions without proof.
Goodbye, post.
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.
-
Yes, in September 2012, NCAA lifted sanctions against UND [no nickname] during a time that UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname. The NCAA awarded regionals to UND [no nickname] at a time that UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname. These are the facts; I don't need any more concrete examples than that.
And it's fine if you want to speculate about the possibility of the NCAA creating new policies or changing the rules as they go. But just admit that it's your opinion.
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.
-
BB, they're afraid of their own shadows...
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.
-
Regarding bold point number one: Explain how the NCAA's decision to remove UND [no nickname] from sanctions is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA awarding and allowing UND [no nickname] to host a regional is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA's decision not to place UND [no nickname] back on sanctions despite the expiration of the "cooling off" period is my opinion.
Regarding bold point number two: Ugh! Twamley is so incompetent!
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 understand what you are saying, but you shouldn't generalize everyone who likes "North Dakota" into the "Fighting Sioux Forever" camp. Personally, I like just North Dakota, because it is better that the other options (in my opinion).
Now, will I always refer to the team as the Sioux? Yeah, probably. But I will do that regardless of what name is chose. I just don't see myself saying "I can't wait to watch the Fighting Hawk game this weekend". They were always Sioux to me, and always will be. As for an "official name" and what will be on the merchandise ... I just like North Dakota better than the rest of the garbage.
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.
-
You are nothing if not relentless - unconvincingly so, but relentless nonetheless.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I understand your clarification on the social media aspect. Thanks
Otherwise, I have put into bold what I consider to be the key portions of the rest of your post - I've always loved the argument "damn the will of the majority - I know what is best" - it does have the unfortunate side effect of opening one up to the criticism of acting like a pompous ass, however.
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.
-
3
-
-
About the same validity as trying to draw conclusions from posts on social media, wouldn't you say?
Based on what, might I ask? If you truly believe this, then you should be amongst those screaming the loudest to have the "no nickname" option included in the final ballot - having it voted down is the surest way to have it dismissed with the least amount of blow-back.
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.
-
1
-
-
I guess I'm thinking who cares if they take control of it? We can never use it again and we will be moving on so I don't see a reason to keep it when a tribe can use it. I don't see how they can abuse it since it represents their people. It can help generate extra funds for reservation programs. If UND is making me move on then maybe they should do the same?
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.
-
.
Pretty loud where we sit. Also, the sioux yelled after the anthem before the Quinnipiac game was one of my top sporting moments. I got Goosebumps.
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.
-
I thought I had read something that either the university or the tribes could use the logo. It's a shame they can't give it to the tribe.
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.
-
In a related note, There are many people that post on here that claim that more and more peopple are yelling "Sioux" at the end of the anthem. While that may be the case at hockey games (although one could argue it is less), it is almost non existant at every other sport. Of course the "hockey only/Sioux forever/no nickname" crowd probably isn't aware of this fact (or that UND has any other sports besides hockey either)
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.
-
I used online (unofficial) polls to count the support for no nickname. 4?% want no nickname, the rest want a nickname. Now, if it was a vote for the outcome, which would win out?
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.
-
1
-
-
Just curious and i don't know if it was a criteria of the committee ,but President Kelley said it would be nice to have a nickname for cheers,chants,and songs. During the 3 years or whatever length of time it's been with no nickname, what have you been cheering, chanting, and singing at your sporting events?
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.
-
Maybe what we witnessed was the "de facto" people at the rally, small amount. Maybe the MAJORITY of the no nickname people don't want to de facto the Sioux name?
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.
-
So in other words, scenario 3 = scenario 1. They do not have a policy against it. I know that's not enough for the tinfoil hat crowd, but the reality is, it would be acceptable.
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.
-
The Addendum governs the Settlement Agreement. The Addendum says UND is in compliance. Sure, if UND adopts "Fighting Sioux", the NCAA will put UND back on sanctions. But UND was taken off of sanctions at time when UND did not have a nickname. This is really simple, and it's a non-issue.
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.
-
That is what some of us have been asking. Just get the NCAA to put in writing that being known as the University of North Dakota satisfies the agreement to seperate UND from the Fighting Sioux name.
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.
-
1
-
NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname
in UND Nickname
Posted
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.