Shawn-O Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 No nickname is not a new nickname that violates the Policy or would render UND subject to the Policy. Exactly. There's no spin in reciting what the document itself says. Kelley and the rest of the "let's get a new nickname yesterday" crowd are employing both spin and eisegesis by indicating that not having a nickname violates the surrender agreement. Not having a nickname has absolutely nothing to do with either the Policy or the surrender agreement. "Will transition to a nickname and logo...". Seems straight forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The agreement signed by officials from North Dakota states that the school would transition to a new nickname. No nickname = doesn't live up to agreement. That seems like a pretty simple equation. And North Dakota is not a sports nickname. It is the name of the state and shorthand for the name of the school, just like North Carolina is short hand for the University of North Carolina and Texas is short hand for the University of Texas along with many others. The NCAA has a policy against NA nicknames and imagery. UND's former nickname and logo ran afoul of that policy. Not having a nickname does not run afoul of a policy prohibiting the employment of hostile and abusive nicknames. With no nickname, there is no such policy applicable to UND and there are no prohibitions being violated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 "Will transition to a nickname and logo...". Seems straight forward. Not having a nickname will subject UND to a nickname policy prohibiting that employment of hostile and abusive nicknames/imagery. It makes sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The NCAA has a policy against NA nicknames and imagery. UND's former nickname and logo ran afoul of that policy. Not having a nickname does not run afoul of a policy prohibiting the employment of hostile and abusive nicknames. With no nickname, there is no such policy applicable to UND and there are no prohibitions being violated. Not having a nickname runs afoul of the settlement agreement, where UND and the State of North Dakota agreed to transition to a new nickname. No nickname is not the same as a new nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxkid12 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 People voted for it because they had a gun to their head. And yes the gun is still sitting on the table but that doesn't mean people don't want to keep the name if there would be a way to accomplish that. And it certainly doesn't speak as to what any public sentiment is with regard to just being North Dakota vs getting a new nickname. I also do not agree with you that the younger crowd has less passion for the name. On the contrary just look at the players words to hear their passion for our name. ...I'm suprised Fiason hasn't gone gestapo on them. what players? the only ones I hear it from is the Hockey players. I have yet to hear a football, basketball, track, golf or baseball player say they would bring the name back. UND will never and I mean EVVVVVVVVVVVVVER (chris jericho reference) be known as the Fighting Sioux as long as there is an NCAA. I don't care what you are smoking or what you think, the name is gone. From a marketing standpoint, once they choose a new nickname there will never be a need to go back to Fighting Sioux. It will cost way to much money to switch back and forth. It's time to just remember the nickname and all the good memories we had with it but after that, it is time to move along to "North Dakota" or whatever new nickname they choose. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 what players? the only ones I hear it from is the Hockey players. I have yet to hear a football, basketball, track, golf or baseball player say they would bring the name back. UND will never and I mean EVVVVVVVVVVVVVER (chris jericho reference) be known as the Fighting Sioux as long as there is an NCAA. I don't care what you are smoking or what you think, the name is gone. From a marketing standpoint, once they choose a new nickname there will never be a need to go back to Fighting Sioux. It will cost way to much money to switch back and forth.It's time to just remember the nickname and all the good memories we had with it but after that, it is time to move along to "North Dakota" or whatever new nickname they choose. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 My reaction to the strict literalist crowd is "So what." If no name constitutes a breach of the settlement agreement -- and I do mean IF, as it is not entirely clear -- then the NCAA's remedy is a legal action for breach of contract. But what nobody has been able to articulate is what the NCAA's damages are, or whether there is any sufficient economic justification for the NCAA to pursue the case. I tend to think that once UND got off the naughty list, the NCAA's leverage all but disappeared. Forcing UND to pick a name is a hugely extraordinary step that I don't see a court taking. Should nominal damages be awarded to the NCAA, I will be the first to pony up a dollar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 My reaction to the strict literalist crowd is "So what." If no name constitutes a breach of the settlement agreement -- and I do mean IF, as it is not entirely clear -- then the NCAA's remedy is a legal action for breach of contract. But what nobody has been able to articulate is what the NCAA's damages are, or whether there is any sufficient economic justification for the NCAA to pursue the case. I tend to think that once UND got off the naughty list, the NCAA's leverage all but disappeared. Forcing UND to pick a name is a hugely extraordinary step that I don't see a court taking. Should nominal damages be awarded to the NCAA, I will be the first to pony up a dollar. Actually, according to the settlement agreement, if UND does not transition to a new nickname the NCAA can put the school back on the "naughty list". UND would not be able to host NCAA playoffs and any other sanctions would be back in place. The NCAA could treat UND as if they were still officially using the nickname. UND would have to try to go to court to have the sanctions lifted. The NCAA isn't going to court for breach of contract, their first course of action would be to penalize the University. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Hence the circularity and the flawed logic. UND by definition cannot be on the naughty list, because it no longer has a Native American nickname. That clause presupposed that if UND didn't select a new name, it would retain Sioux. If A, then B. A purely binary system. Which obviously it is not. The parties to the contract simply didn't anticipate C. Arbitrary and capricious penalties just don't pass the smell test, even for the big, bad NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Hence the circularity and the flawed logic. UND by definition cannot be on the naughty list, because it no longer has a Native American nickname. That clause presupposed that if UND didn't select a new name, it would retain Sioux. If A, then B. A purely binary system. Which obviously it is not. The parties to the contract simply didn't anticipate C. Arbitrary and capricious penalties just don't pass the smell test, even for the big, bad NCAA. Just so we're clear, C is UND violating the spirit of the agreement and being the only school in the nation without a nickname correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 To be clear, C is not having a nickname which, to my knowledge, violates absolutely no regulation, policy, rule, or bylaw which would subject UND to any NCAA sanction whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Not having a nickname will subject UND to a nickname policy prohibiting that employment of hostile and abusive nicknames/imagery. It makes sense now. Why are you so adamant about not having a nickname? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 No nickname, is not a new nickname. 900 paragraphs of spin doesn't change that. incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 No nickname is not the same as a new nickname. Yes it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yes it is. I'm pretty sure that most people not associated with UND and the nickname issue would disagree with you. No nickname is a lack of a nickname. To have a new nickname you would actually have to have a nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Why are you so adamant about not having a nickname? Not having one violates no agreement/policy. The purported reasons for needing to select one are strained at best. The position that a new nickname is needed, as quickly as possible, so that UND is not known or associated, even inferentially, with the old one is neither appropriate nor healthy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxkid12 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The agreement signed by officials from North Dakota states that the school would transition to a new nickname. No nickname = doesn't live up to agreement. That seems like a pretty simple equation. And North Dakota is not a sports nickname. It is the name of the state and shorthand for the name of the school, just like North Carolina is short hand for the University of North Carolina and Texas is short hand for the University of Texas along with many others. I doubt the NCAA would make a big fuss about not having a nickname. As long as UND has no Fighting Sioux reference, they will be fine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Not having one violates no agreement/policy. The purported reasons for needing to select one are strained at best. The position that a new nickname is needed, as quickly as possible, so that UND is not known or associated, even inferentially, with the old one is neither appropriate nor healthy. Once again, why do you not want a new nickname? You gave me reasons why not having doesn't violate anything (maybe). You never said why you don't want a new nickname and UND should just go without one forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I doubt the NCAA would make a big fuss about not having a nickname. As long as UND has no Fighting Sioux reference, they will be fine The NCAA wants to eliminate as many references to Native American nicknames as possible in areas they control. If they believe that UND is encouraging the fans continued use of the Fighting Sioux name by not replacing the name, they could decide to force the issue. If UND doesn't choose a new name then most people will continue to use the old one because they don't have a lot of options. North Dakota is not a sports nickname, and no one is using it as such. If UND does choose a new nickname they are giving the fans an option, an option that some portion of the public will use. Not having a nickname is not living up to the legal requirements of the settlement agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 1. No nickname = no need to be concerned about policies regarding possibly offensive nicknames; 2. NCAA and PC crybabies are accommodated because there is no use of NA names or imagery; 3. People who believe any new, insipid nickname (as any new nickname must be in order to satisfy and not offend the "stakeholders") would be an insult to the old nickname and logo and, more importantly, to the majority of the NA's who wanted to keep it would be accommodated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The NCAA wants to eliminate as many references to Native American nicknames as possible in areas they control. If they believe that UND is encouraging the fans continued use of the Fighting Sioux name by not replacing the name, they could decide to force the issue. If UND doesn't choose a new name then most people will continue to use the old one because they don't have a lot of options. North Dakota is not a sports nickname, and no one is using it as such. If UND does choose a new nickname they are giving the fans an option, an option that some portion of the public will use. Not having a nickname is not living up to the legal requirements of the settlement agreement. UND would not be encouraging anything. Not replacing the nickname is not encouraging use of the former nickname. The people have options with "North Dakota" - "Flickertails, "Fighting Sioux", "North Dakota". According to your premise, the fans already have options. Who's to say people aren't going to say "Go North Dakota" at these same venues? By your premise, the NCAA an,d by extension, Kelley, Peter Johnson and the rest of them want to have a new nickname so that the wearing of "Fighting Sioux" attire, the saying of "Go Sioux", the saying of "Home of the Sioux" at the end of the national anthem and all other like references are eliminated. No matter how you dress it up with marketing and failure to abide by the surrender agreement hyperbole, this is tantamount to language and thought policing. And, what you just indicated here controverts assertions made to the contrary. "We don't want you saying 'Fighting Sioux'" is not an appropriate basis to select a new nickname. This is why I do not and will not support the choosing of a new nickname. In venues the NCAA does have control over, "North Dakota", at least for now, does not constitute negative and offensive NA imagery. The venues they would control would be public venues so they'd look pretty foolish in directly saying that they don't want people saying this or that. The surrender agreement does not contemplate not having a nickname. This is appropriate because that's an entirely different matter which would require a new policy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 UND would not be encouraging anything. Not replacing the nickname is not encouraging use of the former nickname. The people have options with "North Dakota" - "Flickertails, "Fighting Sioux", "North Dakota". According to your premise, the fans already have options. Who's to say people aren't going to say "Go North Dakota" at these same venues? By your premise, the NCAA an,d by extension, Kelley, Peter Johnson and the rest of them want to have a new nickname so that the wearing of "Fighting Sioux" attire, the saying of "Go Sioux", the saying of "Home of the Sioux" at the end of the national anthem and all other like references are eliminated. No matter how you dress it up with marketing and failure to abide by the surrender agreement hyperbole, this is tantamount to language and thought policing. And, what you just indicated here controverts assertions made to the contrary. "We don't want you saying 'Fighting Sioux'" is not an appropriate basis to select a new nickname. This is why I do not and will not support the choosing of a new nickname. In venues the NCAA does have control over, "North Dakota", at least for now, does not constitute negative and offensive NA imagery. The venues they would control would be public venues so they'd look pretty foolish in directly saying that they don't want people saying this or that. The surrender agreement does not contemplate not having a nickname. This is appropriate because that's an entirely different matter which would require a new policy. Actually, not choosing a new nickname IS a way to encourage people to continue using the old one. People will use the old name until they have something new to use. The settlement agreement says that UND will transition to a new nickname. It doesn't allow UND to go without a nickname. Using a new nickname to encourage people to use that name is completely different from not allowing people to use the old nickname. Giving people the choice of something new to use is in no way the same as policing or preventing the use of the old. People would still be allowed to yell Sioux or wear Sioux clothing. No one uses North Dakota as a nickname, and no one uses Flickertails as a nickname since that hasn't been the school nickname since 1930. Everyone gets it, you won't let go of the Fighting Sioux nickname. That isn't going to prevent a lot of us from believing it is time to move on, time to choose a new name. And in my conversations with people, more and more are ready to move on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Not being a legal mind I'm still not convinced that UND MUST select a new nickname. I've seen the wording in the agreement but I'm not sure if UND is required to comply with the letter or the spirit of the law. The spirit being that going with no nickname, or just "North Dakota", is still a replacement for "Fighting Sioux". That said, I also understand the point of view that says the letter of the agreement must be followed. I do wonder....is it possible the NCAA didn't consider the possibility that UND would never replace the nickname and just go without? What I'm saying is, the intent may have been to ensure that UND went away from using the Fighting SIoux, but may never have intended to mean that UND couldn't just go without? And even if they did intend that a new nickname must be selected to replace the Fighting Sioux nickname.......am I the only one who thinks that in the court of public opinion, that UND would lose? NCAA lays sanctions on UND for using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo UND agrees to forgoe using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, and complies with all other requirements of the agreement (maintaining the trademark, etc.) UND decides to go with NO nickname, just University of North Dakota NCAA lays sanctions down on UND for not choosing a nickname Could the NCAA be the good guy in that latter scenario? What, you can't say Fighting Sioux anymore and now we're going to spank you because you say NOTHING? (say something, I think I'm looosing yoooooooouuuuu). You must pick a new nickname or else the general public will still say "Fighting Sioux"? By forcing a new nickname we will force politically correct speech? I know that it's easy to that's exactly what the NCAA is intending to do. But in reality, they can leverage sanctions on institutions that use hostile or abusive nicknames, but can they leverage sanctions on an institution to prevent speech by ordinary citizens? I say they cannot win that battle if it's played out in public. ALL OF THAT SAID..... Sure, there's a part of me that hopes this could be the case, and us fans could continue to carry on the legacy if we wished. AND I think that is more attractive than Sundogs as a new nickname. BUT I also think there's greater value for the University, in the long run, if a new nickname is selected. So don't read my opinion above as necessarily arguing for the No Nickname solution. I just have that opinion because I've not seen an argument yet on why that couldn't end up as reality. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I don't trust anything this Chewy person writes. He/she has never once to my knowledge showed up outside of a non nickname thread, never heard him/her express any knowledge nor insight on current UND teams or athletes. The only thing I think he/she cares about is the former nickname and logo and ways to perpetuate it through any means possible. At least show us some affection for UND sometime outside of a nickname thread, and then maybe we can see if you truly have an allegiance to the school and its teams, that you're not just some one who likes to "hear" themselves talk and act all principled through impassioned rambling diatribes. Such a one trick pony. Carry on. ( : 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I don't trust anything this Chewy person writes. He/she has never once to my knowledge showed up outside of a non nickname thread, never heard him/her express any knowledge nor insight on current UND teams or athletes. The only thing I think he/she cares about is the former nickname and logo and ways to perpetuate it through any means possible. At least show us some affection for UND sometime outside of a nickname thread, and then maybe we can see if you truly have an allegiance to the school and its teams, that you're not just some one who likes to "hear" themselves talk and act all principled through impassioned rambling diatribes. Such a one trick pony. Carry on. ( : Whom or what you trust is irrelevant. Where I frequent on the website is likewise irrelevant. With several years at UND and various 400 mile trips up there from South Central Minnesota for FB and hockey games, my "UND cred" is just fine but way to invoke a tangent. Changing the discourse to pursue a tangent and to hold yourself up as someone to whom some burden of proof must be satisfied reveals much. There is no prohibition against not having a nickname in the agreement. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant. Absolutizing what is not absolute but is relative (at the very least), through obfuscating rhetoric about marketing or outright scare tactics, does not constitute "allegiance" to anything. That's just aggressive rationalizing. One would at least hope that more creativity would be employed. You were talking one trick ponies weren't you? This strategy is certainly a paradigm of that. 2 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.