Benny Baker
-
Posts
1,129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Benny Baker
-
-
It's going to be the University of North Dakota North Stars, anyway. For any follow up questions, ask Chairman Goehring about UND's efforts to purchase the Minnesota North Stars trademark.
-
I agree with tSic rather than with you. I think that the NCAA could argue that they have been giving leniency due to the challenges faced by UND and were just giving them extra time as long as it appeared that UND was working toward a new nickname . The NCAA could very easily make a decision to enforce the "new nickname" portion of the agreement. I have no idea whether they would or not, but it definitely would not surprise me. Then it would be up to UND to take the issue to court, this isn't something that the NCAA would need to take to court to enforce. I also agree with jdub that the 2012 addendum was focused on the facilities portion of the settlement agreement and not on whether UND was in compliance on the new nickname portion of the settlement agreement.
Stop it already. UND did not face any challenges; UND is North Dakota. Who do you think sued the NCAA in the first place? North Dakota would not allow any transition to a new nickname for three years. How on earth can anyone possibly interpret a North Dakota law that expressly prohibits the transition to a new nickname as North Dakota's effort to transition to a new nickname?!?!
The NCAA cannot enforce an August 15, 2011 deadline to adopt a new nickname, when the subsequent September 2012 addendum, which says that the University of North Dakota [no nickname] was in compliance, controls and supersedes the original settlement agreement.
Stop misinforming people.
-
At what date was UND "in compliance"? To "remain in compliance" at the date of the addendum (which was only in relation to imagery at the REA and BESC), they would have had to previously be "in compliance". Yet you also claim that the addendum removed UND from the sanctions list and put them "in compliance". How can it be both?
And because UND was outwardly doing anything that appeared to be transitioning to a new nickname does not mean that there weren't internal workings that were shared with the NCAA. By publicly moving towards a new nickname, they would have been in violation of the state law. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything going on within.
"How can it be both?" I never said the addendum put UND "in compliance". I did say that the addendum says that UND must "remain in compliance". By "remain", UND already was in compliance because it retired its nickname. In other words, UND was in compliance when it retired its nickname. Again, wasn't that the whole point; i.e., to retire hostile and abusive nicknames?
The August 15, 2011 date had come and passed by the time the addendum was signed. It doesn't matter anymore. Most importantly, the addendum supersedes and controls the settlement agreement.
-
and that is your "take" on the situation. Why are you so adamant that UND remains nameless?
Just because I'm explaining what a settlement agreement states does not mean I have any preference on what UND does going forward with respect to a new nickname.
Since I answered your question, please cite to a post where I have been adamant that UND remain nameless.
-
and I ask the question: is remaining nameless what the student athletes want or what a bunch of old farts want?
Regarding student athletes, I know that most of the hockey players are on record as wanting the "Fighting Sioux" name back, if that helps.
-
My take: UND was in compliance with the purpose and intent that was the basis for the settlement agreement but due to outside forces beyond their control, the time line portion of it was thrown off. Because UND continued to show they were working towards transitioning towards a new nickname (and had dropped the previous nickname and logo), the NCAA used its discretion to continue to (at the time) overlook the dates and leave them off the sanctions list knowing that they had the power to put UND back on the sanctions list if things didn't continue to progress.
No they weren't. The only reality is that the state of North Dakota, which UND is a part of, created a law refusing to allow any transition towards a new nickname for three years!
I understand that this may just be your "take" but its clearly based upon unsupported assumptions and falsehoods. But in all of your other posts, your position misinforms all of the posters on this message board. Stop spreading this myth.
-
"provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement."
Funny how you and others keep forgetting that part. The terms of the settlement stated that UND had to adopt a new nickname. Any the addendum that was signed states that UND must ramin in compliance with that. It really is that simple. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that.
No, but you're misunderstanding it. To "remain in compliance" means that UND was in compliance with NCAA's policy in September 2012 even when it did not have a nickname. One cannot "remain in compliance" with a rule if one is not already complying with the rule. The rule, the settlement agreement, did not contemplate or consider any/grace period after August 15, 2011. You people are just making up some theory that the NCAA has allegedly allowed UND some sort of quasi-indefinite grace period, and that the NCAA might drop the hammer at any time.
Yes, because UND was " ... in transition to a new ... "
Step one was complete -- dropping old
Step two was in process -- wait out state law to 1/1/15
Step three to infinity were in the works or running -- committee after committee after committee
I believe the NCAA (OK, maybe their legal council) is prudent enough to not force the issue while UND was hamstrung by state law. Again, notice Kelley had all the transition machinery up and running overtly immediately after 1/1/15.
Absolutely not! UND was legally prohibiting from doing ANY transition during this time. I know you know that. More importantly, you also know that the deadline for a transition, if any, was August 15, 2011. UND did not make any transition by then; yet, the NCAA agreed that UND was in compliance on September 24, 2012 when it retired "Fighting Sioux".
-
Wasn't there other factors with Dell. I thought he got married and they wanted to kind of settle down.
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.
-
I'm pretty sure the coaching staff new Dell was leaving even though it was late. We had already gotten Saunders to commit before Dell signed. I'm sure the coaches know what everyone is doing already and only the fans will be surprised if someone leaves.
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.
-
You also quit your quote halfway through a sentence that finished with "if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement."
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.
-
The agreement you posted was not about the school changing it's athletic teams name's but for two facilities being in compliance to host NCAA tournament events.
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.
-
Benny /Baker, mksioux. Put all the legal stuff aside for a second. Why do you want UND to have no nickname? You and the other "no nickname" people have yet to answer my question. What is your reason?
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.
-
The dead body one seems more appropriate for this.
I see what you did there!
-
Everyone quit saying "strawman argument". stupid. come up with something new.
fair enough.
-
This had nothing to do with the "nickname", this agreement was for UND to possibly host a NCAA regional at the Ralph. Before they could do that they had to remove the Fighting Sioux imagery. This agreement was for the Italian marble floors to keep their Fighting Sioux logo's and the Fighting Sioux logo's at the end of each row of seats. Because of the cost to remove the logo's in the marble floor and the logo's at the end of reach row of seats was too much.
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!
-
Yet you claiming people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname when that has nothing to do with anything makes sense?
Look up straw man argument.
-
Remains as they are continuing to work towards transitioning towards a new nickname which is why they were at the time in compliance. The action of retiring the old nickname and moving to a new one is what got them removed from the sanctions list and in compliance. While UND did not have a new nickname at the time, there were no intentions of them not choosing a new nickname, one of the points of the original settlement agreement that is not addressed in the addendum.
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"!
-
Your claim that people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname is most definitely a straw man argument. That is not why people want to move on. They want to move on because it is what is best for the University of North Dakota.
Now feel free to explain why continuing to fight for something that is gone and that will knowingly harm or put UND at a disadvantage is a good idea. And moving forward with no nickname falls into that category as it leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and gives people reason to drag up this whole mess every time it is mentioned why UND has chose not to have a nickname.
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.
-
Your claim that people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname is most definitely a straw man argument. That is not why people want to move on. They want to move on because it is what is best for the University of North Dakota.
Now feel free to explain why continuing to fight for something that is gone and that will knowingly harm or put UND at a disadvantage is a good idea. And moving forward with no nickname falls into that category as it leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and gives people reason to drag up this whole mess every time it is mentioned why UND has chose not to have a nickname.
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 what is more important to people than a nickname is the University of North Dakota, athletic department and student athletes. The nickname has become a net negative to all of those groups. Why people, who claim to be supporters of these groups, want to fight for something (as great as it may be) to would cause intentional harm or disadvantage them is beyond me.
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.
-
" ... provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment."
Isn't that circular back to what does "transition to a new" mean and is the University in compliance with it?
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.
-
Look at the actual addendum to the settlement agreement. There is nothing about UND adopting a new nickname, only the fact that UND dropped the old nickname. Yet, the NCAA took UND off the list anyway. Which, according to you, UND was in violation of the settlement agreement at the time.
Your theory doesn't hold water. It's not consistent with the addendum to the settlement agreement. It's not consistent with the NCAA's actions since the settlement agreement. And it's not consistent with statements from the committee, and it's not consistent with President Kelley's statement saying no nickname is an option.
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.
-
Sorry, you're wrong. The NCAA already blessed not having a nickname in the addendum to the settlement agreement. The NCAA affirmatively took UND off the list after UND officially dropped the nickname and that was confirmed in writing though the addendum to the settlement agreement. At this point, the clause you are all relying upon for your argument is moot.
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.
-
<Sigh>
This issue is settled. I don't remember which thread and I'm not going to dig up the documents again. But the NCAA affirmatively took UND off the sanctions list at a time when it did not have a nickname. (This isn't simply a situation where the NCAA has not enforced an agreement, it took an affirmative action.) The NCAA stated in the document UND was in compliance with the agreement. I'm sorry Sic et. al., but you all are wrong. UND can go without a nickname and be in compliance with the agreement.
Thank you. At least someone around here knows what they're talking about.
-
1
-
New Nickname
in UND Nickname
Posted
No joke. I'm also not saying that UND will absolutely become the "North Stars". But I will go to my grave saying that Karl Goehring and UND have been attempting to acquire the Minnesota North Stars trademark. This, I do know for a fact.