KSSioux

Actually there was no Illini tribe at all, which is why they got a pass from the NCAA because they could not get acceptance from them since they did not exist and argued that Illini was "all Illinois people". The NCAA said fine as long as you get rid of Chief Illiniwek we will take you off the list. I personally hated that decision since there were a group of Representatives who was going to introduce a bill which would have likely stopped all of this PC nonsense at the very beginning. Just making sure the facts are out there.

It has been interesting to see the comments in this category around their nickname choices, but I want to switch gears to see what people think regarding the voting numbers. We already know that there are just over 80000 eligible voters. I had guessed 75-100K so I hit that close. My issues are what people may think will be the percentages, and actual voters, on the first ballot. Here is my guess without putting the names attached to avoid that criticism. This is just about the vote total. I will give my reasoning afterwards. I think there will be 40000 voters. Nickname A: 27% Nickname B: 24% Nickname C: 20% Nickname D: 16% Nickname E: 13% I personally think 40000 is a generous number and would not be surprised to see 28-30K due to apathy regarding the drop of the "no nickname" option. Obviously, I feel none of the existing nickname options will get close to 50%, and I think the top two put together will barely eclipse that total. This means that there will be less then 2000 votes separating the #1 from #2 and #2 from #3. This should send shivers up the back of any person that is extremely attached to any of the names, as I feel any of the names could end up in the final two. I have my guess what the final two will be, and based on that I believe the second round of voting will actually have as many, if not a higher total voter count than the first round. There is no stipulation that you must vote in the first round to vote in the second round. What bothers me is that decisions that were made have created more apathy to vote than the nicknames being so good to get a high voter turnout. I know this will be spun like this was not a big issue to the fans by the media, but that is not the case and this is why this process has been so bad. I hope the media reports on this and actually gets voter opinions and actually numbers to back them up.

Goon got the statement from a NCAA spokesman and Pete Johnson with UND admin verified. There is no reason to waive anything in the agreement, because not having a nickname met the requirement, unlike what some folks had been pushing. The reason for this all along is because the NCAA has nothing in their bylaws requiring a member university to have a nickname. This is all moot now because it is not an option.

It has been quoted a couple of times from a NCAA spokesman. That was made pretty clear already.

I am not sure why people do not understand the NCAA must also comply with the settlement agreement. This is a legal document and not a NCAA document. It was stated that not having a nickname would have complied. There is no "partial" compliance or gray area of this agreement, which again is a legal document that the courts said the NCAA must comply with. They stated that no nickname, just remaining North Dakota was compliance. Period. If the NCAA tried to sanction North Dakota based on public speech, I would have been willing to deal with that. I know we are now voting for a new nickname, but there have been a lot of people not honest about the "No nickname" issue.

I am not advocating what this fellow is doing, but what you stated cannot be backed up with anything but the fellows statement. The agreement is a document that must be followed by UND and the NCAA. That is the law, not NCAA conjecture. Not choosing a nickname would have met the requirements, since the NCAA does not have any requirements that a school must have a nickname. As far as the complaint issue, the NCAA has no current grounds to sanction UND since they would have met the requirements of the agreement. Please give me their current guidelines about fans speech that would have backed up this fellows statement. I will save you time, because I have looked, and it does not exist. You can make the same statement about them possibly sanctioning UND if people continue to wear Sioux gear and yell "Sioux" when the new nickname is decided. That does not have standing either, but is just fearmongering. This should have been explained quickly, but I do not feel the administration wanted to, and the Almuni Administration has just been hands off in this whole process (other than information for voter id), which is also sad.

I love how you "conjecture". Did I state anywhere in my statement about not voting for Rough Riders or Roughriders. I did not, but wanted to make clear that "Fighting", or even another adjective (hopefully with some support from a majority) could be added to NoDaks. It was stated pretty clear in this process that the names could be adjusted in that way if necessary. As far as on front of jerseys, in some cases North was on top of Dakota (especially in basketball, also in hockey in the 90's), and Rough Riders would not work that way. It could be scripted across in some jerseys, I will agree, but it has its limitations that way.

It can be added to NoDaks once it is selected and it goes to the marketing firm for logo, imaging, etc. These names can be adjusted like that. Yes "Fighting" was added to the Sioux name, but you would get arguments exactly when that happened. Just like Sioux was used you would see "NoDaks" on jerseys and not the word "Fighting". One thing some of the "Rida" supporters on here will not mention is how the name would actually work on Jerseys. It would make it a must to use a logo, like it or not, as Roughrider or Rough Rider (you do not know which you are voting for do you) would be too long to use on a jersey. If a name was used it would likely be "Rider", or shortened some other way if put on a jersey.

Actually, based on the talk of the people on this site in accordance with what they believe regarding what will get us sanctioned, Tomek's helmet would put us in that category. And yes, if a goalie put the Brien logo on his helmet, that would be an issue. I do not have a problem with his helmet, I just do not like hypocrisy.

I find it interesting that folks are talking about feathers on logos being not acceptable, with some of the same people using scare tactics, but have been silent about Tomek's helmet. Have these same people not seen his new helmet design? I am not voting for Fighting Hawks, but it will be sad to see what the designs actually are if we try to make everyone happy.

Poolman

Wayne, hit the nail on the head as far as why I am choosing NoDak's. It has been used previously, has history beyond the other ridiculous options. Any of the nicknames left can be used as a "slur" to the university in some way, and it is the most unique, workable option left for me. I would hope those that wanted the "North Dakota" option left on the table would hop on this band wagon. My opinion is it is the best choice we have.

I would like to point out something regarding the statement that the NCAA made (taking it as the truth based on two sources, for what that is worth) regarding remaining just "North Dakota" without a nickname meeting the settlement agreement. While I agree the NCAA is a despicable association and not to be trusted, folks have to understand that the settlement agreement was not from the NCAA, but a legal agreement between the NCAA and UND that BOTH have to abide under as law. That the NCAA stated that remaining North Dakota meets the settlement agreement means just that, it fulfills the requirement. If the NCAA did state that it would look at complaints of people wearing Sioux gear or yelling Sioux cheers, that is just sheer idiocy that is not backed up by anything within the agreement. The NCAA stating that remaining North Dakota meets the requirement, means it does just that. Anyone stating that they could come back with, "They could have done more, so we are putting them on sanctions" is just totally fear mongering. If North Dakota meets the requirement, it meets the requirement, Period. The NCAA would have to come up with another avenue to sanction the university other than the settlement agreement, because that was met according to their own statement. I personally do not think they would do that because they would have to sanction the fans free speech and not anything the university had done wrong according to the settlement agreement, which they said they had met. I would remind folks that the NCAA in the agreement had to state that they had found nothing "hostile or abusive" with the way UND had used the name or logo. They also have the intellectual property protection section, which requires UND to protect the name Fighting Sioux and the logo. Based on these last two points, I doubt they could now say they are offensive based on others complaints, because they would have their own words to fight in the legal aspect of the settlement agreement that they must also follow.

It is part of the argument because it is in the agreement that some like to reference only the section(s) for what they think will find useful and neglect others.

As the question should be asked than if Rough Riders/Roughriders would be acceptable.

Please read the intellectual property portion of the agreement. It is specific to the name and logo.

Those that get downsized are usually not replaced by a company, but other folks do their job. Just being North Dakota can serve the "job" as a nickname. Just as good of an example as yours. The NCAA does not have a nickname policy. By the way, why would the NCAA have included the intellectual property language in the settlement agreement? Why would they care that UND protect the Brien logo and name "Fighting Sioux"?

You hit the nail on the head as far as the NCAA has NO policy on requiring the usage of a nickname. You can replace something with nothing and it is "new". See Mathematics 101, although that is not Lawyer 101, which I agree can mean anything. The scare tactics folks reference this "new" language, but using that same logic the NCAA could put us on the list by them finding Rough Riders/Roughriders as offensive. I do not agree with either, but it is the same logic. Then again some folks on here seem to think they know what is best for the university.

I am definitely in the remaining North Dakota group and realize that the university will never use the Fighting Sioux in athletic competition again. My point has always been that if a nickname cannot beat out remaining North Dakota head to head, we should remain North Dakota. I just do not feel any of the remaining nicknames are better than remaining North Dakota. I do want to make a couple of points regarding the "we need a new nickname" folks regarding the marketing and profiting standpoint. There are many universities that stray away from their nicknames for marketing purposes, and I believe we can do that as well. A couple of examples are as follows: Stanford Cardinal - a university with a color as a nickname, but a tree as a symbol/mascot Auburn Tigers - rather generic nickname, but the "war eagle" chant/phrase is quite awesome Alabama Crimson Tide - What the heck does an elephant have to do with Alabama? I can give a few more, but you get the jest of it. I find it a great failure on marketing ability if we cannot do something around North Dakota. I will give a couple of examples that could be done from recent postings and usage: "Roll Tribe" could be used by either remaining North Dakota or with the nickname NoDaks. "Force of the North" was used on athletic posters in the mid 2000's and could be a good phrase that can be used. These are just a couple of examples, but if we actually had a marketing group worth anything they could do better, or maybe ask for suggestions on that front as well.

If ou are correct the committee got rid of it because of the "unofficially being the Fighting Sioux" you just made the groups point. The committee should never have let that play a part in their decision.

I would give the folks a break regarding the gear they are wearing. Please read the settlement agreement regarding intellectual property. The university must maintain copyright/trademark of the Brien logo and the name "Fighting Sioux" or be out of compliance with the agreement. They are wearing a logo/name of the university, but it just cannot be used by the university in events anymore. Those folks realized that as it was a part of the on line petition. I realize most folks just focused on the scare tactics of "replacement" wording in the agreement, but there is more to it than that.

I think another option that is way to logical for Kelley to employ is to add North Dakota back on the list and put them to a vote. If there is no winner that gets greater than 50%, cut the list in half with the top vote getters moving on. Put it to a vote again and if nothing on the ballot gets greater than 50% put the top two on the ballot again, and the winner is what we are known as from that time forward.

Appreciate your question, and I will explain my opinion and philosophy. First, I would not use a percentage (85%) in your argument as you have no clue as to what is in the minds of folks who want no nickname. I am in your so called "no nickname" crowd, but have stated I would move on if a nickname was put forth along with remaining "North Dakota" to a vote and the majority wins. I also am offended with folks who have used the scare tactic of being put back on the NCAA naughty list if a nickname is not chosen. If President Kelley had not discussed that possibility with the NCAA and did not report that back he should have left much sooner than he is going to. Please review the NCAA agreement and as I also have mentioned before the toughest issue for the university is maintaining the logo and nickname intellectual property.

Are you kidding with the continuing fear factor of remaining North Dakota. I just stated why my preference is NoDak's, if it is not remaining North Dakota. I stated nothing about "Fighting Sioux", as no matter the choice people will still wear what they want and say what they want. As far as the "fear factor" that some are portraying to remaining North Dakota, if President Kelley has not discussed this possibility with Emmert, he should have retired far before January 2016. I am going with the hope that he actually did his job and discussed this with the NCAA.

Sorry, but I just stated my opinion on why NoDak's are my preference if it is not remaining North Dakota. One person on the nickname committee stated at the beginning of the process they were trying to get away from nicknames that would create these sorts of issues. I do have thick skin, and I just referenced a problem with another of the remaining nicknames. I would have had no issues if Rough Riders were the nickname from the beginning of the existence of UND. I agree that with any nickname chosen someone will come up with some offensive way to portray that nickname for some group of people. Just pointing out once again that the committee wanted to stay away from nicknames that could do that, which I thought from the beginning was impossible. Just stay North Dakota, and get rid of any problems.