jdub27

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?

There would have to be a long paper trail for your "source" to be correct, including usage agreements, all which would be available with a FOIA request. The GF Herald has requested quite a bit of stuff and hasn't come across anything similar to that and I'm sure they'd be happy to drop that bombshell if true.

This guy might be on to something... What benefit is there for the NCAA to take a stand on a hypothetical situation? There literally is none. They have no obligation to UND other than to point at the signed settlement agreement (which does state UND must pick a new nickname but the interpretations of that have been debated enough).

Not to mention they also have the power to change them as they go along.

What exactly did he "prove"? Seems to me that the only thing that was proven is that despite the nickname debacle, the UND football coaches are able to get recruits to buy in to what they are trying to do. Not sure how you can claim it isn't reality? UND coaches have admitted to having to battle it. Opposing coaches admit to using it. Is it measurable? No. But it is real despite what you try to argue. It is one of many things that UND continues to have to face because the issue isn't resolved and having "no nickname" continues down that path. At what point do all these "little things" that the "no nickname" crowd keeps dismissing as having minimal impact add up to be enough to make them realize that moving on is the only true way to distance UND from the net negative the nickname situation is?

Are you trying to argue that the nickname debacle (in the past and currently) has had absolutely zero impact on recruiting? I don't think anyone has claimed that there is any way to fully know or measure exactly what impact there has been as it is one of hundreds of things that comes into play throughout the recruiting process, but to claim that it hasn't been or isn't brought up and gives some recruits at least something extra to consider is just being naïve. It isn't exactly generating positive press either. Why continue to give opposing coaches an extra arrow in their quiver?

I don't think there is any issues on people saying what they've "heard" or what might happen. That's a long, long ways from claiming its been signed, sealed and delivered for months and a done deal.

I think I've heard "the fix is in" on at least 3 of the final 5 nicknames from various people "in the know", not to mention one or two that "had already been chosen" before they were eliminated in prior rounds. Sad thing is, at least of couple of those people will end up being accidentally right.