Benny Baker

The settlement agreement is subject to and governed by the addendum. The addendum says UND is compliant. Honest question, do you have evidence or a source to confirm that the NCAA has not given an answer to this question and that they have not given an answer because they are letting the process play out? I gather you may assume that is what the NCAA is doing, but I honestly want to know if anyone can confirm this or if its just based on assumption.

Yes. I don't mind Roughriders though.

So North Dakota can be a nickname; it's just redundant. Glad we finally agree.

Except that the committee confirmed "North Dakota" as a potential nickname candidate, and President Kelley indicated that he may allow "North Dakota" to go forward as an option for a nickname.

Reasonable minds are free to disagree, but I think that "North Dakota" is UND's nickname right now and may continue to be going forward. If people recall the public submission process, the committee excluded every suggestion of "no nickname" but allowed the suggestion of "North Dakota" to move forward. So again, even if the university is playing under the name "North Dakota", the NCAA can't say that UND does not have a nickname. But then again, like scpa0305 said, some people are simply pushing "the worst case scenario" in order to force a nickname other than "North Dakota".

Challenge accepted. And the mirror said, "the NCAA took UND off of sanctions and awarded regionals to UND at a time during which UND was legally prohibited from even having a nickname. You need not fear anything, the is no evidence to suggest that the lack of a nickname will cause any issue between UND and the NCAA despite some other people's speculative fear".

This is exactly the point! If the absence of a nickname violated any cognizable NCAA policy or the Settlement Agreement, why would the NCAA agree to lift sanctions against a school that was prohibited from having a nickname!!!!! There was no guarantee and still is no guarantee that UND will ever have a nickname. Yet, some people think it's the gospel truth that the NCAA is waiting in the lurches to pounce on UND. And that's fine if some of you people believe that, but just admit it's your opinion and you don't have proof to back it up.

Agree. NCAA put UND back on sanctions after North Dakota's 2011 state law mandated the school's use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. Thus, UND could not play as the "Fighting Sioux" in the NCAA tournament in Spring 2012. Then, in June 2012, the public voted to remove the law mandating the school's use of "Fighting Sioux", and the NCAA took UND back off of sanctions in the September 2012 addendum to the settlement agreement. Big picture though. NCAA decided to remove UND from sanctions at a time when UND had no nickname and was not transitioning to any new nickname. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6391276

I do apologize for that. I took a page out of the huffingtonpost's playbook, but I did lay an easter egg in the title thread to clue people in on it.

Wow, lots of speculation and conjecture in this post. Take a cue from 82SiouxGuy and own up to it.

Don't know if you're a hockey guy, but remember 2012 regionals when the University North Dakota Fighting Sioux were prohibited from playing as the Fighting Sioux? UND was put back on sanctions after the settlement agreement, but you seem to have missed that fact. Winner, winner! While I don't recall anyone admitting that in the past, I am glad you have brought clarity to the issue and informed the fine posters of siouxsports.com that the threats of future NCAA sanctions are simply opinions without proof. Goodbye, post.

Yes, in September 2012, NCAA lifted sanctions against UND [no nickname] during a time that UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname. The NCAA awarded regionals to UND [no nickname] at a time that UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname. These are the facts; I don't need any more concrete examples than that. And it's fine if you want to speculate about the possibility of the NCAA creating new policies or changing the rules as they go. But just admit that it's your opinion.

So the state's prohibition against transitioning to a new nickname until January 1, 2015 is "transitioning towards a new nickname" in your eyes. hmmmmm? I know you believe the NCAA does "whatever they want." The question is, however, what sources do you that show that the NCAA will do "whatever they want" to UND despite the NCAA not having done, well, anything to UND since Fighting Sioux was retired?

Fair observation. But I highly doubt the media would have ignored the "Sioux-per drunk" t-shirts even had UND been playing under a new nickname at the time. The media loves sensationalism, and the gf herald has exhibited a shockingly poor sense of journalistic integrity by sensationalizing social media outbursts at the expense of, well, journalism.

So again . . . you're simply speculating that the NCAA bogeyman will lay the hammer down on UND. Do you have any concrete evidence or facts to support your opinion that the NCAA will do this? Because it seems like the NCAA has taken quite the opposite stance since UND retired "Fighting Sioux" and went forward with no nickname; i.e., removing UND from sanctions and awarding regionals to UND.

You could have just said "I don't have any sources or facts to back up my opinions." Unlike you, however, I have pointed out that the NCAA has lifted sanctions against UND and awarded home playoff games to UND despite the school's absence of a nickname.

No kidding! I love how this place has gone from the "no nickname" crowd simply wants to keep Fighting Sioux as a de facto nickname to the "no nickname" crowd's true motivations are to bring back the Fighting Sioux nickname.

Regarding bold point number one: Explain how the NCAA's decision to remove UND [no nickname] from sanctions is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA awarding and allowing UND [no nickname] to host a regional is my opinion. Explain how the NCAA's decision not to place UND [no nickname] back on sanctions despite the expiration of the "cooling off" period is my opinion. Regarding bold point number two: Ugh! Twamley is so incompetent!

As problematic as this is for the "no nickname" crowd, we should remember that last week's rally had, what, 30 people? But, I agree, it's rather contradictory to proclaim that UND does not need a new "nickname" while shouting "Fighting Sioux forever" out of the other side of your mouth.

. . . . is what so many people oddly seem to fear around here. But if we look at reality and undisputed facts, we know the following is true: Fact 1: NCAA removed UND from sanctions when UND did not have a nickname. Fact 2: NCAA awarded UND the right to host hockey regionals when UND did not have a nickname. Fact 3: NCAA has not placed UND on sanctions even though the statutory "cooling off" period ended months ago, and there is still a possibility that UND does not adopt a new nickname. But, despite these undisputed facts, some of you believe that "no nickname" will result in the NCAA putting UND back on sanctions, refusing to award regionals to UND, and blowing up Grand Forks with the Death Star. Some people are clearly speculating and offering conjecture as to what the NCAA bogeyman might or potentially could do to UND; i.e, the argument that the NCAA is acquiescing to "no nickname" so long as UND is continuing a transition to a new nickname. Can you guys provide a source, or is it just your honest opinion? Others offer strained legal opinions as to what the NCAA is legally allowed to do under the terms of the settlement agreement. Again, can you guys provide a source, or is this just your honest, internet message board legal analysis? Ready, set, go!

Gotcha. I recall that, but haven't seen those arguments much lately.

No, I don't think I've seen anyone say that. Those sanctions are very real, and the "Fighting Sioux" are long gone.

The Addendum governs the Settlement Agreement. The Addendum says UND is in compliance. Sure, if UND adopts "Fighting Sioux", the NCAA will put UND back on sanctions. But UND was taken off of sanctions at time when UND did not have a nickname. This is really simple, and it's a non-issue.

Good point. But we should also remember that the NCAA does not have a policy that sanctions universities for not having a nickname. To the contrary, the NCAA agreed that North Dakota was in compliance despite the lack of a nickname at UND. No need to worry.

And we have our first response without a quote or citation. Of course, you're free to speculate and provide conjecture. In reality, I'll stand by the previous quote: "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo; and . . . the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy." Before more posters start speculating on this issue without evidence, quotes, or citations to anything, it's also important to remember that if there is conflict between the original settlement agreement and the addendum, the addendum states that "the following terms and conditions of this Addendum govern and control the rights and obligations of the parties."