Siouxphan27 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 We missed the boat on that in the current world. And you know this to be true. Cool. Can you hook me up with Saturday's PowerBall numbers too? I don't see why my posts need to be 100% factual..... Please explain how you know the big bad NCAA will come after us like the Thought Police? Or please explain the delusional posts about the interlocking ND being banned by the NCAA as a possible new official logo? Look, I know those in charge will never have the balls to stay with the interlocking ND and go forward without a cutesy mascot. The fear mongering has all the sheep ready to jump off the cliff by May. When the "no nickname" option is officially taken off the table, my vote will be for UND Lemmings. Now, let's hear some more about those millions of merchandise dollars waiting to be raked in, with this "new" 100-years-late-to-the-nickname-party, mascot and logo!!! Will we even need to donate anymore, or will the new nickname cover all costs in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It isn't leading if no one is following you. And no one is going to go without a nickname in the near future (at least the next decade or 2). Actually leading would have been one of 2 things. Either developing very strong relationships with all local tribes to ensure their support to use the name, or dropping the name before it became an issue with the NCAA. Not at all what i'm talking about when referring to leading. I'm fine with no new nickname. The old one would have just continued to cause problems even if "support" was granted from the tribes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I don't see why my posts need to be 100% factual..... Please explain how you know the big bad NCAA will come after us like the Thought Police? Or please explain the delusional posts about the interlocking ND being banned by the NCAA as a possible new official logo? Look, I know those in charge will never have the balls to stay with the interlocking ND and go forward without a cutesy mascot. The fear mongering has all the sheep ready to jump off the cliff by May. When the "no nickname" option is officially taken off the table, my vote will be for UND Lemmings. Now, let's hear some more about those millions of merchandise dollars waiting to be raked in, with this "new" 100-years-late-to-the-nickname-party, mascot and logo!!! Will we even need to donate anymore, or will the new nickname cover all costs in the future? They don't have to be factual, but predictions have to be pointed out as just that: predictions. I don't know the NCAA will come after UND like Thought Police ... but they have in the past so it's not unreasonable to expect it again. And I never said the "ND" would have to go. Like I said already, that's not in violation. However, the ND logo is not a "new nickname". That's what's missing. I guess I don't find "Lemmings" all that catchy. To each their own. And I've never claimed a new nickname and logo will be a cash cow. What I have said is that it will generate more revenue than nothing. And it will stave off the Thought Police and that's worth a few bucks in itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 CBS Sports over an NCAA background Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Things like that are exactly why I fear the NCAA will come back at UND: As long as there's not new the old will fill this void. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 ^This is also speculation. The NCAA could be pressuring our Admin, which is speeding up our selection process. Doubt it but who knows Yes, I'm speculating. I have no inside information. Also, I'm not the one making grand proclamations about the NCAA's motives behind that specific clause in the settlement agreement. I think there are two reasonable interpretations of that clause - one, it was a drafting oversight, and two, it was intentional and the NCAA will not allow UND to go forward without a nickname. The fact that there is no evidence in the public record that the NCAA has said or done anything over the past three years indicates that maybe it was a drafting oversight and the NCAA is fine with UND proceeding without a nickname. Do I know that for a fact? Of course not. Maybe the NCAA is waiting patiently for this to play out, but will not approve of this arrangement indefinitely. All I'm saying is there is no need for the committee to speculate, like numerous posters are doing on this site. They should seek clarification. If the NCAA says "no-nickname" is not acceptable, at least they would have 100% clarity and can blame the NCAA for it not being an option. That will cushion the blow for those that really want no-nickname. If the NCAA says that "no-nickname" is okay, then the committee shouldn't rightfully be allowed to hide behind the settlement agreement when they take "no-nickname" off the table. Make no mistake, I fully believe there will be a new nickname in place at UND at the end of the process. I just think the way they go about getting there is important. I don't think the committee should eliminate "no-nickname" as an option and use the settlement agreement as the scapegoat without fully looking into the matter. I think that will cause unnecessary resentment and may impede closure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsioux Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Go North Dakota North Stars!!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 W&M have Tribe, Bradley has Braves, and Winona State has Warriors but out of those three only Winona State has a logo other than the the letters of the school, their logo looks like USC's Trojan, or just the word Tribe or Braves. When UND picks a name I hope they can come up with a logo besides UND or the UND flame logo (unless they do go with Flames). I realize that none of these names are unique but none of these schools has UND's baggage either. I'd like to note that the name suggested was "Brave" not Braves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Yes, I'm speculating. I have no inside information. Also, I'm not the one making grand proclamations about the NCAA's motives behind that specific clause in the settlement agreement. I think there are two reasonable interpretations of that clause - one, it was a drafting oversight, and two, it was intentional and the NCAA will not allow UND to go forward without a nickname. The fact that there is no evidence in the public record that the NCAA has said or done anything over the past three years indicates that maybe it was a drafting oversight and the NCAA is fine with UND proceeding without a nickname. Do I know that for a fact? Of course not. Maybe the NCAA is waiting patiently for this to play out, but will not approve of this arrangement indefinitely. All I'm saying is there is no need for the committee to speculate, like numerous posters are doing on this site. They should seek clarification. If the NCAA says "no-nickname" is not acceptable, at least they would have 100% clarity and can blame the NCAA for it not being an option. That will cushion the blow for those that really want no-nickname. If the NCAA says that "no-nickname" is okay, then the committee shouldn't rightfully be allowed to hide behind the settlement agreement when they take "no-nickname" off the table. Make no mistake, I fully believe there will be a new nickname in place at UND at the end of the process. I just think the way they go about getting there is important. I don't think the committee should eliminate "no-nickname" as an option and use the settlement agreement as the scapegoat without fully looking into the matter. I think that will cause unnecessary resentment and may impede closure. I don't see the NCAA issuing an opinion on the question. That wouldn't fit with their typical style. They are either going to do something official, or they are going to avoid the issue. They aren't going to issue an unofficial opinion. And they aren't going to lock themselves into an official opinion on not having a nickname without having studies and exploring all of the ramifications on either side of the issue. Their answer would probably be something like, "It is up to the school itself whether they decide to choose a nickname or not at this time." However, the time, effort, and money that they have expended in eliminating Native American names and imagery is what leads many of us to believe that they will eventually push the no nickname issue since it is written directly into the settlement agreement. The NCAA spends a lot of money on lawyers so it is hard to imagine they would put a phrase like that in by accident. Leaving UND without a nickname makes it much easier for people to keep using the old nickname. That defeats the purpose of eliminating the nickname in the first place. They won't go as far as banning fans from using or wearing the name, because that would cause some potential 1st Amendment discussion. But getting UND to choose a new name helps move people to using that new name, which means fewer people using the old name over time. That is their goal, eventually eliminating any use of Native American nicknames or imagery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Go North Dakota North Stars!!!! Horrible idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Horrible idea. Agreed, isn't Minnesota the North Star State? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I don't see the NCAA issuing an opinion on the question. That wouldn't fit with their typical style. They are either going to do something official, or they are going to avoid the issue. They aren't going to issue an unofficial opinion. And they aren't going to lock themselves into an official opinion on not having a nickname without having studies and exploring all of the ramifications on either side of the issue. Their answer would probably be something like, "It is up to the school itself whether they decide to choose a nickname or not at this time." However, the time, effort, and money that they have expended in eliminating Native American names and imagery is what leads many of us to believe that they will eventually push the no nickname issue since it is written directly into the settlement agreement. The NCAA spends a lot of money on lawyers so it is hard to imagine they would put a phrase like that in by accident. Leaving UND without a nickname makes it much easier for people to keep using the old nickname. That defeats the purpose of eliminating the nickname in the first place. They won't go as far as banning fans from using or wearing the name, because that would cause some potential 1st Amendment discussion. But getting UND to choose a new name helps move people to using that new name, which means fewer people using the old name over time. That is their goal, eventually eliminating any use of Native American nicknames or imagery. If the NCAA had a definite motive to put that clause in the settlement agreement so that UND could not go without a nickname, I believe they'd say that to the committee. What good would it do the NCAA to keep silent if their motive was clear in including that clause in the settlement agreement? It certainly wouldn't help their legal case later on (if it ever came to that). On the other hand, if they had never thought about the issue and didn't have a position on it, then you could be right. But that would mean they weren't thinking about the issue when they drafted the settlement agreement. As to the lawyers, you give them way too much credit. If the NCAA wanted to make sure that no-nickname was not an option, then their lawyers did a terrible job drafting the settlement agreement. A proper drafting of that intent would be to call it out and specifically say that proceeding with no nickname would be a violation of the agreement and would place UND back on the list. Again, this leads me to suspect that neither party contemplated that UND might proceed without a nickname. Lawyers drafting settlement agreements do the best they can to think of every contingency, but they almost never do. Sometimes, they don't think about things that, in hindsight, seem obvious. I see it often. I see it with both big and small firm lawyers. With all that said, the fact that the NCAA might not give the committee an answer is no reason not to ask the question. If the NCAA refuses to answer, then the committee can weigh that and perhaps reasonably conclude that proceeding without a nickname is not worth the legal risk. It would still be better than assuming and speculating without asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 If the NCAA had a definite motive to put that clause in the settlement agreement so that UND could not go without a nickname, I believe they'd say that to the committee. What good would it do the NCAA to keep silent if their motive was clear in including that clause in the settlement agreement? It certainly wouldn't help their legal case later on (if it ever came to that). On the other hand, if they had never thought about the issue and didn't have a position on it, then you could be right. But that would mean they weren't thinking about the issue when they drafted the settlement agreement. As to the lawyers, you give them way too much credit. If the NCAA wanted to make sure that no-nickname was not an option, then their lawyers did a terrible job drafting the settlement agreement. A proper drafting of that intent would be to call it out and specifically say that proceeding with no nickname would be a violation of the agreement and would place UND back on the list. Again, this leads me to suspect that neither party contemplated that UND might proceed without a nickname. Lawyers drafting settlement agreements do the best they can to think of every contingency, but they almost never do. Sometimes, they don't think about things that, in hindsight, seem obvious. I see it often. I see it with both big and small firm lawyers. With all that said, the fact that the NCAA might not give the committee an answer is no reason not to ask the question. If the NCAA refuses to answer, then the committee can weigh that and perhaps reasonably conclude that proceeding without a nickname is not worth the legal risk. It would still be better than assuming and speculating without asking. I'm sure that someone will ask the question. I don't believe that the NCAA would give a direct answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Duh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 http://www.ag.nd.gov/ncaa/SettlementAgreement.pdf - (Page 5) "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, 2001, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy. In the event UND secures namesake approval but such approval is withdrawn after Novenber 30,2010, UND shall have 1 year to complete transition to a new nickname and logo, unless the parties mutually agree to a period of time longer than one year"it's not 2001, it's 2011...now I have to proof all the stuff you put out here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockeygirl97 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I think someone really needs to work on a name, because I have NO faith in this committee. And Kelly needs to just go jump off a cliff. I'll drive him to Montana. But seriously, we can't just make up our own cool Fighter Wing nickname? It can't be that hard. If someone doesn't come up w/ something cool and it doesn't take off on social media, we're screwed. Because what's worse than losing the old name? How 'bout having the president of UTTC and the PC police come up with a terrible one we have to live with for the rest of our lives (and our kids' lives). We'll probably end up being the "Loving, Inclusive Kittens" or something as crappy. I think that's a Bohica situation in Aviator Slang. Eielson was an Ice Pilot, but I think we can do better than that. Pick an animal or a plane nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonadub Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Eielson was an Ice Pilot, but I think we can do better than that. Pick an animal or a plane nickname. Eielson was from Hatton ... They used to be the Flyers. I know Dayton uses Flyers, but it would be a tip of the cap to the aviation program, a distinguished pool of alumni and the history of Class B schools that have been absorbed into co-ops. Another thought -not Brave, The Brave. I understand that some posters on this board are really pushing for no name, but really do not think that is a realistic possibility. "We can't continue to be a 'fighting question mark' or designated as something else," Kelley told the House Education Committee. "We have to move on." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You are correct- "people" do, but the university doesn't. The deal is with the university, not the general population. People will still wear their Sioux apparel for years to come regardless of a new nickname or not. If it went to court the ncaa would have no grounds to stand on.....they would be using a Thought Police reasoning to state their case. And besides, the interlocking ND is a new logo. Slippery Rock University gets by calling themselves Slippery Rock with an inference to "The Rock" also being their nickname. So, their nickname is the same as their schoolname, yet they somehow get by without litigation from the ncaa. Question---was Slippery Rock having problems with the NCAA in regards to a hostile and abusive nickname? Did the NCAA order Slippery Rock to change there nickname? Did the NCAA say Slippery Rock had to have a nick name? Besides UND has the NCAA demanded any school to have a nickname? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runaroundsioux Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Question---Is 73 your age or your I.Q.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Probably not a new idea here, but there aren't any college teams using it.... UND Aces, somehow tying it into the Aerospace Dept with a flyer logo. You could also use the suits from a deck of cards for the different sports for patches on the uniforms. Baseball... diamonds. Women's sports.... Hearts. Hockey,, Clubs. Edit: Evansville is the Purple Aces Edited March 6, 2015 by GeauxSioux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Probably not a new idea here, but there aren't any college teams using it.... UND Aces, somehow tying it into the Aerospace Dept with a flyer logo. You could also use the suits from a deck of cards for the different sports for patches on the uniforms. Baseball... diamonds. Women's sports.... Hearts. Hockey,, Clubs. Edit: Evansville is the Purple Aces Offensive to those with a gambling addiction. Next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Offensive to those with a gambling addiction which is an "illness". Next. FYP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Flying Aces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Question---was Slippery Rock having problems with the NCAA in regards to a hostile and abusive nickname? Did the NCAA order Slippery Rock to change there nickname? Did the NCAA say Slippery Rock had to have a nick name? Besides UND has the NCAA demanded any school to have a nickname? I'll try make an analogy you might understand. Back when you were in the residence halls at ndsu, nearly everyone had their pet goat living in their door room. Unfortunately, yours died. ndsu ordered you to get a new goat, or you would be kicked out of school. But you did not want to bother with a new goat. And as you pointed out to the administration, your best friend JimBob across the hall did not have a goat, yet he was allowed to live in the dorms and not get kicked out of school. The End. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You're correct, the world is changing. I said several pages ago, a hundred years from now no one will have a nickname. Everything is becoming offensive to somebody. The first time a longhorn breaks a leg running around a football field, or a bulldog dies of heat stroke in the end zone, animal nicknames will come under fire. Why play the stupid nickname game at all? How about a poll on a new thread asking, "which would you more likely support, a new nickname selected or going without a nickname?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.