jdub27

At what date was UND "in compliance"? To "remain in compliance" at the date of the addendum (which was only in relation to imagery at the REA and BESC), they would have had to previously be "in compliance". Yet you also claim that the addendum removed UND from the sanctions list and put them "in compliance". How can it be both? And because UND was outwardly doing anything that appeared to be transitioning to a new nickname does not mean that there weren't internal workings that were shared with the NCAA. By publicly moving towards a new nickname, they would have been in violation of the state law. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything going on within.

My take: UND was in compliance with the purpose and intent that was the basis for the settlement agreement but due to outside forces beyond their control, the time line portion of it was thrown off. Because UND continued to show they were working towards transitioning towards a new nickname (and had dropped the previous nickname and logo), the NCAA used its discretion to continue to (at the time) overlook the dates and leave them off the sanctions list knowing that they had the power to put UND back on the sanctions list if things didn't continue to progress. I get your point about the timeline. I don't think the NCAA had much to gain by punishing UND for the ND State Legislature's actions and choose not to because UND appeared to be trying to adhere to the intent of the settlement agreement.

You have a pretty broad and liberal interpretation of how an addendum that was done specifically to clarify the imagery allowable at the REA and BESC modifies other terms of the original settlement agreement even though they aren't mentioned or specifically laid out. Like I said, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. If the NCAA truly just wanted to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname and didn't care after that, why wouldn't they have used to that language instead of specifically saying UND needed to transition to a new nickname?

Bubba's comments on the radio yesterday made it sound like they were still appealing it but not 100% and not sure how successful they will be if that is the case.

Highlights from Saturday's game/scrimmage: http://www.undsports.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=3990798

Pretty sure UND had already or was on the way to being removed from the sanctions list. UND quit using the nickname on 12/31/11, almost a full year before the addendum. The state voted in June of 2012 to officially retire the nickname. The addendum did not remove them, it clarified some things regarding imagery in the REA and the Betty. You also quit your quote halfway through a sentence that finished with "if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement."

Yet you claiming people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname when that has nothing to do with anything makes sense?

Your claim that people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname is most definitely a straw man argument. That is not why people want to move on. They want to move on because it is what is best for the University of North Dakota. Now feel free to explain why continuing to fight for something that is gone and that will knowingly harm or put UND at a disadvantage is a good idea. And moving forward with no nickname falls into that category as it leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and gives people reason to drag up this whole mess every time it is mentioned why UND has chose not to have a nickname.

Remains as they are continuing to work towards transitioning towards a new nickname which is why they were at the time in compliance. The action of retiring the old nickname and moving to a new one is what got them removed from the sanctions list and in compliance. While UND did not have a new nickname at the time, there were no intentions of them not choosing a new nickname, one of the points of the original settlement agreement that is not addressed in the addendum.

Straw man argument. What you continue to miss is that what is more important to people than a nickname is the University of North Dakota, athletic department and student athletes. The nickname has become a net negative to all of those groups. Why people, who claim to be supporters of these groups, want to fight for something (as great as it may be) to would cause intentional harm or disadvantage them is beyond me.

The part where is says "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment"? I don't see anything that would supersede the original agreement that UND has to transition towards a new nickname. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. I also really don't care to watch UND test the NCAA again and find out where they really stand.

UND was removed from the sanctions list because it announced and started the process of transitioning towards a new nickname, which was agreed upon in Section 2.g. of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement did not state that UND had to have the transition completed before being removed from the sanction list.

All that may be true but I'm not sure its relevant in this case. UND and the State of ND signed a binding settlement agreement that that UND could be placed back on the sanctions list for not complying with the settlement agreement, regardless of what other rules there may be. By signing the settlement agreement, UND and the NCAA agreed to a new set of rules. I guess UND could turn around and try to sue them again if they think it is unfair but we saw how well that went the last time, and honestly, just moving on would be incredibly easier and we wouldn't have to have these round and round debates.

UND not choosing a nickname is basically telling the NCAA they are fine with the continued "unofficial" use of Fighting Sioux and make no mistake about it, that is the main reason for the support of no nickname. As long as UND can show its progressing towards a new nickname, the NCAA has nothing to gain by threatening or imposing sanctions. If UND changes course and challenges the NCAA (again), I fully would expect the NCAA to impose sanctions (which is acceptable in the mutually agreed upon settlement agreement). Because the NCAA hasn't found the proper violation from a P5 school that requires that sort of distraction yet. Or they see UND has moved forward in good faith within the terms that were put on them by outside controls (state legislature). Again, the nickname issue continues to be nothing but a net negative for the University as a whole. There is no measurable way that any positives outweigh the negatives for the University, athletic department or student athletes. Moving on is the only way to fix that.

The Herald must be seeing the writing on the wall that they are going to lose a good amount of hard copy space and online clicks as the nickname debacle finally (hopefully) winds down. Now they are just openly trying to get people riled up again...

Don't underestimate DB's arrogance.

Bubba was on Tim and Swyg this morning. Sounds like pretty much the whole team plus around 10 incoming players are going to be in town for the summer. Glad to see those numbers at where they need to be.

Also, Will Ratelle just looks like a beast.

Last I checked, the credit earned for winning a play-by-play game is the same as a win in any other round. Not all bad if your going to be a low seed.

Boosts attendance. People can plan ahead because they know their team will be there. Don't agree with it but I understand it.

Iverson has been playing some TE to go along with FB They are trying to find ways to move Fiedler around outside of just the TE spot to create mismatches The WR group has been the group that has made the most strides and surprised the coaches the most despite the injuries they've had. Cerriteno, who had quite a few drops last year, got some new prescription contacts and it has made a world of difference for him, catching almost everything now. To no one's surprise, the OL is still up in the air and the QB battle is far from decided.

I'd assume that since UND rents the Alerus Center and doesn't own it nor run the concession stands, there is some sort of concessions profit sharing. I'm sure its a nice add-on but I doubt the it is big enough to significantly move the needle.

Not sure why the finger would be pointed at any of the local media when UND themselves aren't doing much to promote it. I know its partially by design because of the circumstances and it isn't even a true scrimmage but it is still disappointing.

They have a strong women's club hockey team, so clearly there is interest and ability there. They'd be admitted to the WCHA easily. Despite the outcry, that seems more likely than lacrosse does. At the moment, I don't see anything being added until students start showing more "interest". Or at least that's my personal opinion.

Tailgating will be allowed in the same fashion as it is at the Alerus in the designated parking lots. Port-a-potties will be available in the parking lots and inside the stadium.