obborg
-
Posts
348 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by obborg
-
-
i like the history angle with Nodaks but ND is the roughrider state and UND is the state's flagship university so it makes sense to me to be the roughriders
Yeah, ND is the roughrider state in exactly the same way Coke is the Real Thing.
-
2
-
-
And if someone told you in 2004 the NCAA is going to make UND and other schools change their Indian nicknames you would've thought that was silly too.
So UND was forced and it's that simple? Where there is compliance force is unnecessary.
-
The NCAA has sent a clear shot across the bow. If UND remains "North Dakota" and other schools complain that the school or fans are essentially maintaining use of the Fighting Sioux nickname, they could reinstate sanctions. To me, Kelley had no other choice but to remove it from the ballot. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
The sentence in bold above sounds downright silly. Seems to me that one must have to try hard to believe it.
-
very true! My comment was more in regard to what the mascot Would be- which would most likely be white guy teddy Roosevelt since he's the only shirttail relation that group of diverse men from the desert southwest have to North Dakota. :-)
I wouldn't worry about ending up with Teddy as a logo. Rough Riders is not on the ballot. Roughriders is,
Not saying the logo wouldn't end up a white guy though.
-
The only reason the Sundogs name is still a part of this process is because it has historically had the support of the small group of people who fought hardest to remove the Fighting Sioux name. The support for the Sundogs name dates back over a decade. Sundogs is not acceptable.
Imagine if that historical support would have been for Roughriders instead of Sundogs. If so, RR would now be receiving the same ass-end of criticism Sundogs gets here.
-
Bison will score more in the 4th quarter than UND scores in the entire game.
-
Can they count and do so securely?
Good question.
-
With regard to Kelly, It's not about having the knowledge, he just doesn't see the world that way. He is a communist. He believes he and those who see things in the way he does have a moral imperative to disregard the will of the people(unless the people's will is in concert with his agenda then he would use it to advance his own) and make decisions for the betterment of the society he lords over.
It is very obvious what his plan has been since his arrival. He has done nothing other than that which has moved UND toward erradicationg the Sioux name. This has been his clear mandate all along and it was never the mandate "of the people". (Oh except that 2012 vote right '82?)
I agree that it seems obvious, but evidently it's not, since most people simply consume the manure shoveled at them.
-
The message from the NCAA was that they wouldn't force UND to choose a nickname as a part of the settlement agreement; but if they don't choose a nickname and others complain, then the NCAA will impose sanctions against UND. They didn't make that threat if UND chooses a nickname. Choosing a nickname shows that UND is making an effort to move on to a new nickname. Choosing to go without a nickname does not show the same level of commitment to moving away from the Fighting Sioux name.
The message you are referring to was not from the NCAA. It was from UND insiders, eventually including Kelly himself.
If we are even on the NCAA's radar for any reason, would somebody please display the proof? (A local media article quoting somebody quoting another unnamed person does not qualify as proof).
-
Last time UND tried to call the NCAA's bluff, UND lost a nickname and as a bonus the NCAA Executive Committee got a whole new set of powers to make up stuff as they go.
It's not the NCAA who is bluffing here.
-
http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/local/3818902-sioux-chants-could-mean-consequences-und
Okay this is such as bluff it's hilarious - NCAA would sanction UND if another school complains that UND fans were cheering Fight Sioux?
1. Would the NCAA also sanction a rival school that cheered "Sioux Suck" or similar?
2. How could the NCAA prove it was UND fans doing the cheering? And saying they were wearing Sioux gear proves nothing see #1.
3. What school is going to take the time to do that and create hard feelings with another school over off-ice cheers?
4. Does it have to be a school or could anyone file a complaint - that opens a can of worms for verification?
5. What is the reality of the NCAA punishing a school for a person exercising their rights of free speech?
I'm guessing the next Herald story will talk about how rumors are flying that members of the Big Sky are starting to share their concerns, and how UND could get kicked out of Big Sky.
I call.
-
"Eric, thanks for the email and the support for our university. The NCAA says there would not be a violation of the settlement agreement as far as they are concerned if UND didn't adopt a new nickname. However, the NCAA did say that if fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux, the NCAA believes other schools will complain and that, in turn, would very likely result in sanctions. The NCAA does seem to believe that UND has done its best to comply with the settlement agreement."
Wow, there's a lot of conjecture crammed into that. Sounds like somebody's read of the situation rather than their knowledge of it.
-
1
-
-
In fact its not even my word. It has been used here by multiple posters in their description of Sundogs.
-
. You got hate out of that? Nice effort.
Please replace my word with a better one.
-
this is one vote against the hipster doofus crowd...
I understand. What you're making clear is that much of the ostensible hate for Sundogs is actually hate for its supporters. Modern politics at its finest.
-
1
-
-
Has anyone actually talked to someone who likes the name Sundogs? I mean, do these people actually exist? Seems to me they are about as common as abdominal snowmen!!
When reading these threads I usually find myself wanting to defend Sundogs. Even though it's not my first choice, I get tired of hearing the exaggerated abuse it takes here. Wouldn't be so bad if just one of you actually could explain specifically what is so bad about it. Instead we are stuck with general terms like "lame" or "terrible."
Overcompensated bashing like this doesn't discredit Sundogs. It makes it appear as a real threat.
-
You sure this is the last time?
-
http://www.inc.com/guides/201101/how-to-protect-your-trademark-from-infringement.html
I did the research for you - you have to use it or you lose it. I am quite certain it's not something the leaders at UND feel it is something they "Get To" do.
But what exactly constitutes "using" it? I didn't see anything at your link about required sales.
-
I'm on the no nickname side, would absolutely love to have Fighting Sioux return, but I don't see it as any grand conspiracy. It would only make sense for the University to want to keep it, and it only makes sense that the NCAA would want the University to keep it. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
My original point was about moving on. What we are arguing about here was a secondary point.
-
So am I to assume that it is illegal to own a trademark without generating income with it?
-
I'm on the no nickname side, would absolutely love to have Fighting Sioux return, but I don't see it as any grand conspiracy. It would only make sense for the University to want to keep it, and it only makes sense that the NCAA would want the University to keep it. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
How?
-
They have to maintain the trademark per the settlement. Could you imagine if they lost the trademark on the Fighting Sioux symbolism? You think it's hard to try and get a new nickname now. Very few would be buying anything actually produced by the university.
The way you say that makes it sound like they are being forced against their will. Who do you think benefits from this stipulation? Which side do you think pushed it into the settlement?
-
Have to.
So they have to produce merch so that they will get to use the trademark. After all, they have to own the trademark so that they get to produce merch, right?
Kind of circular logic, isn't it?
-
You do know UND has to produce Fighting Sioux gear or else they lose the trademark.
They have to or they get to?
You Can't Make This Up
in UND Nickname
Posted
True, the visuals are more important than the nickname.