Submitted Nicknames

[Oxbow6]

There is a principle to the matter. Why should any random person get a say in the University's name? That and I do not have full confiidence in the committee, given who they are reporting too.

Pretty much sums it up........with everyone I have talked to that has any type of association to/with UND.

[siouxfan512]

I seem to remember the same thing you are saying.  Stakeholders would be the ones that vote on the name but this has me a little worried.

 

Clarification from President Kelley

I appreciate the Committee’s question about what is meant—as stated in the Committee’s charter—by a “public” vote on the nickname. I want to clarify that “public” means anyone who wishes to vote on the selection of a new nickname. So, both the public vote and the preceding suggestion period are intended to be open to anyone who wishes to respond.

 

 

http://und.edu/university-public-affairs/nickname/3-25-15.cfm

 

 

 

Are people confusing the very open and public call for suggestions with the as-yet undefined "public" vote?  I think that would be a mistake.  At least until the parameters of the vote are announced.  

 

Thats not how I read it ... Open to the public, means open to the public. Unacceptable.

[siouxfan512]

Pretty much sums it up........with everyone I have talked to that has any type of association to/with UND.

For sure, as an Alumni I have a really strong attachment to the University. Class, Dorms, Fraternity, Band, Sporting Events, Campus, Friends all hold a really special place for me. College was a amazing time that I would not trade for anything. Losing the Sioux name sucked, replacing it sucks too. I hope I have the opportunity to vote No Nickname, BUT regardless of my options, I don't want my vote to be cheapened or watered down, but any random person.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

Thats not how I read it ... Open to the public, means open to the public. Unacceptable.

 

I don't think the last chapter has necessarily been written on that.  There are going to be logistic challenges with a truly "public" vote that Kelley might not have fully appreciated.  If conducted online, the University will have to employ technological safeguards against spamming, spoofing, and ballot-stuffing.  Not impossible, but potentially very complicated and expensive.  An in-person vote on campus will necessarily favor students, staff, and local residents.  Ballots by mail can be directed to particular recipients, whereas a print-at-home and mail-in ballot might be more 'accessible' to a wider population.

 

It may be that vote integrity wins out over unfettered inclusion, despite the somewhat lofty intentions originally declared.

[Shawn-O]

I don't think the last chapter has necessarily been written on that.  There are going to be logistic challenges with a truly "public" vote that Kelley might not have fully appreciated.  If conducted online, the University will have to employ technological safeguards against spamming, spoofing, and ballot-stuffing.  Not impossible, but potentially very complicated and expensive.  An in-person vote on campus will necessarily favor students, staff, and local residents.  Ballots by mail can be directed to particular recipients, whereas a print-at-home and mail-in ballot might be more 'accessible' to a wider population.

 

It may be that vote integrity wins out over unfettered inclusion, despite the somewhat lofty intentions originally declared.

What's the 800 number?

[Blackheart]

What's the 800 number?

1-800-CLSTRFK

[Shawn-O]

1-800-CLSTRFK

1-800-NOMONEY

[Redneksioux]

I don't think the last chapter has necessarily been written on that. There are going to be logistic challenges with a truly "public" vote that Kelley might not have fully appreciated. If conducted online, the University will have to employ technological safeguards against spamming, spoofing, and ballot-stuffing. Not impossible, but potentially very complicated and expensive. An in-person vote on campus will necessarily favor students, staff, and local residents. Ballots by mail can be directed to particular recipients, whereas a print-at-home and mail-in ballot might be more 'accessible' to a wider population.

It may be that vote integrity wins out over unfettered inclusion, despite the somewhat lofty intentions originally declared.

Und could just hire some bison football players who have experience with petitions on the streets.

[CMSioux]

Geez step back from the ledge. There are many competent people involved in this process that are giving it a lot more thought than chat room fodder. I don't see any situation regarding voting where a group that doesn't have UND's best interest could have any impact on the choice of a quality nickname - we all know that no matter what gets chosen there is going to be vocal outcry's, gnashing of teeth and threats of pulled support but to think that having a "public vote" however that ends up being defined, could end up with bison/gopher fans helping us choose a nickname is ridiculous.

[Ray77]

Geez step back from the ledge. There are many competent people involved in this process that are giving it a lot more thought than chat room fodder. I don't see any situation regarding voting where a group that doesn't have UND's best interest could have any impact on the choice of a quality nickname - we all know that no matter what gets chosen there is going to be vocal outcry's, gnashing of teeth and threats of pulled support but to think that having a "public vote" however that ends up being defined, could end up with bison/gopher fans helping us choose a nickname is ridiculous.

 

For some reason I find myself reading your post and thinking "Yeah, you're right...this makes so much sense" and then I think about what's taken place in the past X years regarding the nickname and I find myself starting to hyperventilate.

[mksioux]

Geez step back from the ledge. There are many competent people involved in this process that are giving it a lot more thought than chat room fodder. I don't see any situation regarding voting where a group that doesn't have UND's best interest could have any impact on the choice of a quality nickname - we all know that no matter what gets chosen there is going to be vocal outcry's, gnashing of teeth and threats of pulled support but to think that having a "public vote" however that ends up being defined, could end up with bison/gopher fans helping us choose a nickname is ridiculous.

Why do you say "public vote" is yet to be defined?  President Kelley already defined it - anyone who wants to vote, can vote.  By his own definition, that means Gopher fans, Bison fans, and anyone else in the world can have just as much of a say as you and me.  One can hope that people smarter than President Kelley will explain to him why that is a bad idea and hopefully he'll change is mind - or at least declare that voting must be done in-person or through the US mail, to limit the impact of his definition.  If they combine President Kelley's definition of "public vote" with easy internet voting, all the finalists better be bullet-proof.  

[Siouxperfan7]

Why do you say "public vote" is yet to be defined?  President Kelley already defined it - anyone who wants to vote, can vote.  By his own definition, that means Gopher fans, Bison fans, and anyone else in the world can have just as much of a say as you and me.  One can hope that people smarter than President Kelley will explain to him why that is a bad idea and hopefully he'll change is mind - or at least declare that voting must be done in-person or through the US mail, to limit the impact of his definition.  If they combine President Kelley's definition of "public vote" with easy internet voting, all the finalists better be bullet-proof.  

 

I would hope that these concerns have been up to at least one person on the committee and that it would be brought up to Kelley when they submit the finalists.  I would think that the committee would make a suggestion on how the finalist names would be voted on.  But you know what they say, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills first!!!

[zonadub]

Don't be bullied by the anti- no-nickname folks. No nickname would win in a landslide if it is allowed to be voted on. I think the right minds could market the hell out of being a state flagship university that doesn't have a nickname. We are North Dakota! Sounds a lot better than "here comes the University of North Dakota Aviators" or some other lame ass nickname! It's also a reminder that the PC police took our nickname if we choose to go without one. We can play by their silly rules, but it doesn't mean we don't have the right to be bitter about it.

So, not picking a new nickname, staying just "North Dakota" is a way of giving the NCAA the finger? Taking your ball and going home?

Student athletes like to have an identity, whether it's Sioux, Bison, Gophers, whatever. Part of what was so great about the Sioux name was that it inspired all of us with a unique and powerful identity that will likely not be regained.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that no nickname is not really the preference of most of the people, just most of the more vocal people on this board. My other guess, and again only a guess, is that people are more concerned that the new nickname will not inspire and rally people - athletes, fans, etc.

The committee is in a tough position, no matter what they choose, the majority will not like it, because there will not be a clear majority in favor of any name other than Sioux. Best of luck to them.

[Siouxperfan7]

The people that want no nickname are people that want to keep referring to UND as the Fighing Sioux.  Having no name allows them to do so.  While sure it is a way to get around the fact the name is retired, it is precisely why the NCAA stated in the settlement that a new name must be selected.  Having no name allows UND to "unnofficially" still be the Fighting Sioux.  And the NCAA knew this.  If this is te path UND wants to go down, the NCAA will have issue with it.

[Ray77]

The people that want no nickname are people that want to keep referring to UND as the Fighing Sioux.  Having no name allows them to do so.  While sure it is a way to get around the fact the name is retired, it is precisely why the NCAA stated in the settlement that a new name must be selected.  Having no name allows UND to "unnofficially" still be the Fighting Sioux.  And the NCAA knew this.  If this is te path UND wants to go down, the NCAA will have issue with it.

 

I posted this in another thread.  People keep saying that the NC$$ says that we have to choose a new nickname, however this seems to contradict that, coming from Kelley's mouth.  Just wanted to point this out.

 

Not to stir the pot, but...

 

UND starts taking nickname ideas at 8 a.m. Wednesday

 

"Goehring said President Robert Kelley told the committee recently that keeping UND/North Dakota as a permanent name is still an option."

 

[mksioux]

The people that want no nickname are people that want to keep referring to UND as the Fighing Sioux.  Having no name allows them to do so.  While sure it is a way to get around the fact the name is retired, it is precisely why the NCAA stated in the settlement that a new name must be selected.  Having no name allows UND to "unnofficially" still be the Fighting Sioux.  And the NCAA knew this.  If this is te path UND wants to go down, the NCAA will have issue with it.

Link please?

 

Unless you were involved in the lawsuit or have inside knowledge, I don't think you can say "precisely why" that clause is in the settlement or whether the NCAA would take issue with no nickname.

[Siouxperfan7]

Link please?

 

Unless you were involved in the lawsuit or have inside knowledge, I don't think you can say "precisely why" that clause is in the settlement or whether the NCAA would take issue with no nickname

 

http://www.ag.nd.gov/ncaa/SettlementAgreement.pdf

 

Section 2, part d (on page 6)

 

"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."

 

Obviously the state law that passed messed with the dates stated on the settlement.  But the settlement agreement clearly states, as you can see, that UND must adopt a new nickname and logo.  And I think that if UND has a breach of cotract, the NCAA would have an issue.

 

I am not sure why Goehring and Kelley say that having no name is an option.  Unless they had an agreement with the NCAA that nobody else knows about.  I am just going off of the facts that are available to me.

[The Sicatoka]

I think this bears repeating. (Applause to the author in pointing out that context does matter.) 

 

 

The disagreement generally stems from context and the circumstances under which the agreement was entered into.  Was there an underlying assumption that it was going to be Sioux or something else (an A or B proposition)?  Yes.  Were the parties at that time even remotely contemplating that there could be no name (option C)?  In my humble opinion, absolutely not.

 

One simply cannot construe that clause in a vacuum.  Several of the terms and conditions have been rendered impossible or moot as events have unfolded, and the parties through their conduct and/or by formal amendment have basically nullified or negated a number of them.

 

[Hayduke]

I agree with where you're coming from. But honestly, the amount of people yelling out Sioux at the end of the national anthem has gone down considerably. I honestly think that in ten years or so, newer generations will continue on the old traditions but with a new name. I may not like it, but I'd bet good money on it.

Nothing wrong with that. We had our time. The next generation deserves their own nickname and traditions. Many of us are being selfish.

Time to move on.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

 And I think that if UND has a breach of cotract, the NCAA would have an issue.

 

But the NCAA would also have to have something else…damages.  An economic incentive to sue.  This is where I cringe at the armchair lawyering.

 

What good could the NCAA possibly hope to achieve by trying to enforce this part of the settlement when it already got what it ultimately wanted?  It's like sending in a high-priced SEAL team to blow up one last stupid bunker years after your defeated enemy has signed the surrender agreement and disbanded its army.  Courts aren't keen on ordering extraordinary relief (which is why money damages are the norm), and ordering a public university to adopt a new nickname just to appease a perverse plaintiff is about as extraordinary as it gets.

[mksioux]

http://www.ag.nd.gov/ncaa/SettlementAgreement.pdf

 

Section 2, part d (on page 6)

 

"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."

 

Obviously the state law that passed messed with the dates stated on the settlement.  But the settlement agreement clearly states, as you can see, that UND must adopt a new nickname and logo.  And I think that if UND has a breach of cotract, the NCAA would have an issue.

 

I am not sure why Goehring and Kelley say that having no name is an option.  Unless they had an agreement with the NCAA that nobody else knows about.  I am just going off of the facts that are available to me.

I am well aware of what the settlement agreement says.  I have been for years.  I may have been the first poster to raise this issue the day the settlement agreement was posted online.  Your certainty as to the intention of the parties for the wording of that clause is what I was asking about.

 

There is nothing "obvious" about the intentions of that clause or whether the NCAA would have an issue with UND not having a nickname.  It is entirely possible it was drafted that way because nobody drafting the agreement contemplated UND going without a nickname.

[BigGame]

Some people can put 2 and 2 together, apparently others cannot.

[morley]

http://www.ag.nd.gov/ncaa/SettlementAgreement.pdf

 

Section 2, part d (on page 6)

 

"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."

 

Obviously the state law that passed messed with the dates stated on the settlement.  But the settlement agreement clearly states, as you can see, that UND must adopt a new nickname and logo.  And I think that if UND has a breach of cotract, the NCAA would have an issue.

 

I am not sure why Goehring and Kelley say that having no name is an option.  Unless they had an agreement with the NCAA that nobody else knows about.  I am just going off of the facts that are available to me.

Who's to say that using North Dakota and the interlocking ND or some other type of logo. Wouldn't meet the requirements of the settlement without having an entirely new mascot/nickname.

[Siouxperfan7]

But the NCAA would also have to have something else…damages.  An economic incentive to sue.  This is where I cringe at the armchair lawyering.

 

What good could the NCAA possibly hope to achieve by trying to enforce this part of the settlement when it already got what it ultimately wanted?  It's like sending in a high-priced SEAL team to blow up one last stupid bunker years after your defeated enemy has signed the surrender agreement and disbanded its army.  Courts aren't keen on ordering extraordinary relief (which is why money damages are the norm), and ordering a public university to adopt a new nickname just to appease a perverse plaintiff is about as extraordinary as it gets.

 

 

Who's to say that using North Dakota and the interlocking ND or some other type of logo. Wouldn't meet the requirements of the settlement without having an entirely new mascot/nickname.

 

I am not sure what part of "If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo......" that people don't seem to understand.  And that includes Goehring, the commitee, and Kelley.  The NCAA is not going to allow UND to have no nickname.  They clearly state that UND needs a new name in the settlement.  It is there in black and white.  Why would they do this?  I think it is fairly obvious that without a current nickname, many people still refer to UND as the "Fighting Sioux".  this is exactly what the NCAA doesn't want and why they stipulate that a new name must be selected.  In the absense of a name, people will use the old name.  The NCAA has remained silent so far as we had the "cooling off perid" and are currently in the process of selecting a new name.  I would bet that if the commitee recommends no name and Kelley signs off on it, the NCAA will have a problem with that.  All they would need to do is wave the settlement agreement in Kelley's face and let him know that UND is in violation.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

All they would need to do is wave the settlement agreement in Kelley's face and let him know that UND is in violation.

 

And then what?  It's a contract.  They would have to sue.  They would then have to try and win, and prove damages.  On what amounts to a token breach.  They will be exposed as petty tyrants.  A court is not likely to compel UND to do anything, and monetary damages will be nominal.  As in, a dollar.  On a good day.

 

This is not a frightening prospect.  Why do so many people pee themselves when it comes to the NCAA?