Benny Baker

Spot on. There's definitely some about facing taking place on this message board today. Sure seemed to be a lot of bar-stool lawyers on here last week who were certain that UND's decision to not chose a new nickname would be in violation of the settlement agreement. Looks like Goon did a great job of clearing up those errors as I don't seeing anyone willing to stick by their (old) position today.

Haha, okay then?

I agree. I can't figure this one out either.

Nice try, Sitacoka. And then you eagerly cite an article that begins with: "When the University begins the process of choosing a nickname and logo" Haha, you're too funny.

hmmm. I do recall a process to transition away from "Fighting Sioux", but there was never any effort to transition to a new nickname until 2015. http://nickname.und.edu/logo/

fair.

I guess I have to disagree, because in this situation it went: The NCAA asked, "Have you tried transitioning to a new nickname?" And North Dakota said, "Hell no, we created a law that prohibited any transition for three years."

Thanks for this answer. This is what I've been trying to find out.

There is a distinction between the general use of a name (word) and the context in which it used for purposes of trademark. North Dakota can certainly use "North Stars" as its nickname, but it would need the NHL's permission to use the actual Minnesota North Star logo.

I'm flattered that you're looking me up! My answer to your question is, no. But I think your hypo neglected to point out some distinguishing facts. Although your hypo gave a "firm" deadline like the August 15, 2011 deadline for UND to transition to a new nickname, the NCAA subsequently choose to remove sanctions when North Dakota obviously had not met that deadline. Quite to the contrary, North Dakota thumbed its nose at the idea and said that it wasn't even going to consider transitioning to a new nickname for over three years!

He probably means "mistrial" as in the prefix "mis", meaning wrong or incorrect.

Anyone else . . . ?

Okay, 82SiouxGuy clarified that he doesn't have any concrete evidence. How about anyone else, though?

And that's more than fine that you believe this. All I've wanted to know is if anyone has any concrete evidence that the NCAA will slap sanctions against UND more than four years after UND was seemingly in violation of the settlement agreement. I am not asking about people's opinion on the matter. So, I'll be more direct, has anyone been told by a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? Has anyone read anything from a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions?

Hey Pot-- What about the the fact that the transition must be "completed on or before August 15, 2011"? Thanks, Kettle

Other than "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo" and that "the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy."

And yet, it removed UND from sanctions. Get real.

And if that is the case, UND could do a better job of marketing and branding. University of Michigan doesn't seem to have an issue with selling merchandise, branding it's school name, or having one of the most recognizable school songs in the country, all of which have nothing to with wolverines. Go Blue?

This is the credited response. Most of you are neglecting to consider that the original settlement agreement said transition to a new nickname "on or before August 15, 2011". UND did not do that, and NCAA put UND on sanctions for the 2011-2012 season. Then UND dropped "Fighting Sioux" in June 2012, and the NCAA and UND "amended " the settlement agreement to remove UND from sanctions on September 24, 2012. END OF STORY.

You probably couldn't afford their retainer fee anyway.

Which means that UND fulfilled its obligation under the original agreement; hence, the NCAA removed UND from the list of school's that were in violation of NCAA policy and the NCAA has not enforced sanctions against UND since then.

He should also read the addendum. The addendum expressly amended the settlement agreement to confirm that UND was now in compliance with NCAA's policy because UND was no longer using the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. To the extent there is a conflict between the original settlement agreement and the addendum, the addendum expressly states that the addendum governs the parties' responsibilities. Also, the addendum does not discuss, reference, or imply UND's transition to a new nickname.

Read the facts in the original post, brother.

And again, the purpose of this thread was to establish if anyone had any credible evidence and sources or if people are just assuming that the NCAA had no reason to enforce sanctions. If the latter, that is fine. All I'm asking is whether that stance is based on a credible source or based upon the poster's opinion or assumptions.

Yes. The following article explains that UND went back on sanctions in August 2011 because of the the state law mandating the school's use of "Fighting Sioux". http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6391276 You may also recall that the NCAA enforced those sanctions when it prohibited UND from playing as the "Fighting Sioux" in the 2012 NCAA hockey regionals. That law was, of course, repealed in June 2012 by public vote. As such, the NCAA confirmed that UND was no longer subject to those sanctions via the addendum. Since that time, the NCAA has not enforced any sanctions against UND despite the fact that UND has been and is continuing to simply play as "North Dakota" for the past three years.