- Popular Post
KSSioux
-
Posts
248 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by KSSioux
-
-
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.
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.
-
All most are asking is for clarification on if selecting no nickname satisfies the signed agreement between the state of North Dakota and the NCAA. You even say above that its not clearly defined and could mean anything. Therefore, it is not a scare tactic, its a legitimate question that should have been answered at the start but needs to be answered before things move along any further.
As the question should be asked than if Rough Riders/Roughriders would be acceptable.
-
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)?
Please read the intellectual property portion of the agreement. It is specific to the name and logo.
-
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.
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"?
-
I haven't spent much time following the nickname issue (thank God), but I popped over to see what's going on. My suggestion on this issue is: read the agreement.
I thought this thread was silly. (Of course no nickname is fine, as it is plainly not offensive.) I was surprised to see the agreement clearly state that UND must transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the policy. Wow, who drafted and signed off on this thing?
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me UND would at a minimum need a legal opinion or some kind of formal no-action letter from the NCAA stating that "no nickname and logo" would not violate the agreement.
Perhaps the NCAA has some rule requiring all member schools to have a nickname and logo. If not, UND may be in the unique position of being the only member school legally required to have them. Hilarious.
For the record, I'd love UND to permanently have no nickname and logo.
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.
-
The copyright issue has nothing to do with it. The best chance for the nickname crowd to prove their point is by distancing themselves from the Fighting Sioux Forever folks. Otherwise, it just looks like they want to unofficially be FS, which is why the committee got rid of it in the first place.
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.
-
Yeah. I think if you are going to protest about wanting The name to be UND you should wear gear to reflect that.
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.
-
I have a question for everyone as it relates to this topic. Not trying to start any arguments, just looking for an honest answer from people. There are obviously two sides to this, people that don't want a nickname and people that do want a nickname. For arguments sake I know there are some that just like the name North Dakota but it's pretty obvious about 85% of the no nickname crowd is Sioux forever people. So we have Sioux forever vs a new nickname. What that new name is doesn't matter for my question.
My question is why should the portion of the fanbase/alums/students that want to move on have to wait 10-15 years so the other group of fans can properly mourn the Sioux name before we select a new one?
The other thing is the group of fans/alums wanting to move on MIGHT be bigger. Yes they may disagree on what the new name is but every poll I have seen tells me more fans want to move on with some kind of name. I'm not talking a specific name I am talking any name vs no nickname.
So, why should the "potential," majority have to wait for the "potential," minority to properly mourn the Sioux name before moving? Again not trying to start a big argument just curious what people's thoughts are?
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? Staying North Dakota will not eliminate problems with taunts. People are pretty darned clever, they'll find something. And by not having a nickname, that alone will induce ridicule.
Plus, that bonus with reminaing just North Dakota is...you effectively remain...the de facto....Fighting Sioux. Here, I will admit it's a grey area. We don't know what the implications would be.
Why take that chance?
Go Ridas!
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.
-
Just my humble opinion, but you should grow some thicker skin. Is this a problem right now at Red River High School games (I mean, the rivalry between Red River and Central is pretty toxic at times, i.e. the whole "Cake Eaters" vs. "White Trash" thing from a few years ago -- but nothing about condoms -- as I would imagine that is pretty unoriginal by today's standards)? I also have not heard much about this sort of thing at USC athletic contests, again, probably because it comes off as so cliche, as in, one could do a whole lot better.
Lastly, it's not as if our rivals were playing nice with us when we were the Fighting Sioux with the stunts they pulled, but somehow we were able to sleep at night. 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.
-
Just 1 question.
What's your idea for a logo?
What is the logo for the Fighting Illini? That is why I referenced them as being direct comparison to NoDak's. I am sure someone would try to come up with some sort of representation. That should be voted on as well. This was just my opinion on what would be my preference if not just remaining North Dakota.
-
Why NoDak's would work. This is my second choice behind remaining North Dakota, because I cannot stomach the idea of condoms being thrown on the ice or courts of our hockey, basketball, volleyball etc. teams. I think the closest analogy to NoDak's is the Illinois Fighting Illini. The NCAA originally had them on the naughty list, but they said they could not get a tribal support because there was no such thing as the Illini tribe. Illini was a generic term for Illinois people, hence NoDak's would be for all North Dakota people. Granted Illinois did have Chief Iliniwek (spelling?), but the NCAA was OK with their reasoning as long as they did away with using him as well as any Native American imagery that they had used in the past.
I think there are good marketing and copyright phrases that could be done by the marketing group and the symbol of what a NoDak would look like is the only concern that I have based on what the marketing company would come up with. Things to go along with NoDak Nation and old terms such as Roll Tribe could be used since a tribe is a group of people.
Just my opinion on why it is my second choice ahead of the others.
-
1
-
-
And if they continue to make limited edition shirts or apparel, they are doing that. They released 50 at Scheels and 50 at the Sioux Shop, sold them and made money. Not sure how that is hard to prove? They will have to use all the previous marks in order to stay in compliance, not just the Brien logo. It was included for the reasons you stated, so that it didn't fall into the public domain and it remained under control. I'd love to print up some apparel with some of the logos from way back and sell them for a nice profit. Don't see that happening (legally) in the future. I guess other than some sort of hypocrisy (which is synonymous with the NCAA), I didn't see it as all that strange. The NCAA deemed allowing very limited runs of apparel to be better than it being freely available for public use.
You are correct, other than the word "limited". That would be very troublesome to any patent attorney fighting for folks that are against the university. I have numerous patents and have helped in getting trademarked names. I would ask that you read up on the trademark definitions, and it does go beyond a "limited" edition of a few items. That would be very hard to defend if they had to, and my argument was that according to the agreement that is more worrisome than the wording of "replacement" for the name. Do you think it was through the NCAA's kind heart that they allowed the logos in the Ralph to stay? They knew of this wording and it gives a way for the university to help protect these trademarks through historical and very open display, which is one point of a trademarked item. It had nothing to do with their kindness. My point is that this section was always going to be a conundrum both the school and the NCAA were going to have to walk a fine line with.
-
This was addressed in 2013: Dacotah Legacy Collection
Not sure how fans shouting "Fighting Sioux" or wearing old clothing helps UND in regards to this.
You must create commerce with the logo and nickname within three years. Try finding this "collection", and prove that UND is making money off of the Fighting Sioux name and the Ben Brien logo. Someone can easily create something with the logo and a derogatory saying regarding the NCAA on it and the university would have to go after them according to the NCAA. It is baffling to me how their is a lack of understanding regarding this section and how crazy it is that it was included in this way. I agree it will be very difficult to manage, but that is why I bring it up, and does not mean that I am wrong.
-
The couple of years has shown that most will continue to use the Fighting Sioux nickname because there is nothing to fill the void. Leaving the void open will do nothing but continue that. Picking something new gives people guidance on where to go. Of course there will be people that will continue to use it, regardless of what is chosen but those people will slowly dwindle, as has happened at every other school and college that has went through the same process. That doesn't mean that people forget about it, but it means that people understand what is best for the University.
I would very much argue that the NCAA feels the school has moved on. They had representatives in Fargo at the regionals and heard the Sioux chants. And as tSic would say, Marco Hunt being on the ice in Boston wasn't a coincidence/mistake it was a message...
Please read the section on Intellectual Property (I believe section 2 - subsection J) before you keep spouting off on people keeping on chanting the Fighting Sioux. Anyone who has any background in IP knows the school is in more trouble with the NCAA agreement and how it will keep the trademark of Fighting Sioux and the Ben Brien logo, than if we remain just North Dakota. According to the agreement the school must maintain the rights to these or give them up to one of the local tribes. So regardless of what nickname, or having no nickname (by the way you can replace something with nothing - ask anyone who has been part of downsizing, or just anyone who knows basic math), those people who continue to shout Sioux, or wear the logo are actually helping to keep the agreement with the NCAA according to the IP section.
I am definitely on record as wanting whatever name to go up against remaining North Dakota and needing to have it create a majority to win. I know that is now how it must be according to the committee, but that does not mean it is not the right thing to do.
-
Want the problem with the NDSU faculty letter?
I can give it to you two-fold:
1. They have no idea that the Nokota breed of horse got its name from the state (North Dakota). Now if a horse by itself is "too Native American", can we pass off the Crusades as done by Native Americans (not the Christian church) because Crusaders rode horses? It makes about as much sense.
2. I'll let them show their ignorance themselves:
Uh ... "early in the selection process" would be about ... three years ago.
There's a huge difference between educated, knowledgeable, and smart. They've borne that out.
"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society"
Theodore Roosevelt
-
2
-
-
Perception is a two way street. For the very reasons Cavalry and how/why it possibly could be chosen disgusts your wife I guarantee there are plenty on the opposite side of that perception and would be all for it.
Just saying............
Yes, we both agree with that. Unfortunately there are folks who want to "stick it to the man", whether it be the NCAA or for those misinformed the Sioux people. That is why any nickname should need a majority of votes that would surpass remaining North Dakota. If that is the case than it would have to be lived with by those alumni, faculty, and students of the University.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Read that KSSioux's wife, who is part NA, was/is "disgusted" by the fact that Cavalry is still in the running. Guess I struggle to see where at this stage in the nickname game the NA population's opinion is relevant. They, as a collected group, had ample opportunities to help resolve the "Fighting Sioux" issue. Right now it is what it is...........IMO it's time for the NA community to step aside on this issue and just take whatever becomes of it. Roughriders, Spirit, Cavalry, Sundogs or Fighting Greens........very few are going to be happy with the ultimate outcome. But for those within the NA community, and not singling out KSSioux's wife, to go from "hostile and abusive" with "Fighting Sioux" to now "disgusted" that Cavalry is still on the board...............I have a problem with that.
FYI, my wife is disgusted that Cavalry made the list, but she did state that if UND's nickname had been Cavalry all along, she would not have had a problem with it. The big issue is in the perception of how/why now that nickname would be chosen and the perception that follows.
-
I still have yet to see anything that could remotely be considered accurate that claims the "majority" opinion is to remain North Dakota. What group are you basing this off of? Alumni, donors, season ticket holders, anonymous internet comments?
Did the NCAA come out with some sort of ruling that clarified this? The wording of the settlement agreement is definitely open for debate. I personally don't see how dropping Fighting Sioux and then doing nothing further can be considered "adopting a new nickname". Not have a nickname is definitely not adopting something and North Dakota is clearly not new. It also leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and UND continues to wallow in the same mess it is trying to get out of.
Well I guess we cannot let facts get in the way. Please look at the number of recommendations to the committee that had North Dakota, or some form thereof as the lead option (other than remaining Fighting Sioux). There is fact #1 regarding a majority view. Also, look at the Forum poll which has remaining North Dakota as the majority opinion. Facts are on my side. As far as the NCAA goes, there is legal jargon involved, but officially making it North Dakota would satisfy the requirement. I stated that we could trademark a slogan such as "Force of the North" to be used. It does not have to be a nickname. I stated it already had been used on a couple of occasions already by the University.
-
I would agree with this. Don't think North Dakota ends up on the ballot though for many reasons. I know a few on the committee and I don't see them letting it happen. They know what is best for UND.
I would disagree with this comment. If remaining North Dakota is not on the list, this whole thing is a farce as it is a majority opinion that it be included from the polls and the suggestions to the committee. I know one person, hand selected by Kelley, will likely lobby for North Dakota not being on the list. I stated before, any nickname should be good enough to beat remaining North Dakota by a vote. If it does not, we remain North Dakota, which is the official change of nickname required by the NCAA. I would not oppose them trademarking a phrase such as, "Force of the North", but not as an official nickname. It obviously was used already on a few sports posters in the 2005-2007 years, and would be OK with me.
Bottom line, to suggest "what is best for UND" is just an opinion. It is likely due to the "opinion" that a nickname and new logo will bring in more money for UND, which is Kelley's progressive view and is just that, an opinion. Whose to say that the marketing group could not come up with a North Dakota trademarked script or logo, or the trademarked phrase like "Force of the North" that would do better than anything else.
My wife is part native American and loved the nickname "Fighting Sioux", but was disgusted that Cavalry made the list. She saw nothing beneficial and thought folks would vote for it as a slap in the face of the NCAA and also native americans (which a majority was in favor of the nickname).
-
1
-
1
-
-
And how exactly does having a nickname change any of the bolded? Somehow preventing the Athletic Department from having another arrow in their quiver for marketing and brand identification/awareness is a good idea? And to your comment about thousands
There is zero chance that picking no nickname will energize more donors. If people weren't donating when UND had the Fighting Sioux logo/nickname, having no nickname isn't going to magically inspire them to start donating money.
And from a public relations standpoint, it would be a disaster. A press conference that is a big middle finger to the NCAA? I'm sure they won't mind, at least until they need a distraction from some sort of scandal at a P5 school.
Actually your "zero chance" is not correct. I have limited my donations to a specific area based on the administrations handling of this issue, as many friends of mine have done as well. The majority of people want it to remain North Dakota, and unless a true majority votes for a nickname/logo that would beat out remaining North Dakota head to head, I would continue to adjust my donations accordingly. In discussions with friends of mine they feel the same way. It was easy to contact the previous admins regarding any issue, but this administration is horrible.
Also, staying North Dakota does not give a middle finger to the NCAA as there have been some scare tactic folks on this forum that have brought that up. The NCAA only cared that the Fighting Sioux name not be used anymore.
As far as the dollars from a new logo/nickname, that is still up in the air and any predictions regarding that are just opinions. UND must make money off of the Fighting Sioux logos (geometric, Brien, etc.) to maintain copyrights for those. The Dakotah Legacy area is that opportunity, and that will also be a money maker that folks have not considered.
-
1
-
-
Uh ... there's a Native American on the selection committee. Toast.
He was placed on the committee (hand picked by President Kelley), as a native American who was against the "Fighting Sioux" sobriquet. You can form your own opinions why he did that, and not include a native American who was for the "Fighting Sioux" as well, but it is what it is. Everyone knew that the "Fighting Sioux" was gone, but I think he wanted to make a statement.
NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname
in UND Nickname
Posted
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.