jdub27

The NCAA not acting on that does not preclude them from doing so in the future. If UND was in communication with them (and quotes from Grant Shaft show they were) and outlining their processes and progress towards implementing a new nickname, the NCAA has little to nothing to gain by enforcing the sanctions until they feel UND is no longer following the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA had the pleasure of dealing with Al Carlson, they likely felt some sympathy for UND being held hostage by him and the legislature and again, had nothing to gain by imposing sanctions on UND when they were doing the best they could at the time. It is not a coincidence that the search for a new nickname started as the cooling off period was winding down.

remains in compliance with the Settlement Agreement if it has already not been removed Continuing to cherry pick words from an Addendum about imagery will not make it true.

No clue on the details, just what I heard about why the track wasn't in yet. A lot of that concrete has been down for a few months now. Glad they are making sure it is being done right instead of rushing it though, it is going to be a really, really nice track.

Track was scheduled to be completed before they moved in but there is some sort of issue with moisture in the concrete and they are trying to find the best way to make sure the track can be installed properly and without issues in the future.

I'm not concerned about legal consequences at this point, I'm concerned about the NCAA enforcing the sanctions as referenced in the Settlement Agreement, one's the UND is aware of and agreed to face if they are found to be out of compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

I'm pretty confused the wording in the release. Are these schools actually mpw part of the Big XII for wrestling or are they only invited to participate in the Big XII tournament so that it regains its status as a qualifying event? Are you really an affiliate member if schools aren't required to schedule you? UVU? LOL

The sanctions UND could face have been spelled out very clearly if they do not remain in compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

When UND signed the Settlement Agreement, it stated that they would be subject to sanctions if they were not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Not sure how that would be the NCAA arbitrarily imposing anything when it was agreed upon by both parties. It has nothing to do with whether there is a rule of having nickname or not, it is whether the NCAA deems UND choosing "no nickname" being in full compliance with transitioning to a new nickname.

So UND was in compliance from June, 2012 to September, 2012 but still on sanctions because an Addendum related to imagery in the REA had not yet been signed? If true, you think it would be one of the main bullet points as to the purpose of the Addendum, not one of the last things mentioned. And again, at that time UND had conveyed its plan to transition to a new nickname, the NCAA had no reason to enforce sanctions.

Was UND under sanctions and needed to be removed in September of 2012? Or was it just stating what was obvious to both parties with "if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment" meaning UND was in compliance because they had communicated to the NCAA how they were transitioning towards a new nickname, the second portion of being in compliance stated in the Settlement Agreement (retiring of Fighting Sioux being the first). homer posted quotes from Grant Shaft backing this up. An Addendum about more imagery being allowed at the REA and spelling out what everyone already knew and agreed to at that particular time is not a smoking gun.

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.