The Sicatoka Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 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. That's directly from the settlement agreement. I don't find a lot of room for interpretation in there. Here's why: New logo? Sure, the interlocked ND is the new primary logo. New nickname? Uh, folks are saying, "No nickname". However, no nickname is not a new nickname* and it's well after 8/15/2011. That's not meeting the agreement. Right there is grounds for the NCAA to make UND subject to the Policy if they decided to press. They haven't ... so far, probably in deference to the state law that was passed ("cooling off" until 1/1/15). Come New Years Day, when state law no longer precludes action by UND, all bets are off on what the NCAA may (or may not) do. *A nothing is not a new something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Slow down? Huh? The nickname has been retired for almost 2 full years. And we have surveys about processes of a committee to discuss another committee. Not sure how much more than can drag out this process. Never underestimate the power of academic footdraggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Never underestimate the power of academic footdraggers. Completely agree but for people outside of academia to think all of the sudden this process (or attempts to come up with a process) as it currently sits is moving to fast is dumbfounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Completely agree but for people outside of academia to think all of the sudden this process (or attempts to come up with a process) as it currently sits is moving to fast is dumbfounding. If the process is going any slower they would be going in reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iluvdebbies Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 If the process is going any slower they would be going in reverse. Good one Grandpa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Good one Grandpa! Not a grandpa yet still have a few more years before that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 First everyone was concerned the decision was going to be made by a small group and leave out a majority of the stakeholders, now that they are trying to give everyone and every group a chance to participate they get raked for dragging their feet. Would someone please share how they could have accomplished both? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 The Task Force is in the biggest damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't situation I've ever seen. I feel particularly bad for Chuck, Karl, Sheri and Matt -- former athletes I know who wore the old nickname and logo proudly, still love the idea of it and have always bled UND through and through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 First everyone was concerned the decision was going to be made by a small group and leave out a majority of the stakeholders, now that they are trying to give everyone and every group a chance to participate they get raked for dragging their feet. Would someone please share how they could have accomplished both? My complaint is that nothing was done from 2005 to now (and we're not done yet). When the handwriting was on the wall, people who really do care about UND Athletics should've demanded an immediate replacement so as to control the process*. Now? Well, the process is a process-finding process for a process to process something, or maybe nothing**, ... run by folks that we aren't sure that have UND Athletics' best interests as the primary concern***. This should be done already for nearly a decade. Instead ... process a process-finding process for a process to process ... blah-blah-blah .. *Control what's yours to control. **George Carlin would've loved that! ***The survey had far too many questions worrying about "diverse interests" for my taste. They have their win. How about something for the rest of us. And there are too many non-UND alumni academics on the committee and not enough Kleinsassers and Goehrings and Eagle Staffs and Osbornes for my taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 The Task Force is in the biggest damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't situation I've ever seen. I feel particularly bad for Chuck, Karl, Sheri and Matt -- former athletes I know who wore the old nickname and logo proudly, still love the idea of it and have always bled UND through and through. Then there really should be no concern of getting some lame a** nickname then? We should be able to take Sun Dogs, Pride, Spirit, Green and Ranibows off the table then. I for one feel better already........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 The Task Force is in the biggest damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't situation I've ever seen. I feel particularly bad for Chuck, Karl, Sheri and Matt -- former athletes I know who wore the old nickname and logo proudly, still love the idea of it and have always bled UND through and through. A wise man told me once, "No pity for self-inflicted wounds." They knew going in they were stepping in front of a moving train. (Disclosure: I volunteered for the committee directly to Dr. Kelley. Yeah, I tried to stand on the tracks.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 First everyone was concerned the decision was going to be made by a small group and leave out a majority of the stakeholders, now that they are trying to give everyone and every group a chance to participate they get raked for dragging their feet. Would someone please share how they could have accomplished both? On the survey, people were asked to rate who should have a say in selecting a new name. What I really hope they do is take the consideration of all interested parites. Students, alumni, faculty, etc. I think what everyone would want to have as an option would be for their to be a list of say 20 names that everyone gets to vote on. And then narrow that down a few more times till there is a clear "favorite" that a potential committee would decide to adopt. We all can agree we don't want Kelley or a sMALL commitee naking the decision without any imput. I would think the results of the survey would show that people want a say in deciding the name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Then there really should be no concern of getting some lame a** nickname then? We should be able to take Sun Dogs, Pride, Spirit, Green and Ranibows off the table then. I for one feel better already........... Well, since the task force is not the one picking a new nickname and is only recommending a process to potentially pick a new nickname, I don't know how I feel about this whole thing. I can say that the only place, in recent years, that I have seen the lame nicknames ideas that you've listed even mentioned or suggested (albeit, as bad ideas) has been on Sioux Sports.com. I am as interested as anyone to see how this all plays out, but my love for the University and its athletes has and always will transcend any nickname and logo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 How far away are they from having a list of potential names - they don't seem even close & then will the committee have any input in lets say they narrow it down to 10 - That way someone like Karl could bail out before being embarrassed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Well, since the task force is not the one picking a new nickname and is only recommending a process to potentially pick a new nickname, I don't know how I feel about this whole thing. I can say that the only place, in recent years, that I have seen the lame nicknames ideas that you've listed even mentioned or suggested has been on Sioux Sports.com. I am as interested as anyone to see how this all plays out, but my love for the University and its athletes has and always will transcend any nickname and logo. Exactly...the task force is NOT picking the name. Kelley is. Let's not get caught up in this task force and survey process. IMO it's a joke. I have little doubt Kelley has at most 3 names he will consider regardless of whatever this whole process hands out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 How far away are they from having a list of potential names - they don't seem even close & then will the committee have any input in lets say they narrow it down to 10 - That way someone like Karl could bail out before being embarrassed For the 10,000th time everyone -- the Task Force is not selecting ANY list of potential nicknames -- not 1 not 100 not 1,000. They are simply tasked with recommending a process to the president of UND. This is Step 1, and any list of possible nickname and logos wouldn't come about until Steps 2,3,4,5 etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxjoy Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 You and I are speaking the same language. However, I want to be clear about one thing: if the NCAA is torqued about some aspect of the settlement agreement, its only legal remedy is to sue for a breach of contract. Sanctions on members would only be available for violations of NCAA rules and policies. This where I am a bit fuzzy. Here is my understanding: -Via the settlement, NCAA allowed UND to be removed from the "hostile and abusive" list after the nickname was retired -The settlement is ambiguous and open to interpretation, but essentially keeps UND off the list Now an honest question or two: if the decision to go with no nickname was viewed by NCAA to be in breach of contract or violation of the settlement (are those two entities different? Is breaking a settlement agreement a breach of contract?), could the NCAA just add UND back to the "hostile and abusive" list without getting the courts involved? Is it required that they sue? NCAA is a private organization, after all, with specific membership requirements. I slept in my own bed, no Holiday Inn Express for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Exactly...the task force is NOT picking the name. Kelley is. Let's not get caught up in this task force and survey process. IMO it's a joke. I have little doubt Kelley has at most 3 names he will consider regardless of whatever this whole process hands out. He may be the one to pick a new one or he may accept a proposal for stakeholder groups to make a selection, or it could be some other way of whittling it down and eventually selecting a new one. No one knows at this point. But, yes, we do all have our notions, ideas, skepticism and opinions about what is going on or not going on. I, myself, doubt anyone one or any group has any one nickname or short list of names ready and waiting at this point and time. But my opinion is as valid as yours, right now, at this point in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Exactly...the task force is NOT picking the name. Kelley is. Let's not get caught up in this task force and survey process. IMO it's a joke. I have little doubt Kelley has at most 3 names he will consider regardless of whatever this whole process hands out. If the guy has a brain in that head, he'll kick the can to the next president and leave the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Could the NCAA just add UND back to the "hostile and abusive" list without getting the courts involved? I believe (no Holiday Inn for me either however) the NCAA could put UND onto the "naughty" list and here's why: http://forum.siouxsports.com/topic/15780-new-nickname/?p=738769 That's directly from the settlement agreement. That's a binding contract that the NCAA would be enforcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 This where I am a bit fuzzy. Here is my understanding: -Via the settlement, NCAA allowed UND to be removed from the "hostile and abusive" list after the nickname was retired -The settlement is ambiguous and open to interpretation, but essentially keeps UND off the list Now an honest question or two: if the decision to go with no nickname was viewed by NCAA to be in breach of contract or violation of the settlement (are those two entities different? Is breaking a settlement agreement a breach of contract?), could the NCAA just add UND back to the "hostile and abusive" list without getting the courts involved? Is it required that they sue? NCAA is a private organization, after all, with specific membership requirements. I slept in my own bed, no Holiday Inn Express for me. Because of Al Carlson's "state law" it messed up the timeline, but UND has retired the name so the NCAA is allowing the "cooling off period" to continue until Jan 1, 2015. After that time if UND were to announce of no nickname forever, the NCAA would revert back to the settlement and throw UND back on the sanctions list with Alcorn State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iluvdebbies Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Because of Al Carlson's "state law" it messed up the timeline, but UND has retired the name so the NCAA is allowing the "cooling off period" to continue until Jan 1, 2015. After that time if UND were to announce of no nickname forever, the NCAA would revert back to the settlement and throw UND back on the sanctions list with Alcorn State. You do not know that.....pure speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 You do not know that.....pure speculation. He's right. No speculation. Settlement states UND needs to select a new nickname. The NCAA made sure that was in the agreement knowing that no nickname would result in the perpetual use of the old nickname. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 You do not know that.....pure speculation. And you don't know the NCAA wouldn't do that. Don't trust the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iluvdebbies Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 And you don't know the NCAA wouldn't do that. Don't trust the NCAA. Calm down Chicken Little..... 1) There is going to be a nickname. 2) It's going to be faster then some would like....way to slow for others. 3) Most will hate the nickname. 4) As long as there is movement towards a new nickname, as slow as it may be, I doubt the NCAA will take us to court. 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.