Benny Baker

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."

It's already in writing, my friend. On September 24, 2012, the NCAA signed the addendum to the settlement agreement under which it confirmed that "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." UND obviously did not have a nickname at the time. If the absence of a nickname violated the Policy, there would have been no reason for the NCAA to proactively remove the nicknameless North Dakotans from sanctions. Now . . . , cue the speculative counter-argument that the NCAA was waiting for the "cooling off" period to end! There is absolutely NO evidence to support this assumption other than the beliefs of some misguided internet posters. How do we know this? Because these posters cannot provide quotes or citations. They will rely purely on conjecture and speculation. Just watch and see.

Right. But by the sound of it, North Stars seems more likely than Cornhuskers.

I don't know. I imagine the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers might take issue with that.

Exactly, Darell! Keep it "University of North Dakota" instead of any new nickname!

Yes.

Exactly. I am literally appalled at some of the arguments suggesting that UND needs a different nickname because the media explains why UND's current nickname is "North Dakota" in sports broadcasts.

The overwhelming majority of the focus of UND sports broadcasts is on the team, players, event they're playing in, season, and school. That's putting it conservatively. The idea that UND should adopt a different nickname because broadcasters make note of the school's unique use of "North Dakota" during a multi-hour telecast is the most trivial excuse I have so far heard, and probably will hear, in support of adopting of a new nickname

UND needs a new nickname so its sports information director doesn't have to spend a handful of minutes discussing the nickname with broadcasters. I've now heard it all. God forbid the media give press to UND by talking about its nickname during a sporting event.

We've heard it all! UND needs a new nickname so its sports information director doesn't have to spend a handful of minutes talking about it with broadcasters. God forbid the media give UND press by talking about the school's nickname. If that's what this hoopla is about, I am more than fine sticking with North Dakota.

If UND's sports information director can't ensure that its student athletes' names are pronounced correctly on national television, I am not going to worry about the spelling of his name on an internet message board. Also, I never said it was "one of the student-athletes." I did, however, refer to a "student representative", who recently stated that: "I have several friends who are athletes, and not a single one plays hockey. They just want to stay UND, not to bring back Fighting Sioux." http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3801860-undnorth-dakota-out-committee-forwards-5-nicknames-public-vote You do remember the student athletes, don't you, Jason?

No, Standing Rock was involuntarily dragged into NCAA/UND's dispute and forced to become the final arbiter when NCAA/UND punted in their settlement agreement. You're passing blame and judgment on the wrong person(s).

In defense of Standing Rock, this was an issue between the NCAA and the University of North Dakota. Although I really wish the tribal council allowed a vote, I hate to see Standing Rock labeled as the scapegoat in a dispute that did not even involve them in the first place.

Save the hyperbole. Didn't the student representative on the nickname task force committee argue that the student-athletes just want to stay "North Dakota". You do remember the student-athlete's, don't you, Jason? Going forward, maybe Jason can focus more on his job as UNDSID and ensure that Barry Melrose finally understands how to pronounce "Caggiula" next April.

Honest question: what do you mean by those "stakeholders . . . willingly gave up the opportunity to take control" and that the "stakeholders . . should have demanded control"? Practically speaking, what should they have done, in your opinion? The state of North Dakota sued the NCAA. UND was prohibited from adopting a new nickname for three years. It is revisionist history to say that efforts to take control were not made. Or, are you saying that those efforts delayed the likely inevitable (a new nickname) for so long, that it resulted in five underwhelming options for a new nickname?