Question for the "no moniker" folks

[The Sicatoka]

I do think NO LOGO or NICK NAME is the best.

Folks that believe "no nickname" is the way to go, I have a question for you.

How are you going to reconcile that with the settlement agreement, page 5, section 2d:

If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo, or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy.

Specifically,

If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo, ...

I'll maybe buy into the argument that "no nickname" is a nickname.

However, how in the world do you claim no logo is a logo?

Are you going to put a little "TM" symbol in the bottom left corner of a blank sheet of paper and call that your logo? Portrait or landscape?

PS - Apologies to "Goon" for quoting him from another thread, but his was a good post to use to represent the point of view.

[octupus25]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't the symbol just be ND or UND? I'm no lawyer, but I don't think it has to be an animal or anything like that. Does the football team even have a logo on their jersey now? I honestly can't remember seeing one last season.

[The Sicatoka]

OK octo, you're saying the interlocked ND on the football helmets. That works as a logo.

But is that a "transition to a new nickname and logo"?

I'm worried that some NCAA legal word-weasel will claim even that is retroactively associated with "Sioux" and back on the NCAA 'naughty' list goes UND.

Am I fretting too much? Maybe, but we're down the rabbit hole and who knows how things work here.

[Goon]

OK octo, you're saying the interlocked ND on the football helmets. That works as a logo.

But is that a "transition to a new nickname and logo"?

I'm worried that some NCAA legal word-weasel will claim even that is retroactively associated with "Sioux" and back on the NCAA 'naughty' list goes UND.

Am I fretting too much? Maybe, but we're down the rabbit hole and who knows how things work here.

I think it is a legitimate question but I posed this to one of the people that will benifit from being in the summit league conference and I understood from talking to him that the University wasn't just going to pick a name without a tought out process and that UND might not have one for a short period of time.

We all know if the Administration decided to pick a moniker and logo without a well thought out process involving the students and alumni there would be huge mess. That being said, I could see the Univesity and or the SBHE doing something stupid like that.

[ScottM]

The prior sentence creates an internal tension in the Agreement. "In the event UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo .... " While the sentence giving UND until August 15, 2011, to adopt a new name and logo seems linked to the prior sentence, I believe the preceding sentence weakens any "mandate" to do so. I would submit the first sentence is a necessary condition of the second.

Moreover, I would be surprised if the NC@@ wanted to make a big deal out of a new name/logo when they effectively achieved their desired result.

Now, who gets the bill?

[Goon]

The prior sentence creates an internal tension in the Agreement. "In the event UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo .... " While the sentence giving UND until August 15, 2011, to adopt a new name and logo seems linked to the prior sentence, I believe the preceding sentence weakens any "mandate" to do so. I would submit the first sentence is a necessary condition of the second.

Moreover, I would be surprised if the NC@@ wanted to make a big deal out of a new name/logo when they effectively achieved their desired result.

Now, who gets the bill?

The desired result was the tyrannical shake down and that has been achieved, the name is going to change.

[siouxweet]

Folks that believe "no nickname" is the way to go, I have a question for you.

How are you going to reconcile that with the settlement agreement, page 5, section 2d:

Specifically,

I'll maybe buy into the argument that "no nickname" is a nickname.

However, how in the world do you claim no logo is a logo?

Are you going to put a little "TM" symbol in the bottom left corner of a blank sheet of paper and call that your logo? Portrait or landscape?

PS - Apologies to "Goon" for quoting him from another thread, but his was a good post to use to represent the point of view.

Is there NCAA policy that mandates a university have a nickname?

[Ranger]

Adopting no name as the school's new nickname does embrace change and a "new" nickname. It just happens to be nothing. Simple logic. Does the settlement specifically state a new nickname has to be something other than no name? If not, then no worries.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Moreover, I would be surprised if the NC@@ wanted to make a big deal out of a new name/logo when they effectively achieved their desired result.

Without the legalese, I would submit that the people parsing that agreement to read into a some sort of a mandate for a new nickname are, well: reading too much into it.

That's all I'll say. I don't think you

HAVE

to have a new nickname.

[SiouxMeNow]

Folks that believe "no nickname" is the way to go, I have a question for you.

How are you going to reconcile that with the settlement agreement, page 5, section 2d:

Specifically,

I'll maybe buy into the argument that "no nickname" is a nickname.

However, how in the world do you claim no logo is a logo?

Are you going to put a little "TM" symbol in the bottom left corner of a blank sheet of paper and call that your logo? Portrait or landscape?

PS - Apologies to "Goon" for quoting him from another thread, but his was a good post to use to represent the point of view.

wow Sic...you're turning into the Judah Friedlander of SS.com! A real World Champion! at everything...especially legal opinions! Are you really a lawyer or do you just play one on an internet chat board?

[gjw007]

Folks that believe "no nickname" is the way to go, I have a question for you.

How are you going to reconcile that with the settlement agreement, page 5, section 2d:

Specifically,

I'll maybe buy into the argument that "no nickname" is a nickname.

However, how in the world do you claim no logo is a logo?

Are you going to put a little "TM" symbol in the bottom left corner of a blank sheet of paper and call that your logo? Portrait or landscape?

PS - Apologies to "Goon" for quoting him from another thread, but his was a good post to use to represent the point of view.

I think these are legitimate questions but the fact is that if UND gives up the current nickname, Fighting Sioux, it would have adopted a new nickname, simply the name of the University. The interlocking ND could still be used as the logo. Since it already has these, it would be completed before the date and should be no problem. Really, do you think the NC$$ would pursue it any further?

[Chewey]

Just "North Dakota" would be fine with me. I liked those hockey sweaters when I was there anyway. I agree with Scott M. There is no mandate to have a new nickname but you can bet that the same old nuts are going to be pushing for one because they would figure that by just being "North Dakota" people would revert to the old nickname. The real question becomes whether the SBHE and the administration have any spine left.

[The Sicatoka]

The prior sentence creates an internal tension in the Agreement. "In the event UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo .... " While the sentence giving UND until August 15, 2011, to adopt a new name and logo seems linked to the prior sentence, I believe the preceding sentence weakens any "mandate" to do so. I would submit the first sentence is a necessary condition of the second.

Moreover, I would be surprised if the NC@@ wanted to make a big deal out of a new name/logo when they effectively achieved their desired result.

Now, who gets the bill?

So you're saying I need to read not just the sentence I quoted but the one before it for full meaning:

In the event UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo wihch do not violate the Policy, the transition will be completed on or before August 15, 2011, subject to Subsection 2(f), below. If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo, or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy.

I guess the key phrase there is: " ... a transition to a new nickname and logo wihch do not violate the Policy ... "

A blank space contains no race, ethnicity, or national origin based relationship. I guess that meets the key criteria: Not violating the Policy.

But it's not very marketable.

[ScottM]

So you're saying I need to read not just the sentence I quoted but the one before it for full meaning:

I guess the key phrase there is: " ... a transition to a new nickname and logo wihch do not violate the Policy ... "

A blank space contains no race, ethnicity, or national origin based relationship. I guess that meets the key criteria: Not violating the Policy.

But it's not very marketable.

I think the "In the event" language creates the specter of conflict if some NC$$ nutjob decides to press the issue. There is no other mandate that UND must create a new name/logo, but if one is created it cannot violate the NC$$ dictates. Unless they are completely tone-deaf and/or stupid, I can't imagine the state or school will be in a hurry to foist a new name/logo immediately after the Sioux name/logo are buried. From my own perspective, this section isn't really the model of clarity and that's the kind of muck that ends up being litigated.

[SportsDoc]

To the NCAA, transitioning to a new name might be important because ... they don't want to see UND do nothing for an extended period, and use it to buy more time to gain approval from future Tribal councils and then revert to the Sioux name.

Is that what the NDSBHE would do ... no, but the NCAA is a bit paranoid, and it could be why certain language is inserted. Could they go with no name for a while? Probably, as long as there was a time table for adopting a new name and logo in place.

[Goon]

To the NCAA, transitioning to a new name might be important because ... they don't want to see UND do nothing for an extended period, and use it to buy more time to gain approval from future Tribal councils and then revert to the Sioux name.

Is that what the NDSBHE would do ... no, but the NCAA is a bit paranoid, and it could be why certain language is inserted. Could they go with no name for a while? Probably, as long as there was a time table for adopting a new name and logo in place.

I think as I read this part of the settlement a few time I think it is expected that UND is going to have to pick a new nickname. Like I said In another post I am not a lawyer so this could be me miss interpreting the language.

In the event UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo wihch do not violate the Policy, the transition will be completed on or before August 15, 2011, subject to Subsection 2(f), below. If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo, or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy.]

[The Sicatoka]

He'll probably be mad at me for out-ing him, but a lawyer has weighed in on this ...

From my own perspective, this section isn't really the model of clarity and that's the kind of muck that ends up being litigated.

[MJohnce]

If there has to be a so called nickname to support the agreement then why not just have the nickname be Nodak. To me a true nickname is a shortened version of a long handed name, just like Mike for Michael.

So the long hand version we would be called the University of North Dakota then for short hand The Nodak.

This way it keeps the UND tradition and brand alive from when we had the Sioux as the moniker and minimizes the transition mark that would be set.

[The Sicatoka]

Personally, I've always hated the term "Nodak". I've never heard a North Dakotan use the term; it's a term used by non-North Dakotans.

At best, Nodak is a Fargo appliance store.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

He'll probably be mad at me for out-ing him, but a lawyer has weighed in on this ...

He outed himself when he wrote this:

Now, who gets the bill?

[mksioux]

I raised this issue as being problematic when the settlement was first announced. I don't think the NCAA will do anything if UND goes without a nickname for a couple years. I believe other offending schools were immediately taken off the sanctions list once they dropped their offending nickname. I believe the same will be true of UND. It's perfectly reasonable to let emotions calm a little before beginning discussions of a new nickname. However, if UND goes without a nickname for an extended period of time (with no timeline to replace it), and the Fighting Sioux nickname is unofficially used in a noticeable way, I can see the NCAA invoking that section of the settlement agreement to force UND to adopt a new nickname. That section of the settlement agreement was poorly drafted and it seems obvious to me that nobody contemplated the idea of not having a nickname for an extended period of time. UND might very well have a good legal argument in the end, but I highly doubt anyone on the State Board or UND will have the stomach for further litigation against the NCAA. More importantly, I don't think it will ever come to any of this because UND may go a couple years without a nickname, but regardless of what the settlement agreement says, it isn't going to go indefinitely without one. I think the best we can hope for is that UND will not rush into a new nickname and wait a couple years before starting the process of adopting a new nickname.

[Nodaker]

Personally, I've always hated the term "Nodak". I've never heard a North Dakotan use the term; it's a term used by non-North Dakotans.

At best, Nodak is a Fargo appliance store.

I kind of like the term.

[Northcountry]

An idea occurred to me during some stream-of-conciousness time today: If we really want to be and stay consistent with the notion (principle) that the "Fighting Sioux" name was intended to honor the American Indians of the state, then we should ask the tribes to choose a suitable nickname - one that they would regard as honorable and representative of their culture and heritage. The Sioux nickname was adopted in a formal naming ceremony and a new name could be initiated in the same way. Many have argued that the name was intended to honor, some have argued that it does not honor and which side is correct is in the heart of the intended honoree. UND should go without any nickname until something evolves to fill the void, but if we really do want to honor the tribes of the state, let them choose how they would like to be so honored.

[redwing77]

An idea occurred to me during some stream-of-conciousness time today: If we really want to be and stay consistent with the notion (principle) that the "Fighting Sioux" name was intended to honor the American Indians of the state, then we should ask the tribes to choose a suitable nickname - one that they would regard as honorable and representative of their culture and heritage. The Sioux nickname was adopted in a formal naming ceremony and a new name could be initiated in the same way. Many have argued that the name was intended to honor, some have argued that it does not honor and which side is correct is in the heart of the intended honoree. UND should go without any nickname until something evolves to fill the void, but if we really do want to honor the tribes of the state, let them choose how they would like to be so honored.

TWO WORDS:

HELL NO.

They won their battle. They pushed around the majority. The nickname is all but gone. Why give them any more power? What have they done to earn this power in the first place?

They get their nickname and any established NA programs on campus. That's it. No more. They're opting out. Their name is gone, that's all the input we need from the tribes. I say we go in an entirely OPPOSITE direction to what RHHiT and his cronies suggest. No, I don't think we should go out and get something that is purposefully hostile to NA people. No, I don't say we cut NA programming or make life for NA students miserable either. I say it is the same ole same ole from October 1 to eternity with the standard majority ruling over the new nickname.

The NA population at UND just become "just another minority" at UND. Nothing to set them apart from the Asian, Indian, African/African-American, Muslim, Canadian, Eskimo, [insert ethnicity here] that choose UND for their higher education. They have enough with the NA programming (InMED, etc.).

Their influence could have been made towards righting the wrong in a diplomatic way. They could have used the nickname as leverage towards sweetening the pot for NA students at UND. Instead, they just chose to raze the nickname and drag UND's name through the mud with the help of the NCAA and Myles Brand (and his idiot cronies).

Doing what you would say would be like, after getting punched in the mouth, going back to the attacker and asking that person to help you come up with an act or personality that would prevent him from punching you again in the mouth. It gives him POWER. Power he did not earn. Respect he did not deserve. It makes you somewhat subservient to whatever he decides. Do you bow to all your attackers?

If so, then I suggest we come up with the nickname the UND Cowering Cowards. Our motto could be "Wimpicus Maximus Eternicus" (ok, that's not latin, but you get my drift).

No. This is the bed they made. We bowed to their PC BS. Come October, we work tireless to right what integrity and dignity the PC imbeciles stole from us.

END RANT

[GeauxSioux]

Ummmmmm, no.