Benny Baker

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.

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.