Chewey
-
Posts
1,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Chewey
-
-
1. No nickname = no need to be concerned about policies regarding possibly offensive nicknames;
2. NCAA and PC crybabies are accommodated because there is no use of NA names or imagery;
3. People who believe any new, insipid nickname (as any new nickname must be in order to satisfy and not offend the "stakeholders") would be an insult to the old nickname and logo and, more importantly, to the majority of the NA's who wanted to keep it would be accommodated.
-
1
-
-
Why are you so adamant about not having a nickname?
Not having one violates no agreement/policy. The purported reasons for needing to select one are strained at best. The position that a new nickname is needed, as quickly as possible, so that UND is not known or associated, even inferentially, with the old one is neither appropriate nor healthy.
-
1
-
-
"Will transition to a nickname and logo...". Seems straight forward.
Not having a nickname will subject UND to a nickname policy prohibiting that employment of hostile and abusive nicknames/imagery. It makes sense now.
-
The agreement signed by officials from North Dakota states that the school would transition to a new nickname. No nickname = doesn't live up to agreement. That seems like a pretty simple equation. And North Dakota is not a sports nickname. It is the name of the state and shorthand for the name of the school, just like North Carolina is short hand for the University of North Carolina and Texas is short hand for the University of Texas along with many others.
The NCAA has a policy against NA nicknames and imagery. UND's former nickname and logo ran afoul of that policy. Not having a nickname does not run afoul of a policy prohibiting the employment of hostile and abusive nicknames. With no nickname, there is no such policy applicable to UND and there are no prohibitions being violated.
-
No nickname, is not a new nickname. 900 paragraphs of spin doesn't change that.
No nickname is not a new nickname that violates the Policy or would render UND subject to the Policy. Exactly. There's no spin in reciting what the document itself says. Kelley and the rest of the "let's get a new nickname yesterday" crowd are employing both spin and eisegesis by indicating that not having a nickname violates the surrender agreement. Not having a nickname has absolutely nothing to do with either the Policy or the surrender agreement.
-
That's a real high bar to strive for. "We've made it work so far, so we can make it work in the future." Everyone complains when they think the athletes aren't striving for excellence but some people are willing to settle for "making it work" for a nickname.
The "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo were excellent. Not having a nickname is likewise excellent, though not as excellent has having the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo, because 1.) No hyper-sensitive passions vis-a-vis NA imagery are piqued and respect is shown because NA imagery is no longer used;
2.) the wishes of the sheer majority of NA's who supported the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo are respected and due deference for the rich Sioux history and imagery is shown because no new and inane nickname is selected; 3.) Neither the policy nor the surrender agreement is implicated at all.
-
The basic format is the name of the school, and then the nickname.
Is there any policy or document that requires this basic format? No. The university and its teams can legitimately be known and identified as "the University of North Dakota" or just "North Dakota". If UND does not have a nickname, neither the policy nor the surrender agreement applies. The parties can't even amend the surrender agreement to address it because it's an entirely different area. For there to be any offense, the NCAA would have to concoct a new policy to require all schools to have nicknames.
-
Is this what the Flickertail faithful thought as well?
The only thing that has always been consistent and never changed is The University of North Dakota, not a nickname or logo.
Exactly. So, just retain the part that's never changed. Thanks for your support and welcome to the "Keep It Just North Dakota" fold. #sarcasm
-
The basic format is the name of the school, and then the nickname. If you want to claim that UND is using North Dakota as a nickname, that becomes the University of North Dakota North Dakota. Otherwise UND isn't using a nickname, which means it hasn't fulfilled the settlement agreement. Pretty simple really.
Not sure how some people think that UND is rushing to find a nickname when it has been 2+ years without a nickname already. And it will be 6 months to 2 years before they use a new nickname even if they start now. That isn't rushing anything. That's just wasting time.
Um. Nope. Paragraph 2.d. Absence of Namesake Approval -- .....UND...will transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the Policy or render UND subject to the Policy. In the event UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the Policy , the transition will be completed on or before August 15, 2011......If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo, or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy.
Is there anything anywhere in the NCAA by-laws, etc. requiring that a school have a nickname and logo? No. Is there anything anywhere saying that not having a nickname or logo violates anything, including the Policy? No. The whole thing is about satisfying the policy or not offending the policy. What's the effing policy again? Anyone? Anyone? Yes. Policy = Don't have "hostile and abusive" NA nicknames and imagery. That's it. UND is no longer known as "the Fighting Sioux". There it is - policy complied with.
Has either the NCAA Constitution or the NCAA by-laws been amended requiring schools to have nicknames? Has the NCAA Executive Committee come up with any such requirement? Now, the opponents of the "keep North Dakota" option can engage in linguistic and syntax divination or eisegete that paragraph with anything that's self-serving to their position. The meaning is quite clear and one certainly does not need to resort to diagramming sentences to see it. The parties are limited to the four corners of the document and the surrender agreement indicates that quite clearly. Paragraph 6, page 9, "UND and the NCAA agree that this Agreement constitutes all the agreements between them, and they have no other written or oral agreements or understandings." Parol evidence rule notwithstanding, the NCAA would have no basis, as per the agreement itself, to indicate that "we really meant this".
In paragraph 3 of page 9, UND can challenge any changes to the Policy. The NCAA would have to come up with a new policy in order to have a new category of offense regarding not having a nickname. The second to last introductory paragraph on page 2 indicates that the parties "desire to settle and extinguish all claims, rights of action, causes of action, and demands between themselves that they have or could have". Not having a nickname or logo does not violate either the Policy or the surrender agreement. End of story, scare tactics notwithstanding. Is not having a nickname mentioned in "the Policy"? No. Therefore, no litigation will come out of the surrender agreement because it deals only with the Policy. Not having a nickname does not violate the policy explicitly or even inferentially because there is absolutely no verbiage or language anywhere dealing with that topic.
-
The MIAC has it solve with Johnnies Tommies Oles Gusties Auggies etc. Go by the Nodaks or Daks if North Dakota is too offensive. Why does anyone need to say "Here come your North Dakota (insert something -anything - other that Fighting Sioux)? Just so that it doesn't sound stupid ("Here come your North Dakota North Dakota)? How about "Here comes North Dakota" "Here we come - North Dakota " "Here’s your North Dakota scoring". Pretty simple to rearrange how one would say "the call". Having a stupid nickname just so that some thing's there and just so that one can say "Here come your North Dakota (whatever) is a poor basis to rush to a nickname and saying the inane and insipid replacement nickname would sound more stupid than just North Dakota.
-
By cow-towing you mean settle, versus shut down athletics. Making sure I understand correctly.
No. You understand incorrectly so your stated self-assurance is for naught, unfortunately. For purposes of clarification, there are professors and administrators and some students on the UND campus who have stated that the simple wearing of Fighting Sioux attire causes a "hostile" atmosphere on campus and makes a lot of people want to cry. It's these that I'm referring to. I don't think UND settled with any of them.
-
You can't fill a void with a nothing.
No "void". It's "North Dakota". It certainly would make sense that they'd have denoted #North Dakota, accordingly. Choose any replacement and they probably would have done the same thing. When "progressive change" is effected through monopolistic fiat and economic terrorism, when you have some affected parties accept it for pragmatic reasons (and this is being all too generous in describing that particular sentiment) and when you have a rush to change based upon not only transparent and flawed reasoning but an explicit desire to expunge the former name and logo from the vernacular and from people's thinking, you're going to have long-lasting, vociferous, significant opposition.
-
2
-
-
I like how the name lover's act like President Kelly or UND or Faison are going to start "telling the media they cannot ask about the Sioux name" - or "make you stop wearing your Sioux gear!". They have not done it yet and never will but you guys keep threatening that they are going to, with no proof to back it up. Bunch of tough guys on here for no reason. Stop fear mongering.
Well, when you combine a "process" to select a nickname - any reasonable nickname - as soon as possible with the reason being to "encourage" people not only to yell anything other than "Fighting Sioux" at games but also to "cleanse" people from thinking about the former nickname along with certain parties - yes, the very same ones that the university and Kelley cow-towed to in the first place -- on campus assaulting the general public with invective about not allowing people to wear Fighting Sioux attire on campus, it's really not too much of a stretch.
-
The "pissed off citizenry" I see voted by a significant margin to end this gong show (and to quit bleeding money into it) by voting to allow UND to remove the name.
What I see now are more and more people asking, "Why isn't this done yet?"
Purely anecdotal, but I see the younger folks saying, "Just pick something and move on" and the ... ahem ... "more mature" crowd wallowing in history.
Disclaimer: My ID puts me on the line between younger and "more mature". Heck, I've never been accused of being too mature.
Really? That must be why two "younger folks" who are recent Fighting Sioux hockey recruits denoted #Fighting Sioux in their correspondence when they indicated that they had chosen UND.
-
Like I said ...
I'm thinking which ever happens first, the other won't.
And I think Dan Snyder is next to lose to Suzan Harjo, her media lackeys, et al.
Yawn. The same tactic -- getting the U.S. Patent/Trademark Office to throw out the trademark protections - employed by them and reversed by the Court. All the more reason to continue fighting The Suzan Harjo's of the world and the accompanying sycophantic "media lackeys".
-
6 of them did and the tribal chair (Not RHHIT) would have gone in favor of allowing a vote
-
Good article by David! I would concur with Bob about the NCAA eventually slouching into the dustbin of history (hopefully).
-
1
-
-
Of course all of us UND fans were dissapointed when the Fighting Sioux name was retired. But we must remember what cost it would have been to the University and the Athletic Department and its teams had we kept the name. Big Sky President Fullerton said that they had concerens with UND having the Fighting Sioux name. Said it would affect our membership into the conference. Also, there is no gaurantee that the NCAA wouldn't come down harder in the future and ban all native american names no matter if you had tribal approval or not! Now sure if we were still the Fighting Sioux today, many people would be happy. But at what cost would it have been to the school and the teams. Imagine playing the the Great West for basketball and football. And who knows where for other sports. It would have been a disaster. So while there was probably more that could have been done in the past in regards to our relationship with the 2 tribes in the state, but the contreversy would have been a black could hanging over the University and its athletic teams. Yes is sucked seing the name go, but I think that if you step back and look at it now that we are a couple years removed, I hope most see that it was the right decision.
Um. No. At this juncture, however, the right decision is to stay "North Dakota".
-
1
-
-
Long Beach State is "The Beach".
I'm kind of liking "Tundra". It fits the North Dakota image -- Vast. Imposing. Unsurvivable.
No thanks. Having a description of a landscape as a nickname is almost as bad as having some inane weather phenomenon.
-
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/letters/3661197-letter-ncaa-not-villain-nickname-issue
Just an opinion piece from the herald. So und was given the same ultimatum as Florida state? Then why did und need to get multiple tribes' approval? Not exactly the same offer. Florida state also has more money to offer their one tribe. And how can this guy say und had done little to pay the sioux people for using the name? Wow!
UND did everything they could with the tribal councils and were 2 tribal council votes shy of getting a vote allowed on SR. Their fault the failure to nurture any kind of stable, good faith relationships from at least the 40's or 50's forward. Any payment would have been seen as a "bribe" and the nickname opponents on the councils were too "principled" to go that route.
As President Kupchella said, the nickname had been in the public domain for decades. Not one part of the NCAA charade should have been necessary though the school have cultivated relationships anyway. UND was bullied 1.) because it was and is smaller than FSU and it's not a BCS school; and 2.) Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy did absolutely nothing and Florida's delegation did. Dorgan's, Conrad's and Pomeroy's indifference were no surprise, especially given their impotence and squishiness to GFAFB's loss of ICBM's to Malmstrom and B-1 B bombers all when Bill Clinton (yes, a Democrat) was President. There was hope with Hoeven but he turned out to be entirely squishy too.
Whether it's "Redskins", "Seminoles" or "Fighting Sioux", the names have been in the public domain and permission should not be necessary. If you don't like the name(s), that's "tough darts", as Randy Lee used to say. Unfortunately the NCAA specifically and academia generally, with its "free speech zones" and like nonsense, have become the de facto US version of Canada's Provincial Human Rights Commissions.
-
2
-
-
I didn't realize Slippery Rock's nickname was Rock. interesting......
From what's being concocted for punishment in regard to UND staying with just North Dakota..... Why isn't Slippery Rock facing sanctions for not having a nickname that differs from their university name?
where is the ncaa on this matter!!! !?!?!?I'm sure the NC00 believes that the financial losses from not being able to merchandise and promote a nickname constitute enough punishment already.
-
1
-
-
UNDertakers?
-
The NCAA was OK with the "cooling off period" because UND did what they requested, drop the native American name. I don't think the NCAA really thinks that UND will be known just as "North Dakota". How dumb would it be to not have a nickname? No other college/university in the country does that. YOu can call it unique, but I call it stupid.
Well, opinions vary. What's at issue is how the surrender agreement is construed and there's no explicit prohibition against it.
-
1
-
-
The state passed a law that did not allow them to move on. Those same state leaders who put that law in place went and sat face to face with the NCAA and the message when they left was, the name needs to be changed. Kelly has probably heard that same message but knew he could not attempt to change the nickname until two weeks ago. Now as he begins to change it, new state leaders want to handcuff the process again.
The state passed a law saying that they had to be known as the "Fighting Sioux" and the NCAA had a problem with it and indicated that UND would be put back on the sanctions list. The state passed a law saying that UND will be known as North Dakota and that the school could not start a process for selecting a new nickname for a few years and the NCAA didn't make the same threat. That's my point. There was no basis for the NCAA to make the same threat, the ambiguity in paragraph 2d being the possible reason why.
The Truth
in UND Nickname
Posted
UND would not be encouraging anything. Not replacing the nickname is not encouraging use of the former nickname. The people have options with "North Dakota" - "Flickertails, "Fighting Sioux", "North Dakota". According to your premise, the fans already have options. Who's to say people aren't going to say "Go North Dakota" at these same venues? By your premise, the NCAA an,d by extension, Kelley, Peter Johnson and the rest of them want to have a new nickname so that the wearing of "Fighting Sioux" attire, the saying of "Go Sioux", the saying of "Home of the Sioux" at the end of the national anthem and all other like references are eliminated. No matter how you dress it up with marketing and failure to abide by the surrender agreement hyperbole, this is tantamount to language and thought policing. And, what you just indicated here controverts assertions made to the contrary. "We don't want you saying 'Fighting Sioux'" is not an appropriate basis to select a new nickname. This is why I do not and will not support the choosing of a new nickname. In venues the NCAA does have control over, "North Dakota", at least for now, does not constitute negative and offensive NA imagery. The venues they would control would be public venues so they'd look pretty foolish in directly saying that they don't want people saying this or that. The surrender agreement does not contemplate not having a nickname. This is appropriate because that's an entirely different matter which would require a new policy.