jdub27

I'm not sure why this has become part of the discussion but it doesn't specify the Brien Fighting Sioux logo. It obviously includes all Fighting Sioux marks as the first release of the Dacotah Legacy collection had the geometric logo on it. Had it not, UND would have been in violation by commissioning Fighting Sioux gear outside of the agreement. UND is required to keep all of them under their control.

You don't have new employees though. Adding additional "responsibilities" to something that currently exists in no way qualifies as new. Since you brought it up, Mathematics 101 states that 1-1=0, if you have something and take it away, you are left with zero, nothing. Are you honestly asking why the NCAA (and UND for that matter) would want to ensure that UND protects all of the related imagery (not just Fighting Sioux and the Brien logo)?

If you are supporting the University of North Dakota North Dakota, then yes, North Dakota is a nickname and redundant. Is that what your support is for?

Unless they are going to be the University of North Dakota North Dakota (which we all know is not what is being discussed), then it is not a nickname, it is choosing to not have a nickname. I wish the committee would hammered that point home a little bit more. The name of the University can not, by definition, be a nickname unless you want to be redundant. Then why include the comment about a required transition to a new nickname and not just state "The University of North Dakota is required to drop the Fighting Sioux nickname"? If you are correct, it seems like it was a waste of space to include the language about transitioning to something new. And how can you replace something with nothing and it be new? If I sell my car and don't get a new one, I don't have a new car. If the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux drop their nickname and become the University of North Dakota, they don't have a new nickname.

North Dakota is not a nickname. At least be accurate and state that the University of North Dakota currently has no nickname and that is what people are pushing for. They are not pushing for "North Dakota" as that has always been the name of the institution, they are pushing for "no nickname".

That doesn't really constitute transitioning to something new (as spelled out by the settlement agreement) since those have all been is use since 1883.

UND was under sanctions in September, 2012?

There are multiple factions but the people most vocally representing the "no nickname" crowd are making the conclusions easy to come to. It has been mentioned in committee meetings, on the news and in the newspapers in both articles and letters to the editor, not to mention social media comments.

You think it is just a coincidence that the processes were started shortly before that date? And that maybe the NCAA was clued in on that? What benefit does the NCAA gain by taking UND and the State of ND to court or an unnecessary PR black-eye if UND had informed them that as the "cooling off" period neared completion, they would finish the transition, which is exactly what happened last fall.

Do you have any concrete examples of the NCAA showing compassion on issues? Particularly one where there was lawsuits and settlement agreements and the other party decided to at best, not follow the spirit of the agreement and at worst, flat out violate it? Again, UND was removed because they were following the steps outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Until you have concrete proof that the NCAA has accepted that if UND stops the process and selects "no nickname" and is fine with it, your theories hold no more water than anyone else's.

Why were the sanctions lifted? Because UND was in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Why were they in compliance? Because they had announced they were retiring the Fighting Sioux nickname and transitioning towards a new nickname, playing out exactly as the Settlement Agreement stated. Is picking "no nickname" considered a transition to a new nickname in the eyes of the NCAA? No one knows. If it is, what can the NCAA do once they see that UND has now encouraged an environment where Fighting Sioux is the de facto nickname and continued to be widely used even though it has been retired? Whatever they want.

I like Sweeney but I also like listening to Jack Michaels, I think he's a great play by play guy. Even swap in my book with Sweeney getting a bump for being a UND guy.

You got about 3 or 4 very legitimate responses to this yesterday. Apparently none of them satisfied you. You still haven't acknowledged that the NCAA not only plays by their own rules, they also have the power to make or change them as they please and have shown no issue in being hypocrites or singling out individual institutions as they please. Even more so when they need a distraction from a P5 school doing something dumb. What benefit is there to leaving UND open to that scenario when the fix is simple.

Explain to me how the large portion (allegedly) of the "no nickname" crowd that also supports bringing back the Fighting Sioux nickname despite the very well known consequences of it can say their motivations are 100% in the best interest of the University of North Dakota.

You are going to blame an incredibly generic (and not real popular at the time) ad campaign from 5 years ago for the reason people want to stay North Dakota? Was the University just supposed to not market itself in the interim? People make it seem like UND didn't use "North Dakota" while they were the Fighting Sioux and won't continue to use it when a new nickname is picked. 130+ years, that is the one thing that hasn't changed.

I guess I don't know how you define the sky falling but the number of negatives associated with going forward with "no nickname" continues to grow, regardless of how small or unrealistic some may perceive them to be. They are real. People on the committee admitted it. People that work for UND, including in the athletic department, admit it. Players and coaches admit it. There are real consequences and issues that "no nickname" brings that the five options that are officially left don't. Why voluntarily put any of those in play when there is a simple solution to it? So that people can selfishly hold on to an inanimate object? Or because they somehow think it will be "sticking it" to the NCAA, when in reality they are only putting the University of North Dakota at a disadvantage, regardless of how small or large it may end up being? The biggest issue is that "no nickname" does not resolve the nickname issue one bit. It is what the committee came to understand in their hours of work and why it was eliminated. It will continue to waste time, resources and money that could be much better spent elsewhere.

I think we are all in the same boat on that but as much as we all would have like it to, it was never going to happen. The disagreements on the names submitted were just as much as they are on the finalists. You aren't going to come up with something unique and then have a majority buy in because everyone has their own idea of unique. Add the consultants into the mix and you see what happens. If they would have had 100% say, I doubt that Roughriders or Sundogs would have made it this far. It doesn't fit <adjective> <unoffensive animal/object>. I guess I'm not sure what your reference to what the PC folks are doing means but even though I'm fully in favor of choosing a new nickname, I have zero intention of hiding from or being ashamed of UND's past. I will display my Fighting Sioux memorabilia next to whatever is chosen. It's not that I (or many other) want to move on from the past, it just happens to be what is best for the University of North Dakota for many reasons and on many levels.

I think it will be an interesting match-up between UND's front seven and NDSU's line. Schmidt will likely be aggressive to try to force NDSU into making mistakes and the 3-4 defense can bring pressure in a lot of ways and can be quite a bit different from the normal 4-3 defense that they typically see. UND's secondary will have to be solid as they will likely see some 1-1 coverage in those situations and Wentz can get the ball there in a hurry. If UND can get pressure on Wentz (tough task with a strong line for NDSU), it seemed last year he was more apt to tuck it and run rather than step up in the pocket and continue his reads. When he's running, which he's very capable of, he has a tendency to not secure the ball very well and also go for contact instead of sliding. Those two things are fixable and it could be a non-issue but it was noticeable last year. If they still hold true, UND needs to be ready to get a shot on him and go after the ball when he's running. I have no clue what will happen when UND has the ball. UND started finding a rhythm running the ball the end of last year and the OL coach has done a really good job of molding the lineman he inherited into a solid group. The QB and RB however are both big question marks. On the flip side, NDSU is losing a lot, especially right up the middle. I'd assume the returning strength of their defense is the CB position, which probably doesn't give them a huge advantage as I don't think UND has one stand-out receiver, more of just a committee approach, no one particular guy to focus on.

So even though you're in the "no nickname" camp, you are still going to hold on to the Fighting Sioux nickname. This one of the many reasons that "no nickname" is not an acceptable option, it continues to leave Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname. The good thing is that at least it is becoming more and more obvious to the general public and the vocal supporters of the "no nickname" crowd are doing more harm than good for that cause.

If UND chose "no nickname" would you continue to yell Sioux?

Significant difference between giving someone permission (your scenario 1) and reserving the right to take whatever stance you'd like in the future (my scenario 3). Does the group the refuses to acknowledge that there could possibly be any negative consequences get to be the "head in the sand" crowd since you're tossing out names?

Scenario 3 is most likely. UND/Kelley asked the NCAA and they politely said "We don't take stances on hypotheticals".

Again, that is because at the time UND had announced the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and were working towards transitioning towards a new nickname and logo (albeit at an incredibly slow pace). The exact scenario in which the Settlement Agreement stated would put them in compliance. Why would the Addendum state anything differently outside of the REA being out of compliance with the original settlement agreement's imagery guidelines? Your interpretation of single paragraph in an Addendum that was drafted for the sole purpose fixing that and allowing the REA to have more imagery does not magically make the original Settlement Agreement null and void.

And you are free to provide your speculation and conjecture as well. However you forgot an important part of the Addendum: "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment" The original Settlement called for UND to be removed from the sanctions list once it announced the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and started on transition towards a new nickname and logo. That was the situation UND was in when the Addendum was signed. What benefit did the NCAA have to punish UND when they were showing that they were doing what they could in their power to work towards transitioning to a new nickname and logo? The NCAA also continues to have the power to punish or change their policies to punish UND as they see fit. What would stop them from putting a new policy in place to prevent a University from going with "no nickname" because it fosters an environment where a nickname that was previously deemed hostile and abusive is encouraged to be used.

I know you know, but the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement was strictly done for the purpose of amending what imagery can be displayed and whatever it is you're trying to cite has nothing to do with its purpose. And what happens in the event that the NCAA declines to take a stance?