Benny Baker

I'm fine with Roughriders, but I've always stated that my preference would be to stay North Dakota/UND. I've never hid that. However, there's about a half dozen overly pessimistic fanatics on this message board who tirelessly read into things too much and make false assumption that the North Dakota/UND crowd is motivated by some deceitful desire to have UND adopt Fighting Sioux again and destroy the university. My preference for staying North Dakota/UND has absolutely nothing to do with the Fighting Sioux. That was my point earlier. As for my interest in Roughriders, my fear is that with four other names going to the public vote (whatever that vote entails), that UND will be stuck with a completely generic or extremely underwhelming nickname like Fighting Hawks or Sundogs.

It's about more than purchasing clothes.

perpetuity then.

What if some fans, alumni, stakeholders, etc. have come accustomed to North Dakota/UND over the past three years and think North Dakota/UND is a unique, suitable option moving forward? I personally like it much better than Sundogs and its inevitable logo of a husky with a linear rainbow shooting out of its ass. But that's just me; I'm personally content with North Dakota/UND for the time being.

Ermines?

I think it's also important to point out that NCAA sanctions aren't necessarily designed to directly limit free speech. Take the South Carolina sanction for example. The NCAA has acknowledged the state is free to fly its flag, but if they do, South Carolina member institutions cannot host NCAA tournament events.

The problem is that the NCAA is not a state actor or, ultimately, the government. The first amendment and free speech laws are not necessarily going to apply to NCAA rules and procedures.

Waiting for the next quarterly meeting for the NCAA Board of Governors to convene, recommend, vote upon, and ultimately pass a new policy and set of sanctions is easier than enforcing an already existing, written agreement? Or you could just admit you're wrong.

Hey, whatever helps you cope with reality.

Yup, like I said, the sanctions everyone is talking about do not even exist.

Hey, whatever helps you cope with reality.

Oh, boy. Here we go again. Ask jdub or 82SiouxGuy about how wrong they were on that one. . . . Or, just read the first half of this thread.

Are you kidding me? That link has absolutely nothing to do with UND competing as UND, but absolutely everything to do with UND competing as "Fighting Sioux"! Like I just said, UND will face sanctions for competing as the Fighting Sioux. No one has ever disputed that! How conveniently you forget the addendum that lifted sanctions against UND, and the herald article that just confirmed that playing as UND does not violate the settlement agreement. By the way, feel free to admit that your 100% wrong on that one. Your unabashed, albeit completely incorrect opinion, is etched in stone on the first several pages of this thread. Simply put, there are no current sanctions in place against UND for competing as UND . . . otherwise, UND would have been on sanctions for the past three years! The NCAA would have to adopt new sanctions against UND for competing as UND. I've never said the NCAA can't do that. What I have said, however, is that I'm not going to live in fear of potential future sanctions that do not even exist but ultimately depend on (1) "fans resumed using Sioux"; and (2) that "other schools might--might--complain."

Can you please cite to those sanctions then? Of course sanctions are in existence if UND plays as the "Fighting Sioux", which everyone agrees they are not. So, the NCAA would have to adopt a new policy and commission new sanctions in the event (1) "fans resumed using Sioux"; and (2) "other schools might--might--complain." I am not aware of any NCAA policy or applicable sanctions that currently apply to a university that competes simply as the name of its institution. Put another way, there is no current policy in existence that would result in sanctions against UND for competing as UND. If you think I am wrong, will you please provide a link to that policy and/or sanctions for everyone on this message board to see? Thank you.

That's the problem. These sanctions don't exist. As the gf herald reported, for what it's worth: "(H)e was told—just as a friendly word—that if fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux, the NCAA believes it is possible that other schools might—might—complain and that, in turn, could result in sanctions," UND spokesman Peter Johnson said in the email. So yes, (1) "if fans resumed using Sioux" (whatever that means); and (2) "it is possible that other schools might--might--complain"; then (3) it "could result in sanctions."

presupposing that those fanbases had not continued to use their former nicknames and/or that other schools obviously did not complain, of course. Moreover, the NCAA's position via-a-vis other member institutions is not a great barometer of the NCAA's position with respect to any other school. If it was, I'd say throw "Fighting Sioux" back on the ballot because the Seminoles, Aztecs, Utes, and Fighting Irish are free to use ethnic or race-related nicknames. At the end of the day, however, I'm not going to live in fear of potential sanctions that aren't currently in existence.

Lest we forget, there is little to suggest that a new nickname would alleviate UND from potential sanctions. In fact, the recent Herald article explained that the NCAA would investigate UND if other schools complained about continued use of Fighting Sioux, and that UND would simply encourage its fanbase to adopt the new nickname instead of continuing to use Fighting Sioux. Don't be so certain that a new nickname fixes the problem. This is just one of the many new questions that this new threat of sanctions has raised.

Awesome, thanks!

Just curious, does someone know of or can someone round up a list of schools that have changed their respective nickname as a result of the 2005 NCAA policy? It would be interesting to look into what process(es) those schools took to make the transition. Thanks in advance!

yeah, he probably focused on his national championship success and ESPN's visits to Fargo. No real reason for him to bring up anything about a nickname. Turning to another sport, how do sanctions affect the basketball teams? We know grand forks is too small to host ncaa regionals. Or do opposing recruiters come up with some lame line like, "hey, if you go to und, you can't play wisconsin or minnesota!"? Maybe UND's fan base is using the nickname issue as a crutch due to the likely mediocrity UND athletics has faced after transitioning to a more difficult D-1 schedule.

Yup, it's their jobs. If they can't hack it, I'm certain the UND community will/are welcoming their replacements with open arms.

Thanks for the negative reputation vote, fightingsioux4live! The athletic budget does not go toward "the nickname fight", btw.

But you're forgetting that, according to the anti-UND/North Dakota crowd, the lack or a new nickname is the root of all evil! Surely women's basketball would have made the big dance and the football team would have been national champions in consecutive seasons if only there was a Sundog on their jerseys!

It's also important to point out that neither the article nor the NCAA have said a new nickname would alleviate UND from potential, alleged sanctions, whatever those may be. What the article does say, however, is that the NCAA would investigate if they received complaints about UND fans resuming the use of Fighting Sioux. Whether or not UND adopts a new nickname is immaterial; the NCAA will investigate continued use of Fighting Sioux. For myriad reasons, including the fact that the NCAA is requiring UND to use and protect the fighting sioux trademark, I cannot realistically foresee the NCAA adopting new sanctions because UND fans are using the Fighting Sioux name.... New nickname or not, there definitely needs to be more clarity to this issue.