jdub27

Quinnipiac, Michigan Tech and St. Cloud didn't get seem to mind when it happened during the Regionals....

You specifically asked if there has been comments from UND or the NCAA on whether choosing "no nickname" would result in sanctions. There is a statement from Peter Johnson stating the NCAA has said that it is very likely if UND chooses "no nickname" and the fans continue to use Sioux and Fighting Sioux (which there is absolutely zero doubt that they will). Your question was answered when it was stated UND was very likely to face sanctions (because it is a foregone conclusion on what the fans will do). And yet somehow, out of all that, what you get is that UND will not face sanctions? I get you're just playing a bit here, but being intentionally being dense to muddy the waters does no one any good.

To the first part: nothing. By all appearances, UND will have done everything in its power to move on, similar to my guess as why they haven't done anything to date (and is backed up by the NCAA stating that they feel UND has done everything in its power to comply). As has been previously stated, when part of the crowd that is publicly pushing for "no nickname" continues to simultaneously push Fighting Sioux Foreever, UND picking "no nickname" can easily be tied to them being OK with and encouraging Fighting Sioux being the de facto nickname. The difference between now and then would be UND would officially be taking a stance that they are fine with it as they would have "completed" the nickname transition. To the second part, it is a crapshoot to where the people who complained came from but I'd guess that there were multiple other schools that did (SCSU comes to mind along with the B1G scheduling policies), not to mention people within UND and others that have no affiliation with the school.

Guess you got your answer yet somehow it has not seemed to change the minds of those who are convinced nothing bad will happen. Seems very similar to the group that was convinced the NCAA would never force UND to drop the Fighting Sioux name, even if it was "voluntary".

Interesting catch-22 the NCAA has laid out. If the Fighting Sioux Forever crowd wants to continue to wear and yell Fighting Sioux related things, then the only way to do so without a very likely possibility of sanctions is to actually pick a new nickname. If they hold fast, insist that it is all about being unique and keep pushing for "no nickname", then they really will have to follow through and support "no nickname". I personally don't see the second scenario as plausible. There are way too many people that have it entrenched in their mind that the University of North Dakota can only be known as the Fighting Sioux (and the NCAA knows this). They aren't going to force UND to pick a new nickname, just like they didn't force them to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname. However, they have no issue letting the possible (and very likely) consequences be known.

I should have been more clear, I meant in the coming year. The word out of Fargo after the announcement in January was that NDSU would be paying FCOA going forward, though a portion of that was from the "fans" with all the inside information. Within the last month or so, NDSU pulled back on that and announced they weren't doing it yet and are still looking into it (as are many non P5 and G5 schools)

You finally get concrete evidence that there is very likely consequences to choosing "no nickname" and then proceed to downplay it. The NCAA also gave UND the green light to continue to use Fighting Sioux if they wanted.

Where did it specifically state anything about a new policy? It said that if UND chooses "no nickname" that is fine as long as fans don't resume using Sioux or Fighting Sioux or sanctions are very likely. Not that the fans ever stopped but the difference is that at that point UND has chosen to go forward and they can no longer be viewed as transitioning to a new nickname. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the sanctions occur because the NCAA says that UND didn't actually transition and is violation or because of a new policy. The end result is the same and not favorable. The NCAA played it perfectly, the same as they did when UND "voluntarily" retired the Fighting Sioux nickname.

I'm curious why semantics matter? If fans continue as they have, UND is very likely face sanctions. Whether its because of the Settlement Agreement or a new rule is both unknown and irrelevant.

UND is currently in the same position is has been for the last 3 years or so as they work towards transitioning towards a new nickname. If "no nickname" is selected and it ends up that "no nickname" actually is just a cover for fans to continue to use Fighting Sioux and not actually going with "no nickname", then it will be apparent that UND did not do everything in its power to comply with the Settlement Agreement and sanction are very likely.

I'd love to hear the logic behind this after the contents of the statement passed on from the NCAA.

Yet if UND goes with "no nickname" and fans continue to use Fighting Sioux, the NCAA will impose sanctions because it will have proved the UND did not transition to a new nickname. Whether they do on the grounds that UND didn't select and transition to a new nickname and is in violation of the settlement agreement because they are allowing/encouraging fans to use Fighting Sioux or they just flat out change the rules to state that all member institutions must have a nickname does not matter. Selecting "no nickname" will result in sanctions.

I get what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that they could have done it the last few years with season tickets sold out and they didn't. Coincidence? Maybe. Contributing factor? Likely.

I think the RB battle will be interesting, more so to see if Oliveira and Smith both get their shirts pulled. Smith is really young, an extra year of development for him would be nice but if he can contribute right now, go for it.

But my point is that they didn't and they have had a couple years of sold out season tickets to do so, so I'm don't think its as "easy" as you state it would have been or they would have done it. And regardless of how NDSU is doing (in this case extremely well), they would have charged more for the UND game, just look at any other sport that the two have played in for proof. The UND ticket price has always been the highest single game on the schedule (UND has done the exact same thing). I'm not sure if there is a difference in season ticket prices, but when you're talking 15-20 games vs. 6, it is not quite an exact comparison.

Only if "no nickname" is chosen. If UND moves forward with a new nickname, then they have continued to do everything in their power to comply with the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA won't lift a finger, they will have finally got what their ultimate goal was, replacement of the Fighting Sioux nickname. I do however see this misdirection being used by some in the "no nickname" crowd to muddy the waters saying that the NCAA is going to do it regardless.

I didn't think the NCAA would issue a statement ahead of any action by UND but the end result is the same, UND ends up back under sanctions and the NCAA has clean hands. You last point is dead-on. UND's only way out of this is to pick a replacement. If they do, the NCAA can't or won't do anything about what people wear or cheer. If they don't, they have effectively said that UND is fostering an environment where a retired nickname is being allowed to be used as a de facto nickname and the consequences will be the same as if they were officially using it.

They were pretty quick to state that they would be offering it after the original FCOA announcement and then a few months later stated they wouldn't be offering it. There have been comments from Larsen stating they are still looking into the costs and where the funds would come from. So are you claiming that the NDSU athletic department doesn't know what they are doing? That's the only logical explanation if it was as easy to do as you claim. They finally had a simple reason to increase season tickets and they did. Last year Montana was on the schedule along with "rival SDSU", yet ticket prices didn't go up. This is also the highest aggregate total that a whole season worth of single game tickets cost. Not coincidences.

Wow, the NCAA played it even better than giving "No comment". Basically said that UND is fine to do as they please but if the fans continue to use Sioux or Fighting Sioux in place of "no nickname" which the NCAA is fully aware happens already then all it would take is "other schools" to complain and sanctions are very likely. Basically put it on UND to replace it without actually forcing them to because they know exactly what will happen if "no nickname" is chosen and they keep their hands clean because there is no one to blame but the fans themselves. Well played NCAA. Also the NCAA believes UND has done its best to comply with the settlement agreement, which is what has been stated as the reason the NCAA has refrained from issuing sanctions, despite the dates on the original Settlement Agreement. If this clarification is true, I can't see any possible way that "no nickname" remains as a viable option. Despite the "no nickname" crowd who state they aren't in the Fighting Sioux Forever crowd, there are many who are and will ensure that this becomes an issue.

Figured it was something simple like that. Thanks!

Second this.

If Fargo U's athletic department "could have easily" done it and didn't, then they are pretty incompetent. But I guess money is no issue in Fargo, despite a decade old project still $1.5 million short or the current project having an enormous funding deficit that has caused some pretty significant cuts to the original plans.

As a fan of neither time, not sure how much weight your opinion carries.

It's hilarious how the "scheduling philosophy" keeps changing every time its proven to be false. And as others have stated, you are flat out wrong on the Weber State thing. Kind of like how NDSU fans claimed a few years ago that their athletic department wouldn't make more money on a UND game because they don't believe in dynamic pricing. Yet the UND single game tickets are far and away the highest and season tickets magically went up $20. Not like they haven't been sold out for 3 years or so, yet this is the year they coincidentally go up. Bubba got the game(s) on the schedule at all costs. The next round of negotiations won't go the same way, especially since Fargo U keeps tripping over themselves in their attempts to prove that this is "just another game on the schedule".

2019 is the next 12 game season with 2024 and 2025 being the ones after that. At this point, Iowa will still play NDSU, honoring the signed contract. I don't see them buying it out either with two guys with NDSU ties at the top of the Iowa athletic department. Even if it were to happen, NDSU would use the money to bring a team in instead of travel or a very slim chance of signing a 2 game contract with someone and play the away game that year.