NoiseInsideMyHead
-
Posts
2,711 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by NoiseInsideMyHead
-
-
Takes two to tango, chief. Have your legal eagle buddy Scott explain mutual assent as a predicate to contract formation. Listen to yourself. You would have us believe that UND willingly and knowingly signed on the dotted line when one possible outcome would be the whole enchilada of NA nickname sanctions imposed anew for having no nickname at all? Come on. That's utterly preposterous.
-
Have you read the Settlement Agreement? You keep going on and on about it, but it doesn't sound like you have actually read it. In Section 2 d (page 5) it plainly states that if UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy. The Policy refers to the policy against the use of Native American nicknames and imagery that was announced on August 5, 2005. That is the rule being violated, it's actually a clause in a contract between UND and the NCAA, and that is what UND agreed to when they signed the Settlement Agreement. I didn't imagine the Settlement Agreement.
Forest for the trees, my boy, forest for the trees. The parties clearly did not anticipate at the time the agreement was entered into that "no nickname" was even remotely a possibility. Therein lies the problem. To impose sanctions for a rule that is not being violated defies logic and common sense. The excruciating and painstakingly literal interpretation espoused by you and others is a nullity. A fiction.
There is no way that anyone with a straight face and a shred of common sense can arrive at the conclusion that UND should suffer penalties intended to punish users of NA nicknames when UND is not itself using a NA nickname. To read the contract that way is absurd.
-
UND may have done a lot of things in the settlement agreement, some of them wrong and/or ill-advised (especially in hindsight), but I 100% guaran-freaking-tee you that one thing UND did NOT do was consent to have sanctions imposed for conduct that does not amount to a violation of any NCAA rule. It's not there. Keep looking, if you wish. You're not going to find it.
All UND did was agree that if it was using the name without tribal approval in violation of the policy, it would then be back on the sanctions list.
No court is going to interpret the settlement agreement otherwise.
Flame away, but you know I'm right.
-
As I have pointed out in the past, it is far more likely that the NCAA would impose their own sanctions if they believe that UND isn't living up to the Settlement Agreement. They would put UND back on the sanctions list. They would prevent UND from hosting playoff games. They would encourage other schools like Minnesota and Wisconsin to stop scheduling games. It is very unlikely that they would go to court to address the issue. Their actions are written right into the Settlement Agreement. UND would have to be the one to take the issue to court. The reward for the NCAA would not be monetary. UND would not be hurt by the monetary penalty. They would be hurt by the sanctions, the same sanctions that caused UND to give up the Fighting Sioux name in the first place.
Sanctioned FOR WHAT?
What NCAA rule is being violated? Is there a "no (alleged) breach of contract" rule? What is that, a lack of institutional control, or an improper recruiting violation?
Please elaborate. These wildly imaginary and unfounded fears are an embarrassment to the state, and are dragging down the entire cause.
-
Why are so many of you willing to concede defeat on the mythical breach of contract action? Have you lost the will to fight? Have you no faith that the NCAA will be exposed for wasting the court's time by litigating such a petty and trivial claim (the NCAA's underlying policy was vindicated long ago and the Sioux name is now relegated to the dustbin of history), and even if they win be redressed appropriately and sent packing with a nominal damages judgment of $1.00? UND could (and likely would) come out on top, because (1) the NCAA cannot demonstrate economic harm caused by the alleged breach, and (2) no court in its right mind is going to compel UND to adopt a nickname when the NCAA hasn't even seen fit to enact a rule requiring it.
All this assumes that the NCAA would even waste the time, money and effort by pursuing such a lawsuit, which I believe is itself unlikely. If you haven't noticed, the NCAA is up to its ankles in crap right now and the tide is rising.
I'm no expert, but I would swear you are all suffering from battered spouse syndrome, and Mr./Mrs. NCAA just came home after a long day at the office, reeking of alcohol and looking in your direction.
Man up, FFS.
-
1
-
-
Agree. The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname. The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters. As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the clock.
I was with you up to "...breach of the Agreement, and...." Are you suggesting that the NCAA can not only sue but also arbitrarily impose "sanctions" for the (ahem) violation (wink) of a non-existent rule?
There is no NCAA rule requiring member institutions to have a nickname. Much in the same way there is (thankfully) no NCAA rule that exposes members to extra-judicial sanctions for allegedly breaching a contract with the NCAA. Can we please, now and forever, divorce the notion of sanctions (not going to happen) from liability for breach of the settlement agreement (which I concede is a conceivable, yet laughable, risk)?
-
-
With all the armchair lawyering going on, this forum could be sponsored by La-Z-Boy. Y'all need to relax and leave it to the professionals.
Also, if any of you are lawyers, please out yourselves so I know to never, ever retain your services.
"I read it in the contract, and the contract was perfectly written, so it must be true. And if we don't do it, we're in breach, and we're going to lose, and there's nothing we can do about it." - No Lawyer, Ever
-
What part of "transitioning to a new nickname and logo" do people not understand?!! That language is in the settlement. Pretty easy to understand. The absense of a nickname is not a new nickname. UND must transition to a new nickname. It really is that simple.
You say, "UND must…." as if there is no alternative. I ask in response, "What are the consequences if UND doesn't?"
See the difference?
-
One problem with your argumnet. The NCAA does not have to prove that they have been harmed by UND not having a name. That was not part of the settlemet agreement. I really don't get how a couple paragraphs can be so twisted and skewed to mean so many things just to prove someones point!!
I'm going to speak slowly, and type even slower. The settlement agreement is a contract. In order to establish a breach of contract, a party to the contract must allege and prove 3 things: the existence of the contract, a breach by the other party, and resulting harm.
-
The NCAA might see that as a way FOR FANS to continue to use Fighting Sioux.
FYP. And the response has to be "BIG DEAL."
The fans weren't parties to the settlement agreement and cannot be sued. Nor are the fans subject to NCAA's member bylaws, rules, or resolutions and thus the fans cannot be sanctioned. The University is not using anything and thus has no culpability under the nickname policy. Short of stifling individual expression up to and beyond the point of violating people's constitutional rights, what more would you have UND do?
Interesting aside about fan behavior -- notwithstanding its own policy, has the NCAA ever ejected a fan from an NCAA event solely for wearing and/or uttering "Sioux"?
The NCAA's hands are completely tied on this one, and they know it. Their only options are to (1) deal with it; (2) enact a new nickname rule, which would probably grandfather UND in anyway; and (3) take UND to court on a dubious breach of contract theory, and try to explain to a judge how they have been harmed by UND not having a name and that the court should exercise its extraordinary power to remedy such a gross injustice.
Short version, for the cognitively impaired:
No nickname = no sanctions
No nickname = possible lawsuit for breach with remote chance of money damages against UND and infinitesimal chance of UND being ordered to adopt a name
-
1
-
-
UNO names it's arena Baxter and sells out season tickets.
And I'm sure the STH are sworn to never, ever sell to Sioux fans.
-
I am of the opinion that if we picked a logo, something unique, but no name, we would restore sales, albeit slowly. Obviously, not much of an effort has been made to rebrand our University in the last four years as everyone waited with uncertainty. I don't think merchandise would be an issue, I don't think branding would be an issue. Your last three paragraphs (apart from the conclusion), all are answered by a marketing/merchandise rebranding of our North Dakota image. I've heard from current student athletes that they think its a joke that each of our teams uses different gear, because there is no unity. Each team does its own thing because of all the uncertainty. It would be very simple to unite them behind a campus wide rebranding.
Why don't we spend $300K to come up with an image?
But if UND adopts a single "logo" or "image", doesn't the literal equivalent or description of that image become the de facto nickname?
And please stop with the preaching about preserving the sanctity of your precious thread. We get it; you think you're better than every Tom, Dick, and Harry who fires off an anonymous post on an Internet forum. I'll take mud-encrusted witty insight over 'competence' every day of the week.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Not trying to subtract from your post, but how many strip malls does one city need?
If they're anchored by and/or populated with a variety of up-and-coming and diverse restaurants, as many as possible.
Your question is a fair one. The repurposed, former Golden Corral space is still 100% vacant, as I recall. And strips are planned for Columbia south of 36th. At least the Noodles/E&G/Spicy Pie strip is full. Time to jump-start the GF Economy thread, perhaps?
-
Why can we not hire the marketers to liven up the North Dakota image? If we can blow $200K+ on nickname committees (that were, to put it lightly, highly ineffective) (KG's estimate), why can we not at least put the same into making North Dakota sexy?
I'm actually a fan of the current MHKY jerseys, but I will readily admit to liking very little else in the way of post-Sioux gear. But then again, at any time during the Sioux era, how much did non-Sioux merchandise really ever catch on?
I believe if there was a way to "make North Dakota sexy," somebody would have figured it out by now. You'd have better luck with a tractor.
-
Positive development. Keep 'em coming.
-
So what will be the fallout if the public votes goes for RR by a large margin (it seems to be the overwhelming choice of the 5 left) but that pick in turn is rejected by Kelley AFTER this whole debacle with the no nickname situation?
I predict he will be out as president.
-
Chase Perry leaves Colorado College to go play in the BCHL.
http://gazette.com/goalie-chase-perry-leaves-cc-for-juniors/article/1556083
Fair to say that CC has adopted a Dump Chase style of play?
-
Looks like they have a pretty broad cross-section of backgrounds/experience within the student and alumni groups, can't ask for much more than that.
4 current students including 2 student athletes
6 alumni including 2 who are former student athletes
1 professor
I'm glad to see Christofferson and St. Peter on the list. They've both owned/run professional sports teams and should have a clue about the need for identity/brand identification and marketing.
I'm glad they clarified Dr. McDonald is a 3x UND alumnus, because the rest of his identifier is not a credential worthy of this committee.
The best combo of brains and brawn currently on campus -- Dayo Idowu (that's right: flagrant engineering bias!)
The %gobc got their guy (Schweigert).
No complaints here on the make-up of the committee.
Here and now, publicly:
Mr. Goehring,
Your contributions to the hockey program are clear and recognizable, both in the past as a player and today as a coach and mentor to current players; but your contributions to this effort are greater.
Much was made of your stature while playing; dare I say you're the tallest man on the University of North Dakota campus today because of your willingness to stand up and take on the last and now this most challenging assignment.
Thank you Karl.
Signed,
A fellow alumnus of the University of North Dakota
Bump, and a reminder of happier (hope-ier?) times.
-
Akron has no money!
Zip?
-
1
-
-
However you feel about having only one airline (it stinks), that's not the only problem…consider the singular hub. If DL would simply add a couple of SLC flights, westbound travel out of GFK would be markedly better.
Looks like United's service in GFK didn't make much difference.
I bet it did to Delta.
(Full disclosure, I was only one butt in one seat on one round-trip while it lasted, but I jumped at the chance to fly through Denver.) -
If you had a crappy breakup a few years ago, would you reach out to your ex -- or worse, the sniveling bitch who wouldn't mind her own business and caused the breakup -- and ask her permission before making decisions about your personal life?
Didn't think so.
Because you have a pair, and you're not going to give her the satisfaction.
-
1
-
-
Are you looking for a yearly update from opposing coaches saying "Yep, still bringing up that train wreck of a nickname mess"? Or are you going off the assumption that that since once the nickname was dropped, that clearly resolved the issue and every opposing coach decided it wasn't worth bringing up anymore?
All I'm looking for is people to stop using fear tactics. If you're going to say UND needs a nickname because X, and X is specious on its face, then you'd better be willing to back it up and support it. Rank speculation is hardly called for here, and serves no one. If it's an opinion, state it like one.
-
1
-
-
To believe that UND's nickname status is not used against it by opponents (everywhere from the recruiting trail to the playing surface) is naivety writ epic.
Admit it: If the tables were turned, you'd use it.
So what you're saying is that recruiters have the same disregard for logic as the NCAA fear mongers on this site? Or is it the recruits?
Call me naive, but I think that UND is better served by not having such simple-minded individuals enrolled as students.
-
1
-
NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname
in UND Nickname
Posted
How else am I going to get to 6k posts?