New Nickname

[siouxfan512]

John F. Kennedy. His friends called him "Jack". 

 

Would John be a nickname or a proper name? 

 

You are trying to put parameters on what constitutes a nickname. I also knew a Jason who went by Jake; it doesn't all have to make perfect sense. If the University of North Dakota, says they would like to be UND, that could be considered a nickname, or the Nodaks. The bottome line is they do not HAVE TO adopt an animal, group of people, color, or obscure noun (spirit, force, etc). If your argument is that they MUST adopt a new nickname, selection of said nickname is completely up to the University, so long as it is not hostile and abusive. 

 

If UND chooses to go by UND, that would satisfy the requirement.

[siouxfan512]

John F. Kennedy. His friends called him "Jack". 

 

Would John be a nickname or a proper name? 

 

and John could be considered a nickname, short for Jonathan. Others would argue it is an abbreviated name. Point is, this argument is really starting to split hairs. If UND decided not to adopt a new nickname, they will. and if the NCAA argues that, then they can say UND or NoDak is our nickname.

 

If the administration has said that no nickname is still being considered, they have likely already discussed the matter with the NCAA, or they would have said it is off the table to be in compliance with the agreement.

[jdub27]

You are trying to put parameters on what constitutes a nickname. I also knew a Jason who went by Jake; it doesn't all have to make perfect sense. If the University of North Dakota, says they would like to be UND, that could be considered a nickname, or the Nodaks. The bottome line is they do not HAVE TO adopt an animal, group of people, color, or obscure noun (spirit, force, etc). If your argument is that they MUST adopt a new nickname, selection of said nickname is completely up to the University, so long as it is not hostile and abusive. 

 

If UND chooses to go by UND, that would satisfy the requirement.

UND not choosing a nickname is basically telling the NCAA they are fine with the continued "unofficial" use of Fighting Sioux and make no mistake about it, that is the main reason for the support of no nickname.  As long as UND can show its progressing towards a new nickname, the NCAA has nothing to gain by threatening or imposing sanctions.  If UND changes course and challenges the NCAA (again), I fully would expect the NCAA to impose sanctions (which is acceptable in the mutually agreed upon settlement agreement).

 

 

Please tell us why the NCAA has not put UND back on sanctions if UND has been in constant violation of the settlement agreement for over 44 months? 

Because the NCAA hasn't found the proper violation from a P5 school that requires that sort of distraction yet.  Or they see UND has moved forward in good faith within the terms that were put on them by outside controls (state legislature).

 

 

 

Again, the nickname issue continues to be nothing but a net negative for the University as a whole.  There is no measurable way that any positives outweigh the negatives for the University, athletic department or student athletes.  Moving on is the only way to fix that.

[Benny Baker]

Do we know everything that came out of this meeting (note the dates): 

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-08-12/north-dakota-change-nickname

 

 

Implicit in that is an NCAA acknowledgement that the State of North Dakota has some legal and legislative processes to follow to get into compliance because they didn't crash down with sanction (back on naughty list) immediately. The NCAA gave some time and space to Dalrymple, Carlson, et al who visited to get that done.

 

How much? Has anyone asked them (meaning the ND officials who were sent packing or the NCAA)? 

 

"Do we know everything that came out of this meeting"

 

Absolutely, the article addresses this right off the bat!  It explicitly says that "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement".  If the settlement agreement actually contained an ultimatum of either a new nickname or sanctions by August 11th, the NCAA would have put and kept UND on sanctions through the current date because "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement."

 

On the other hand, your opinion that "The NCAA gave some time and space to Dalrymple, Carlson, et al who visited to get that done" after the August 13, 2011 meeting is patently inaccurate.  The NCAA most certainly did not give UND "time and space" after August 13, 2011, but rather placed UND on sanctions.  Don't you remember the jerseys the "Fighting Sioux" had to wear during the NCAA tournament in 2012. . . . when they were on sanctions?  That's certainly not "time and space"; that's sanctions.  Of course, the sanctions were lifted once UND retired "Fighting Sioux" and now the hockey team gets to host regionals and all that other fun stuff.

 

"Has anyone asked them (meaning the ND officials who were sent packing or the NCAA)?"

 

Yes, I have.  I work closely with several state legislators.  The article you cited tells us about all we need to know: "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement".

[Benny Baker]

UND not choosing a nickname is basically telling the NCAA they are fine with the continued "unofficial" use of Fighting Sioux and make no mistake about it, that is the main reason for the support of no nickname.  As long as UND can show its progressing towards a new nickname, the NCAA has nothing to gain by threatening or imposing sanctions.  If UND changes course and challenges the NCAA (again), I fully would expect the NCAA to impose sanctions (which is acceptable in the mutually agreed upon settlement agreement).

I would agree with you if by "challenging the NCAA" you mean re-adopting the Fighting Sioux nickname. 

 

The NCAA has EVERYTHING to gain by imposing sanctions.  Again, parties to a contract cannot sit on their rights and wait several years before deciding to enforce a contract.

[zonadub]

I would agree with you if by "challenging the NCAA" you mean re-adopting the Fighting Sioux nickname. 

 

The NCAA has EVERYTHING to gain by imposing sanctions.  Again, parties to a contract cannot sit on their rights and wait several years before deciding to enforce a contract.

Without getting too specific, a former employer let an issue remain unenforced for 3 years, then filed for an arbitration. 2 years after the arbitration hearing, without a request for payment or any other notification, they went to court for a judgement (by this time, 5 years have expired). The judgement will remain on my record for 5 more years, even though it is now closed. It appears that a party can indeed sit on their rights, and wait several years to seek enforcement of a ruling (contract).

[Chewey]

Not having a nickname and logo does not violate "the Policy". Not having a nickname and logo does not render UND subject to "the Policy".

There is an NCAA policy against having hostile and abusive nickname and NA imagery. That issue has been addressed. There is no NCAA policy requiring

schools/teams to have nicknames and logos. At the very least, the surrender agreement is ambiguous. I'd have to offend my 8th grade English teacher by

diagraming sentences but the result is simple. A policy - the policy - and what offends that policy are addressed. No nickname, no logo = no issue, unles

the NCAA adopts a policy requiring schools to employ nicknames and logos.

[The Sicatoka]

There's one factor fogotten in all of this:

The NCAA membership has since authorized the NCAA Executive Committee to act unilaterally, as a star chamber, in such matters going forward.

Don't think the settlement means "adopt a new nickname"? Well, we're one ExecComm "clarifying mandate" away. And I wouldn't put it past them if all processes stopped and "no nickname" became permanent and the old name became the de facto new name.

Personally, I don't believe the parties that reached the settlement believed that "no nickname" was a legitimate outcome.

[Benny Baker]

Without getting too specific, a former employer let an issue remain unenforced for 3 years, then filed for an arbitration. 2 years after the arbitration hearing, without a request for payment or any other notification, they went to court for a judgement (by this time, 5 years have expired). The judgement will remain on my record for 5 more years, even though it is now closed. It appears that a party can indeed sit on their rights, and wait several years to seek enforcement of a ruling (contract).

Sorry to hear, man.  That sucks for lack of better word.  

 

"Without getting too specific".  This is an issue because it's difficult to know exactly what you're talking about, and as I'll explain, it sounds like your situation is markedly different from the UND v. NCAA matter.  

 

"They filed for arbitration".  Sounds like you signed an arbitration clause in your employment contract.  Don't sign these unless you're signing on behalf of a large, wealthy business entity.  Arbitration is a distinct, separate forum from the civil justice system and offers very limited rights to employees/individuals.  Simply put, different rules apply.  

 

"Without a request for payment or other notification, they went to court for a judgment."  It sounds like there was an arbitration award, and you already owed money at this point and didn't pay.  Therefore, your employer went to court and obtained a judgment based upon the arbitration award.  Your employer needs the actual judgment to garnish your paycheck and levy your bank accounts.  It also sounds like your employer was seeking monetary damages and a legal remedy.  The issue between UND and NCAA is more equitable in nature.  In particular, NCAA would not seek the recovery of legal, monetary damages from UND for using the "Fighting Sioux" nickname.  

 

It also sounds like you may have neglected to respond and had a default judgment entered against you.  Did you respond when your employer filed in court or did you retain a lawyer?  You waive your defenses if you don't assert them!   

 

So, you are correct in the sense that litigants can obtain unusual monetary judgments when they are based upon arbitration awards and the other party fails to respond or has a bad attorney.  UND's matter does not stem from an arbitration proceeding, the NCAA wouldn't seek monetary damages, the state of North Dakota won't fail to respond, and it's attorney is . . . well, yeah, I guess is not that great either.  

 

Hope this makes sense.

[tnt]

There's one factor fogotten in all of this:

The NCAA membership has since authorized the NCAA Executive Committee to act unilaterally, as a star chamber, in such matters going forward.

Don't think the settlement means "adopt a new nickname"? Well, we're one ExecComm "clarifying mandate" away. And I wouldn't put it past them if all processes stopped and "no nickname" became permanent and the old name became the de facto new name.

Personally, I don't believe the parties that reached the settlement believed that "no nickname" was a legitimate outcome.

... and it also allows the Grand Forks Herald, which has used the Fighting Sioux nickname controversy to continue on with the nonsense you see now, urging people to tell people their love for the nickname. Yes, the organization pushing the evils of the nickname is trying to keep the controversy alive.

[Benny Baker]

There's one factor fogotten in all of this:

The NCAA membership has since authorized the NCAA Executive Committee to act unilaterally, as a star chamber, in such matters going forward.

Don't think the settlement means "adopt a new nickname"? Well, we're one ExecComm "clarifying mandate" away. And I wouldn't put it past them if all processes stopped and "no nickname" became permanent and the old name became the de facto new name.

Personally, I don't believe the parties that reached the settlement believed that "no nickname" was a legitimate outcome.

Yep, they sure do like to make it up as they go.

[Fetch]

So ur saying our attorney sucked

[The Sicatoka]

Yep, they sure do like to make it up as they go.

Yup. And before they did it because they thought they could whenever the arbitrary and capricous whim struck.

Now? Now they're authorized by the membership to be arbitrary and capricious.

[The Sicatoka]

Yes, the organization pushing the evils of the nickname is trying to keep the controversy alive.

Anything to sell a few more ads.

[zonadub]

Sorry to hear, man.  That sucks for lack of better word.  

 

"Without getting too specific".  This is an issue because it's difficult to know exactly what you're talking about, and as I'll explain, it sounds like your situation is markedly different from the UND v. NCAA matter.  

 

"They filed for arbitration".  Sounds like you signed an arbitration clause in your employment contract.  Don't sign these unless you're signing on behalf of a large, wealthy business entity.  Arbitration is a distinct, separate forum from the civil justice system and offers very limited rights to employees/individuals.  Simply put, different rules apply.  

 

"Without a request for payment or other notification, they went to court for a judgment."  It sounds like there was an arbitration award, and you already owed money at this point and didn't pay.  Therefore, your employer went to court and obtained a judgment based upon the arbitration award.  Your employer needs the actual judgment to garnish your paycheck and levy your bank accounts.  It also sounds like your employer was seeking monetary damages and a legal remedy.  The issue between UND and NCAA is more equitable in nature.  In particular, NCAA would not seek the recovery of legal, monetary damages from UND for using the "Fighting Sioux" nickname.  

 

It also sounds like you may have neglected to respond and had a default judgment entered against you.  Did you respond when your employer filed in court or did you retain a lawyer?  You waive your defenses if you don't assert them!   

 

So, you are correct in the sense that litigants can obtain unusual monetary judgments when they are based upon arbitration awards and the other party fails to respond or has a bad attorney.  UND's matter does not stem from an arbitration proceeding, the NCAA wouldn't seek monetary damages, the state of North Dakota won't fail to respond, and it's attorney is . . . well, yeah, I guess is not that great either.  

 

Hope this makes sense.

"They filed for arbitration" ... The NCAA threatened to put UND on the 'naughty list'

"Without request for payment" ... Without pursuing sanctions against UND while the legislated cooling off period is underway

"Neglected to respond" ... UND has not yet adopted a new nickname

A bad attorney or not, the point is that you claim the NCAA cannot sanction UND because it has not yet sanctioned UND. My point is that there is not a time limit on when they decide to impose their side of the agreement that was signed by North Dakota's Attorney General, even though it was signed years ago. I am not saying the NCAA will definitely put UND on the sanction list, but that the NCAA has reserved the option to do it if they feel UND has not complied with the agreement that has already been signed (such as my arbitration clause). The NCAA may be allowing the state law to run its course rather than challenge the legislative action while they have bigger problems on their plate. It's anyone's guess if they will or won't exercise punitive measures if the status quo continues indefinitely.

You may be an attorney and more familiar with this type of agreement and the position of the NCAA but I will stay at a Holiday Inn Express next week, so I'll know more soon. ?

[mksioux]

<Sigh>

 

This issue is settled.  I don't remember which thread and I'm not going to dig up the documents again.  But the NCAA affirmatively took UND off the sanctions list at a time when it did not have a nickname.  (This isn't simply a situation where the NCAA has not enforced an agreement, it took an affirmative action.)  The NCAA stated in the document UND was in compliance with the agreement.  I'm sorry Sic et. al., but you all are wrong.  UND can go without a nickname and be in compliance with the agreement. 

[darell1976]

<Sigh>

 

This issue is settled.  I don't remember which thread and I'm not going to dig up the documents again.  But the NCAA affirmatively took UND off the sanctions list at a time when it did not have a nickname.  (This isn't simply a situation where the NCAA has not enforced an agreement, it took an affirmative action.)  The NCAA stated in the document UND was in compliance with the agreement.  I'm sorry Sic et. al., but you all are wrong.  UND can go without a nickname and be in compliance with the agreement. 

I guess we will find out IF that option makes it to the final round of chosen names, AND voted upon by the public.  Oh and don't forget the blessing sent from Indianapolis.

[jdub27]

Not having a nickname and logo does not violate "the Policy". Not having a nickname and logo does not render UND subject to "the Policy".

There is an NCAA policy against having hostile and abusive nickname and NA imagery. That issue has been addressed. There is no NCAA policy requiring

schools/teams to have nicknames and logos. At the very least, the surrender agreement is ambiguous. I'd have to offend my 8th grade English teacher by

diagraming sentences but the result is simple. A policy - the policy - and what offends that policy are addressed. No nickname, no logo = no issue, unles

the NCAA adopts a policy requiring schools to employ nicknames and logos.

 

All that may be true but I'm not sure its relevant in this case.  UND and the State of ND signed a binding settlement agreement that that UND could be placed back on the sanctions list for not complying with the settlement agreement, regardless of what other rules there may be.  By signing the settlement agreement, UND and the NCAA agreed to a new set of rules.  I guess UND could turn around and try to sue them again if they think it is unfair but we saw how well that went the last time, and honestly, just moving on would be incredibly easier and we wouldn't have to have these round and round debates.

[Benny Baker]

"They filed for arbitration" ... The NCAA threatened to put UND on the 'naughty list'

"Without request for payment" ... Without pursuing sanctions against UND while the legislated cooling off period is underway

"Neglected to respond" ... UND has not yet adopted a new nickname

A bad attorney or not, the point is that you claim the NCAA cannot sanction UND because it has not yet sanctioned UND. My point is that there is not a time limit on when they decide to impose their side of the agreement that was signed by North Dakota's Attorney General, even though it was signed years ago. I am not saying the NCAA will definitely put UND on the sanction list, but that the NCAA has reserved the option to do it if they feel UND has not complied with the agreement that has already been signed (such as my arbitration clause). The NCAA may be allowing the state law to run its course rather than challenge the legislative action while they have bigger problems on their plate. It's anyone's guess if they will or won't exercise punitive measures if the status quo continues indefinitely.

You may be an attorney and more familiar with this type of agreement and the position of the NCAA but I will stay at a Holiday Inn Express next week, so I'll know more soon.

Again, your personal debt to your employer is completely different than the matter between UND and NCAA.  Completely different; it's not even close.

 

"the point is that you claim the NCAA cannot sanction UND because it has not yet sanctioned UND".  Please tell me where I said this.  There seems to be a lot of selective amnesia around here.  UND was absolutely put on sanctions AND THE SANCTIONS WERE LIFTED ONCE UND DECIDED TO DROPS ITS NICKNAME ALTOGETHER!!!!!!!

 

http://www.uscho.com/2012/02/29/ncaa-announces-sanctions-to-north-dakota-for-use-of-nickname-logo/

[Benny Baker]

<Sigh>

 

This issue is settled.  I don't remember which thread and I'm not going to dig up the documents again.  But the NCAA affirmatively took UND off the sanctions list at a time when it did not have a nickname.  (This isn't simply a situation where the NCAA has not enforced an agreement, it took an affirmative action.)  The NCAA stated in the document UND was in compliance with the agreement.  I'm sorry Sic et. al., but you all are wrong.  UND can go without a nickname and be in compliance with the agreement. 

Thank you.  At least someone around here knows what they're talking about.

[jdub27]

UND was removed from the sanctions list because it announced and started the process of transitioning towards a new nickname, which was agreed upon in Section 2.g. of the settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement did not state that UND had to have the transition completed before being removed from the sanction list.

 

If UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo at the end of the Approval Period, or at any time during the Approval Period, then the NCAA shall issue a statement to its members which includes the following language: "UND has been removed from the list of schools subject to the Policy and no member institution should use the Policy and its prior applications to UND as a factor in scheduling regular season competition.  Regular season competition should be scheduled in accordance with each individual institution's own internal policies and practices.

[Siouxperfan7]

<Sigh>

 

This issue is settled.  I don't remember which thread and I'm not going to dig up the documents again.  But the NCAA affirmatively took UND off the sanctions list at a time when it did not have a nickname.  (This isn't simply a situation where the NCAA has not enforced an agreement, it took an affirmative action.)  The NCAA stated in the document UND was in compliance with the agreement.  I'm sorry Sic et. al., but you all are wrong.  UND can go without a nickname and be in compliance with the agreement. 

 

Ok.  Let's say that UND can go without a nickname.  Is that really what you want?  And one question that all you "no nickname" people fail to answer is...why do you want UND to not have a nickname?  Is it because you loved the Fighting Sioux nickname so much that you feel no other name is worthy to replace it?  Is it because having no nickname will still allow "Fighting Sioux" to be the unofficial nickname of UND without having to pick a new one? Someone in the "no nickmame" crowd please tell the reason that you don't want the University of North Dakota to have any identity for its athletic teams.  I will hang up and listen!!

[mksioux]

All that may be true but I'm not sure its relevant in this case.  UND and the State of ND signed a binding settlement agreement that that UND could be placed back on the sanctions list for not complying with the settlement agreement, regardless of what other rules there may be.  By signing the settlement agreement, UND and the NCAA agreed to a new set of rules.  I guess UND could turn around and try to sue them again if they think it is unfair but we saw how well that went the last time, and honestly, just moving on would be incredibly easier and we wouldn't have to have these round and round debates.

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. 

[mksioux]

Ok.  Let's say that UND can go without a nickname.  Is that really what you want?  And one question that all you "no nickname" people fail to answer is...why do you want UND to not have a nickname?  Is it because you loved the Fighting Sioux nickname so much that you feel no other name is worthy to replace it?  Is it because having no nickname will still allow "Fighting Sioux" to be the unofficial nickname of UND without having to pick a new one? Someone in the "no nickmame" crowd please tell the reason that you don't want the University of North Dakota to have any identity for its athletic teams.  I will hang up and listen!!

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. 

[mksioux]

UND was removed from the sanctions list because it announced and started the process of transitioning towards a new nickname, which was agreed upon in Section 2.g. of the settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement did not state that UND had to have the transition completed before being removed from the sanction list.

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.