Benny Baker

I'm sure there were. Just saying what I know from a very reliable source. I'm a huge Dell fan and really do hope to see him in the NHL soon. He tore it up in the AHL this year. And I'm not trying to disagree with you or say that you're wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the early years of minor league hockey, being on the road for days at a time, and constantly switching teams/cities bodes well for a couple that wants to settle down.

Yes, Dell was a late signing Shortly after the 2012 season, Dell informed the coaches that he would be going pro. As a result, Hakstol and crew went after Saunders so that UND would have some experience in goal with only some Freshman kid named Gothberg, or something like that, coming in. Not having secured a contract yet, Dell asked the coaches if he could return to UND later that summer. The coaches said no and that Saunders had taken his place. Hey, I give Hakstol a lot of credit for keeping his word to Saunders and preventing a precedent or culture of students waffling on whether to turn pro or not. I'm not revealing my source for this. Feel free to bash and criticize me all you want. But before you do, consider this: do you really think that Aaron Dell chose to leave UND so that he could muck around the CHL for a year, which fell dead last on the NHL, AHL, ECHL, CHL pecking order? Just so you all know how bad the CHL is, Mario Lamoreaux is a dominating, offensive threat in the ECHL.

And do you know why . . . ? Because this was already discussed at length this morning. Consider the controlling language "remains in compliance". "Remains" and "in compliance" unequivocally means that the University of North Dakota [no nickname] was compliant with NCAA policy in September 2012. Perhaps you, but certainly some others, should considering dropping the "NCAA won't sanction UND because they're in a 'transition phase'" myth. First, UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname from August 2012 until 2015. There absolutely was not a transition phase in place when the NCAA dropped its sanctions against the nicknameless University of North Dakota in 2012 when it further said that UND was complying with NCAA policy. There was, and still is, no guarantee that UND will ever adopt a new nickname. Second, the settlement agreement required a transition, if any, to be completed by August 15, 2011. It did not discuss any transition that could occur after that date. It does not contemplate an indefinite grace period during which the NCAA would refrain from placing UND back on sanctions. Instead, even though the transition did not occur by the August 15, 2011 deadline, the September 2012 addendum still recognized that the University of North Dakota [no nickname] was, indeed, "in compliance" with the NCAA's policies. There is no truth to this transition/grace period rumor. None. Some people need to stop misinforming others of this message board myth that no new nickname = NCAA sanctions. Put it to rest.

Did you read it, though? And I quote: "THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA WILL BE REMOVED FROM ANY LIST OF INSTITUTIONS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICY". UND did not have a nickname on September 24, 2012, and the NCAA put this matter to rest by removing UND from sanctions anyway. So, you are correct in the sense that the agreement does not require a name change, but rather the retirement of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname.

Well, I guess before I could ever answer your question, you would need to show me where I said that I don't want UND to have a new nickname. I have only been saying that, in my opinion, the absence of a new nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. That is all.

I see what you did there!

fair enough.

Read it again. In particular, where it says UND is now compliant with NCAA policy and no longer on sanctions. Also please remember that UND did not (and still does not) have a formal nickname when the NCAA said UND was compliant and removed its sanctions against UND. Problem solved!

Look up straw man argument.

Good lord, son! The original settlement agreement set an August 11, 2011 deadline. The transition to a new nickname, if it was actually required, needed to be done by August 11, 2011. The fact that a new nickname was not adopted by then and the fact that the NCAA signed an addendum and removed its sanctions against UND in September 2012 obviously contemplates that UND was not required to adopt a new nickname, but rather only retire "Fighting Sioux"!

Oh brother, another straw man argument. I did not argue that UND re-adopt "Fighting Sioux". Again, feel free to set up a straw man and attack it with an argument that I wasn't even talking about in the first place. Seriously, sign off of siouxsports.com, go to google.com, and look up the definition of straw man argument.

Do yourself a favor. Look up the definition or examples of "straw man argument". Good luck!

Straw man argument. What you continue to miss is that my arguments and opinions have nothing to do with what other people may think is important between either the continuity of the nickname or the well-being of UND's athletic department. So, feel free to set up a straw man and attack it with an argument that I wasn't even talking about in the first place. Now that I've shown you an actual example of an "straw man argument", feel free to correctly recognize it next time rather than posting "straw man argument" just because you disagree with me.

Good point, but I don't think so. September 26, 2012, the date the addendum was signed, was well over a year after UND seemingly had to adopt a new nickname according to the August 11, 2011 deadline in the original settlement agreement. The NCAA would not have agreed to sign the addendum, take UND off of the sanctions list, and loosen the restrictions against Native American imagery at UND if UND was in violation of the settlement agreement by not adopting a new nickname by August 11, 2011. Nothing since August 11, 2011 indicates that UND will go back on sanctions if it does not adopt a new nickname other than "Fighting Sioux." On the other hand, everything that has happened since August 11, 2011--including the terms of the settlement agreement and addendum--indicate that UND will not be on sanctions even in the absence of a new nickname.

Correct again. If no nickname violates the settlement agreement, we certainly wouldn't know that by looking at the NCAA's actions since 2012, the new nickname committee's actions over the past year, and President Kelley's recent statement that no nickname is still an option. It sounds like a lot of you guys really despise the "Fighting Sioux" name and happily resort to any speculative argument you can think of as to why the NCAA can put UND back on sanctions. Those arguments, however, really have no basis in reality.

Everyone here needs to do themselves a favor and listen to mksioux. Seriously. http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/AddendumToSettlement.pdf Take a look. UND and NCAA renegotiated the settlement agreement on September 26, 2012. Check out clause 3.

Thank you. At least someone around here knows what they're talking about.

Again, your personal debt to your employer is completely different than the matter between UND and NCAA. Completely different; it's not even close. "the point is that you claim the NCAA cannot sanction UND because it has not yet sanctioned UND". Please tell me where I said this. There seems to be a lot of selective amnesia around here. UND was absolutely put on sanctions AND THE SANCTIONS WERE LIFTED ONCE UND DECIDED TO DROPS ITS NICKNAME ALTOGETHER!!!!!!! http://www.uscho.com/2012/02/29/ncaa-announces-sanctions-to-north-dakota-for-use-of-nickname-logo/

Yep, they sure do like to make it up as they go.

Sorry to hear, man. That sucks for lack of better word. "Without getting too specific". This is an issue because it's difficult to know exactly what you're talking about, and as I'll explain, it sounds like your situation is markedly different from the UND v. NCAA matter. "They filed for arbitration". Sounds like you signed an arbitration clause in your employment contract. Don't sign these unless you're signing on behalf of a large, wealthy business entity. Arbitration is a distinct, separate forum from the civil justice system and offers very limited rights to employees/individuals. Simply put, different rules apply. "Without a request for payment or other notification, they went to court for a judgment." It sounds like there was an arbitration award, and you already owed money at this point and didn't pay. Therefore, your employer went to court and obtained a judgment based upon the arbitration award. Your employer needs the actual judgment to garnish your paycheck and levy your bank accounts. It also sounds like your employer was seeking monetary damages and a legal remedy. The issue between UND and NCAA is more equitable in nature. In particular, NCAA would not seek the recovery of legal, monetary damages from UND for using the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. It also sounds like you may have neglected to respond and had a default judgment entered against you. Did you respond when your employer filed in court or did you retain a lawyer? You waive your defenses if you don't assert them! So, you are correct in the sense that litigants can obtain unusual monetary judgments when they are based upon arbitration awards and the other party fails to respond or has a bad attorney. UND's matter does not stem from an arbitration proceeding, the NCAA wouldn't seek monetary damages, the state of North Dakota won't fail to respond, and it's attorney is . . . well, yeah, I guess is not that great either. Hope this makes sense.

I would agree with you if by "challenging the NCAA" you mean re-adopting the Fighting Sioux nickname. The NCAA has EVERYTHING to gain by imposing sanctions. Again, parties to a contract cannot sit on their rights and wait several years before deciding to enforce a contract.

"Do we know everything that came out of this meeting" Absolutely, the article addresses this right off the bat! It explicitly says that "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement". If the settlement agreement actually contained an ultimatum of either a new nickname or sanctions by August 11th, the NCAA would have put and kept UND on sanctions through the current date because "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement." On the other hand, your opinion that "The NCAA gave some time and space to Dalrymple, Carlson, et al who visited to get that done" after the August 13, 2011 meeting is patently inaccurate. The NCAA most certainly did not give UND "time and space" after August 13, 2011, but rather placed UND on sanctions. Don't you remember the jerseys the "Fighting Sioux" had to wear during the NCAA tournament in 2012. . . . when they were on sanctions? That's certainly not "time and space"; that's sanctions. Of course, the sanctions were lifted once UND retired "Fighting Sioux" and now the hockey team gets to host regionals and all that other fun stuff. "Has anyone asked them (meaning the ND officials who were sent packing or the NCAA)?" Yes, I have. I work closely with several state legislators. The article you cited tells us about all we need to know: "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement".

I would concede that this initially would have been a reasonable interpretation of the settlement agreement. But it's an interpretation that carries less weight every day. Another, more logical interpretation is that the settlement agreement only required UND to transition away from the "Fighting Sioux" nickname by August 15, 2011. Why is this a more logical interpretation? Because it's been almost four years since that deadline came and passed and the NCAA has not taken any action to put UND back on a "naughty" list. Please tell us why the NCAA has not put UND back on sanctions if UND has been in constant violation of the settlement agreement for over 44 months? And please don't resort to the speculative assumption that the NCAA has been waiting for this process to play out. It's simply incorrect to believe that the NCAA, or any party to a contract, can pick and choose if and when to enforce an agreement. You lawyer types out there all know that UND has legitimate affirmative defenses such as laches, waiver, etc. that would prevent the NCAA from trying to put UND back on sanctions after it seemingly allowed UND to be in constant breach of the settlement agreement without taking any enforcement action for several years. Litigants cannot sit on their rights for years and then selectively choose when to enforce a contract. The more logical answer is that the settlement agreement simply does not require UND to adopt a new nickname. If it did, UND would have been on sanctions from August 11, 2011 through the current date. That hasn't been the case, however. And what can't North Dakota be a nickname? The settlement agreement does not even define "nickname". Once again, this is an opinion as a lot of other peoples' opinions is that North Dakota and the interlocking "ND" is a suitable nickname and logo.

Yup, I agree Yale and Providence aren't the normal powerhouses we're used to, but their examples are important for another reason. I should have been more specific because Yale and Providence both won the national championship as 4 seeds. Neither team would have even made it to the NCAA tournament under the formats used in the 1970s/1980s. So the expanded playing field in the NCAA tournament makes it easier (possible) for 4 seeds like Yale and Providence to win the National Championship where they would have been shut out from the opportunity under the tournament's previous formats. Another similar example is UND in 2014. Under the format used in the 1970s/1980s, the chance at a national title would have ended with UND's frozen faceoff semifinal loss to Miami. Instead, in part due to the expanded playing field and the University of Wisconsin, UND made the NCAA tournament.

This is very interesting! To me, it suggests that it was more difficult to make the NCAA tournament back then, at least mathematically. If we consider the early years of Gino's tenure, only 5 to 8 teams out of 40 made the NCAA tournament. That's between 12.5-20% of teams that made the NCAA tournament. Today, 16 out of 59 teams make the NCAA tournament, or 27% of teams. The fact that it's much easier to make the NCAA tournament today should, in my opinion, be weighed against the fact that there is a bigger field to defeat today than back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But in my opinion, I think it's easier for a team to the win an NCAA championship under today's format than it was in the early 1980s. For examples, see Yale and Providence.