Benny Baker

Yes, this is the credited response.

It's kind of odd how many people are quick to diminish the no nickname crowd as a simple, vocal minority as if there's some large contingent of pro-new nicknamers staying silent and waiting to come out of the woodwork for the public vote.

That's pretty odd considering the Blackhawks played in the Stanley Cup finals in May 1992.

Or the semblance of a rainbow!

Let's not forget the Dutchmen and Ragin' Cajuns!

I think every agrees that the Fighting Sioux name isn't coming back . . . other than maybe those 30 people that recently showed up to an ad hoc "no nickname" protest while oddly shouting "Fighting Sioux forever".

Totally Agree. Similar to what I mentioned earlier, I have a hard time reconciling the idea that NCAA would actually go through the administrative hoops to sanction a university without a nickname because other schools are complaining that fans are continuing to wear "Fighting Sioux" clothes while the Central Michigan Chippewa and Florida State Seminole fans are painting their faces and mimicking tomahawk chops. And really, what school is going to take time to complain to the NCAA about UND when much more is happening at those other campuses around the country? But then again, maybe the higher ups in academia have too much time on their hands.

Well, maybe we're just talking semantics then. I guess the way I read it is that sanctions are likely if fans start using the Fighting Sioux logo and other schools complain about it.

I don't know, you're clearly asking me to speculate. I don't know what constitutes "if fans resume using Sioux"; i.e, one, several, plurality, or a majority of fans? Does it take one sporting event, several, or a majority? I don't know the basis upon which the NCAA "believes other schools will complain" nor am I aware of whether one, several, or many complaints are necessary to force the NCAA into action. Has the NCAA received any complaints from any other schools over the past three years? Are these schools complaining about the University of North Dakota while not mentioning a word about other schools that promote Native American imagery? I don't know what specific, additional steps the NCAA would need to take in order to levy sanctions against UND in this instance. They would first need to go through the administrative procedure of adopting a new executive committee policy. I don't know what that all entails. Even if they do, we don't even know what the sanctions would be. So, I don't know the answer to your question.

But only if UND picks a new nickname.

No, not at all. This thread involved a discussion of whether "no nickname" violated the settlement agreement. We both know that. Peter Johnson's e-mail absolutely, 100% confirmed that I was correct; i.e., no nickname will not result in sanctions. I've quoted the e-mail below for those who have not read it or for those who may need a refresher. 1. "If fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux"; 2. "the NCAA believes other schools will complain about" it; and 3. Those two prerequisites "would very likely result in sanctions." I'm not disputing that statement at all. But that statement does not mean that no nickname equals sanctions. What the statement does mean, however, is that: (1) if fans resume using Fighting Sioux; and (2) if other school's complain about it; then (3) it could very likely result in sanctions. Eric, thanks for the email and the support for our university. The NCAA says there would not be a violation of the settlement agreement as far as they are concerned if UND didn't adopt a new nickname. However, the NCAA did say that if fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux, the NCAA believes other schools will complain and that, in turn, would very likely result in sanctions. The NCAA does seem to believe that UND has done its best to comply with the settlement agreement.

Not saying it won't happen, but it's hard to reconcile the notion that an opposing school would actually complain to the NCAA about a university with no nickname because a subset of that unversity's fan base reveres a retired logo even though the complaining school will also compete against the likes of the Central Michigan, Utah, San Diego State, Florida State, etc., all of which openly endorse the use of Native American imagery.

Right! The e-mail confirmed that failure to adopt a new nickname will not result in sanctions because it does not violate the settlement agreement.

My guess would be a new executive committee policy. Just throwing it out there, but lack of institutional control that encourages and fosters "hostile and abusive" undertones at sporting events. I know that sounds dumb, but so does sanctioning a school for not having a nickname, apparently. Agree with your later point. I think the e-mail correspondence was genuine and honest, but then again, it was a brief e-mail paraphrasing what the NCAA apparently told a UND administrator. No need to over analyze it when weren't privy to the actual, full discussion.

it was tongue-in-cheek, but I think you get that.

No kidding.

What about when the NCAA executive committee adopts a new policy sanctioning schools for using Crusaders, Pioneers, Roughriders, and the like because those names are culturally insensitive to other ethnic groups and religions!?!?!?! Crap, now we can't even go with Roughriders because of possible sanctions! Spread the news!!!! The only viable options are Sundogs, Nodaks, North Stars, and Fighting Hawks.

Have there been schools that complained about UND's nickname situation over the last three years? Or does the NCAA expect that some administration is going to now become upset about all the Fighting Sioux logos in Engelstad Arena, which will not even be removed when UND becomes the North Stars? Honest question, but feel free to attack.

I think so. But peter's email most certainly did not say automatic sanctions if someone from inside UND complains. Where were you on that one, Lefty?

The NCAA gave the green light for UND to proceed with no nickname as far as the settlement goes. If other schools start complaining about the lack of a name, albeit over three years later, the NCAA may look at sanctions. See the email goon received below: Eric, thanks for the email and the support for our university. The NCAA says there would not be a violation of the settlement agreement as far as they are concerned if UND didn't adopt a new nickname. However, the NCAA did say that if fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux, the NCAA believes other schools will complain and that, in turn, would very likely result in sanctions. The NCAA does seem to believe that UND has done its best to comply with the settlement agreement. Peter Johnson Executive Associate Vice President for University Relations (701) 777-4317

I know, right? The NCAA mandates that UND protect, if not use, the Fighting Sioux logo. The NCAA allows UND to keep hundreds of Fighting Sioux images in their hockey arena. The NCAA sanctions UND because other schools start complaining that UND fans are wearing the Fighting Sioux logo that the NCAA required UND to protect in the arena where the NCAA allowed UND to keep hundreds of Fighting Sioux logos. Makes perfect sense to me.

I understand everyone's concerns about possible sanctions if UND supporters (or too many of them) wear Fighting Sioux gear, but is UND in violation of the settlement agreement if it moves forward with "North Dakota" for its nickname?

Hmmm. I wonder which one it is.

I understand everyone's concerns about possible sanctions if UND supporters (or too many of them) wear Fighting Sioux gear, but is UND in violation of the settlement agreement if it moves forward with "North Dakota" for its nickname?