NoiseInsideMyHead

And how, exactly, is a February 2012 news article evidence of "continuous" use?

Context is critical here. The word "continuously" implies that it is ongoing. OP says it as if it's gospel truth, but it's now been thrown out there at least twice without any substantiation whatsoever. The only person who came to OP's defense in April said explicitly that it was "in the past." At what point(s) in the nickname controversy and/or transition process did the alleged use(s) occur? Fair question.

Source? This is ridiculously inflammatory and so easy to say, but damn near impossible to prove. In fact, a few months ago I called out someone else for making the same naked allegation on another thread and the only response put forth in defense was:

From coke to choke. The Dustin Johnson Story.

Mudflap sales would definitely spike.

Not to be too morbid, but the first time Fox broadcast a NASCAR race, one of the sport's biggest superstars died on the track.

Time for a new thread?

But was "creative thinking" what the consultant was hired for? Seems to me that they were brought in not to come up with ideas but rather to facilitate a process. That process included unfettered (and protracted) public input and except for an initial screening, all decisions have been made by a hand-picked group of stakeholders. Nobody can complain about not having an opportunity to suggest as many creative names as they could think of. You are free to criticize the consultant for failing to 'think creatively' during the first round of cuts, but at least the consultant's work product was laid out on the table for public inspection, and everything thereafter is solely on the committee. Lots of decision-making processes are messy, expensive, and pointless, but people seem to feel better about them by building them into something bigger than they need to be. In fact, as a nation we're about to embark on another one…the 2016 presidential primaries. How much money are the taxpayers and also-rans going to spend on this ridiculous, entirely-too-long political farce? Like all non-consultants, I hate consultants with a passion. But I think the blame for your disappointment in the process may need to be placed elsewhere.

Kind of begs the question whether separating the nickname and logo selection processes was a good idea.

Ribbed, yes, but for her pleasure.

We can dream, right?

The fact that there's a contract that says "new nickname" doesn't have jack squat to do with the fact that there is a policy that says no Native American nicknames. A breach of contract (for which there is a legal remedy) is not a violation of the policy (for which there are sanctions). Simple logic seems to escape the NCAA tinfoil hat types.

It's not my belief. It's the facts. The settlement agreement is a contract. If one party to the contract feels aggrieved, there's really only one opportunity for redress. And that's litigation. Also, the NCAA is a member-governed body. Keep in mind that even the nickname policy had an out - get permission and you're golden. Do you honestly believe that the NCAA is going to be able to convince its members to agree to a sweeping new policy when it is already on the record saying that nicknames are the sole province of the institutions? And even if they did, it would certainly contain a grandfather clause. Because that's the American way. Associations are not immune to the rule of law. An association is just as obliged to follow its own rules as you and I are the laws of the land. And once and for all, please wake up and realize that not even the NCAA is going to try and impose sanctions for a rule that isn't being violated. That's called anarchy, and it is not going to happen.

The rule is written in plain English, the last time I read it. What more do you need?

The royalty rate on patches will be 99.9%

Here we go again…no nickname = no violation = no sanctions. And by "damages," I am referring to the NCAA. A breach of contract case requires the establishment of a contract, a breach, and harm. The NCAA has not been harmed. There is no economic incentive for the NCAA to bring the lawsuit.

Even if we concede that there has been a breach of contract, there are no damages. An order compelling UND to select a nickname seems remote. More like nominal damages and a subtle jab at the NCAA in the entry of judgment to give it up. UND has a serious case of battered spouse syndrome when it comes to the NCAA. Maybe that's the real reason CVIC opened up shop on campus. Are people afraid of the outcome…or the fight?

Isn't he a little dark for a Swede?

Another one bites the dust. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/business/3766720-sweeto-burrito-finito-grand-forks You don't have to have loved their food to realize that the lack of options is what is really dragging the GFK QOL down.

Not a chance.

It would indeed be an honor to have the University recognize this forum in such a significant way.

Maybe I was too subtle. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/3765494-former-eerc-director-files-29-million-lawsuit-against-kelley-sbhe

Bump.

By asking the NCAA anything, UND would be giving them power that they don't currently have. If you're going to go the no nickname route, just do it. That will put the ball squarely in the NCAA's court, at which time they can (1) do nothing, (2) sue for breach of contract (on dubious grounds), or (3) try to enact a new rule and figure out how to cram it down the membership's throats without a grandfather clause. But for the sake of all that is holy, please don't act like you need their permission or consent.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that what transpired in the courtroom between UND and the NCAA was active litigation of contested legal positions, various claims and defenses, posturing, etc. Once the parties entered into a voluntary settlement agreement, every bit of that went out the window. The only issues now are whether the contract was breached and if so, what are the damages. The NCAA cannot use the prior lawsuit or settlement to craft shadow sanctions against UND for violating non-existent associational rules. Period.