Benny Baker Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Sorry, you're wrong. The NCAA already blessed not having a nickname in the addendum to the settlement agreement. The NCAA affirmatively took UND off the list after UND officially dropped the nickname and that was confirmed in writing though the addendum to the settlement agreement. At this point, the clause you are all relying upon for your argument is moot. Everyone here needs to do themselves a favor and listen to mksioux. Seriously. http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/AddendumToSettlement.pdf Take a look. UND and NCAA renegotiated the settlement agreement on September 26, 2012. Check out clause 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 If you want a new nickname, argue the merits of it, ... It's been done. ... not having a nickname and being just "North Dakota" is super lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Look at the actual addendum to the settlement agreement. There is nothing about UND adopting a new nickname, only the fact that UND dropped the old nickname. Yet, the NCAA took UND off the list anyway. Which, according to you, UND was in violation of the settlement agreement at the time. Your theory doesn't hold water. It's not consistent with the addendum to the settlement agreement. It's not consistent with the NCAA's actions since the settlement agreement. And it's not consistent with statements from the committee, and it's not consistent with President Kelley's statement saying no nickname is an option. Correct again. If no nickname violates the settlement agreement, we certainly wouldn't know that by looking at the NCAA's actions since 2012, the new nickname committee's actions over the past year, and President Kelley's recent statement that no nickname is still an option. It sounds like a lot of you guys really despise the "Fighting Sioux" name and happily resort to any speculative argument you can think of as to why the NCAA can put UND back on sanctions. Those arguments, however, really have no basis in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Everyone here needs to do themselves a favor and listen to mksioux. Seriously. http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/AddendumToSettlement.pdf Take a look. UND and NCAA renegotiated the settlement agreement on September 26, 2012. Check out clause 3. " ... provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment." Isn't that circular back to what does "transition to a new" mean and is the University in compliance with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Everyone here needs to do themselves a favor and listen to mksioux. Seriously. http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/AddendumToSettlement.pdf Take a look. UND and NCAA renegotiated the settlement agreement on September 26, 2012. Check out clause 3. The part where is says "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment"? I don't see anything that would supersede the original agreement that UND has to transition towards a new nickname. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. I also really don't care to watch UND test the NCAA again and find out where they really stand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 It sounds like a lot of you guys really despise the "Fighting Sioux" name ... I was fighting for it when it was still winnable. So today I don't despise it; what I despise is the sucking chest wound it has become. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 I prefer that UND adopt a new nickname, assuming it's not bad. I just want clarity. People should decide their position based on accurate facts. If you want a new nickname, argue the merits of it, but don't rely on the settlement agreement and say having no nickname is not an option. Everyone can agree that there is no nickname that will be as good as the Fighting Sioux...period. So what may seem a bad name now may not be so bad 10 years, 20 years, 50 years from now. Just ask Stanford, and Dartmouth who are going on about 40 years without their NA nickname. I want a new nickname (since Fighting Sioux is NOT an option) because I don't like to be known as just North Dakota. Go North Dakota (I will say go UND) just doesn't sound right. We need a nickname for marketing, just being North Dakota with the UND logo isn't really a money maker compared to what a nickname will do for the school especially if you can design a cool logo to go with the name. But first things first....we need a name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 It sounds like a lot of you guys really despise the "Fighting Sioux" name and happily resort to any speculative argument you can think of as to why the NCAA can put UND back on sanctions. Those arguments, however, really have no basis in reality. Straw man argument. What you continue to miss is that what is more important to people than a nickname is the University of North Dakota, athletic department and student athletes. The nickname has become a net negative to all of those groups. Why people, who claim to be supporters of these groups, want to fight for something (as great as it may be) to would cause intentional harm or disadvantage them is beyond me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 " ... provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment." Isn't that circular back to what does "transition to a new" mean and is the University in compliance with it? Look at the definition of "remains" and put it in context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 The part where is says "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment"? I don't see anything that would supersede the original agreement that UND has to transition towards a new nickname. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. I also really don't care to watch UND test the NCAA again and find out where they really stand. Look up the definition of "remains." And not the one about a dead body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 " ... provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment." Isn't that circular back to what does "transition to a new" mean and is the University in compliance with it? Good point, but I don't think so. September 26, 2012, the date the addendum was signed, was well over a year after UND seemingly had to adopt a new nickname according to the August 11, 2011 deadline in the original settlement agreement. The NCAA would not have agreed to sign the addendum, take UND off of the sanctions list, and loosen the restrictions against Native American imagery at UND if UND was in violation of the settlement agreement by not adopting a new nickname by August 11, 2011. Nothing since August 11, 2011 indicates that UND will go back on sanctions if it does not adopt a new nickname other than "Fighting Sioux." On the other hand, everything that has happened since August 11, 2011--including the terms of the settlement agreement and addendum--indicate that UND will not be on sanctions even in the absence of a new nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Good point, but I don't think so. September 26, 2012, the date the addendum was signed, was well over a year after UND seemingly had to adopt a new nickname according to the August 11, 2011 deadline in the original settlement agreement. The NCAA would not have agreed to sign the addendum, take UND off of the sanctions list, and loosen the restrictions against Native American imagery at UND if UND was in violation of the settlement agreement by not adopting a new nickname by August 11, 2011. Nothing since August 11, 2011 indicates that UND will go back on sanctions if it does not adopt a new nickname other than "Fighting Sioux." On the other hand, everything that has happened since August 11, 2011--including the terms of the settlement agreement and addendum--indicate that UND will not be on sanctions even in the absence of a new nickname. All true. Moreover, by saying "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement" the NCAA was saying that UND was in compliance at the time the addendum was signed. At the time the parties signed the addendum, UND did not have a nickname. Again, this issue is settled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Straw man argument. What you continue to miss is that what is more important to people than a nickname is the University of North Dakota, athletic department and student athletes. The nickname has become a net negative to all of those groups. Why people, who claim to be supporters of these groups, want to fight for something (as great as it may be) to would cause intentional harm or disadvantage them is beyond me. Straw man argument. What you continue to miss is that my arguments and opinions have nothing to do with what other people may think is important between either the continuity of the nickname or the well-being of UND's athletic department. So, feel free to set up a straw man and attack it with an argument that I wasn't even talking about in the first place. Now that I've shown you an actual example of an "straw man argument", feel free to correctly recognize it next time rather than posting "straw man argument" just because you disagree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Look up the definition of "remains." And not the one about a dead body. Remains as they are continuing to work towards transitioning towards a new nickname which is why they were at the time in compliance. The action of retiring the old nickname and moving to a new one is what got them removed from the sanctions list and in compliance. While UND did not have a new nickname at the time, there were no intentions of them not choosing a new nickname, one of the points of the original settlement agreement that is not addressed in the addendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Straw man argument. What you continue to miss is that my arguments and opinions have nothing to do with what other people may think is important between either the continuity of the nickname or the well-being of UND's athletic department. So, feel free to set up a straw man and attack it with an argument that I wasn't even talking about in the first place. Now that I've shown you an actual example of an "straw man argument", feel free to correctly recognize it next time rather than posting "straw man argument" just because you disagree with me. Your claim that people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname is most definitely a straw man argument. That is not why people want to move on. They want to move on because it is what is best for the University of North Dakota. Now feel free to explain why continuing to fight for something that is gone and that will knowingly harm or put UND at a disadvantage is a good idea. And moving forward with no nickname falls into that category as it leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and gives people reason to drag up this whole mess every time it is mentioned why UND has chose not to have a nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Your claim that people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname is most definitely a straw man argument. That is not why people want to move on. They want to move on because it is what is best for the University of North Dakota. Now feel free to explain why continuing to fight for something that is gone and that will knowingly harm or put UND at a disadvantage is a good idea. And moving forward with no nickname falls into that category as it leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and gives people reason to drag up this whole mess every time it is mentioned why UND has chose not to have a nickname. Do yourself a favor. Look up the definition or examples of "straw man argument". Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Your claim that people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname is most definitely a straw man argument. That is not why people want to move on. They want to move on because it is what is best for the University of North Dakota. Now feel free to explain why continuing to fight for something that is gone and that will knowingly harm or put UND at a disadvantage is a good idea. And moving forward with no nickname falls into that category as it leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and gives people reason to drag up this whole mess every time it is mentioned why UND has chose not to have a nickname. Oh brother, another straw man argument. I did not argue that UND re-adopt "Fighting Sioux". Again, feel free to set up a straw man and attack it with an argument that I wasn't even talking about in the first place. Seriously, sign off of siouxsports.com, go to google.com, and look up the definition of straw man argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Remains as they are continuing to work towards transitioning towards a new nickname which is why they were at the time in compliance. The action of retiring the old nickname and moving to a new one is what got them removed from the sanctions list and in compliance. While UND did not have a new nickname at the time, there were no intentions of them not choosing a new nickname, one of the points of the original settlement agreement that is not addressed in the addendum. Good lord, son! The original settlement agreement set an August 11, 2011 deadline. The transition to a new nickname, if it was actually required, needed to be done by August 11, 2011. The fact that a new nickname was not adopted by then and the fact that the NCAA signed an addendum and removed its sanctions against UND in September 2012 obviously contemplates that UND was not required to adopt a new nickname, but rather only retire "Fighting Sioux"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 "I think it would be cool to have just the name of the college be our monikor. It would be unique and everyone calls us UND anyways. We could be UND or North Dakota." = "If we don't get a new nickname, there is a chance that the Sioux name could be reinstated someday!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Oh brother, another straw man argument. I did not argue that UND re-adopt "Fighting Sioux". Again, feel free to set up a straw man and attack it with an argument that I wasn't even talking about in the first place. Yet you claiming people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname when that has nothing to do with anything makes sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberkas Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Everyone here needs to do themselves a favor and listen to mksioux. Seriously. http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/AddendumToSettlement.pdf Take a look. UND and NCAA renegotiated the settlement agreement on September 26, 2012. Check out clause 3. This had nothing to do with the "nickname", this agreement was for UND to possibly host a NCAA Regional at the Ralph. Before they could do that they had to remove the Fighting Sioux imagery. This agreement was for the Italian marble floors to keep their Fighting Sioux logo's and the Fighting Sioux logo's at the end of each row of seats. Because of the cost to remove the logo's in the marble floor and the logo's at the end of reach row of seats was too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Yet you claiming people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname when that has nothing to do with anything makes sense? Look up straw man argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Look at the definition of "remains" and put it in context. As in "continue to be as specified", sure. "Remains" in the status of " ... in transition to a new ... ". The minute there's no "transition" (and no "new"), is UND in violation of the original settlement and the addendum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Everyone quit saying "strawman argument". stupid. come up with something new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Look up the definition of "remains." And not the one about a dead body. The dead body one seems more appropriate for this. 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.