darell1976 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Yet, the enactment of a law by the North Dakota legislature is NOT a defense to breach of contract. Had the NCAA been so inclined, it could have sued UND for failing to adopt a nickname in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The legislatively mandated 'cooling off' period would have explained the breach, but not excused it. I wonder why the NCAA didn't go that route. Hmmm... Because they (UND) are dropping the Sioux name as priority one, no matter how they got it done even if it including a ban of choosing a new name for a period of time, now that time is over and a selection of a new name is upon us. If by some chance the vote to keep the nickname as just UND, then who says the NCAA won't revisit the settlement. I guess we will know in the next couple of months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Because they (UND) are dropping the Sioux name as priority one, no matter how they got it done even if it including a ban of choosing a new name for a period of time, now that time is over and a selection of a new name is upon us. If by some chance the vote to keep the nickname as just UND, then who says the NCAA won't revisit the settlement. I guess we will know in the next couple of months. There would be a very strong waiver argument if the NCAA changed its position at this point. The NCAA signed an addendum to the settlement agreement and removed UND from the list of schools subject to the policy at a time when UND did not have a nickname. The NCAA, in effect, said that UND was in compliance with the settlement agreement. There is no specific reservation of rights language that one would expect to be included in the addendum if the NCAA wanted to preserve its right to place UND back on the list if it didn't enact a new nickname within a certain amount of time. Even if you think the NCAA was giving UND a break based on the law that prohibited UND from picking a new nickname until 2015, there would have been language about that in the 2012 addendum. The NCAA likely would have set a new deadline. None of this is contained in the 2012 addendum. This would be an easy call for a judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Let's put all the legal arguments behind. My question for you "no nickname" people is why do you want UND to have no nickname? Is it because you don't want UND to be known by anything other than the Fighting Sioux? Is it because no other name will even come close to being as good as Fighting Sioux? Is it because with no nickname, UND will still be unofficially the Fighting Sioux and you can yell "Go Sioux" at a game and it doensn't contradict with any other name? Is it because you want to wear your Fighting Sioux Jersey/hat/jacket/etc around town and to games still? That is what I want the "no namer" to please explain to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Let's put all the legal arguments behind. My question for you "no nickname" people is why do you want UND to have no nickname? Is it because you don't want UND to be known by anything other than the Fighting Sioux? Is it because no other name will even come close to being as good as Fighting Sioux? Is it because with no nickname, UND will still be unofficially the Fighting Sioux and you can yell "Go Sioux" at a game and it doensn't contradict with any other name? Is it because you want to wear your Fighting Sioux Jersey/hat/jacket/etc around town and to games still? That is what I want the "no namer" to please explain to me. I can't speak for others, but for me personally, it's less about the Sioux nickname and more about my fear of how bad the new nickname is going to be. The status quo is not ideal, but it's acceptable. The new nickname is unknown. I'm really skeptical of this process and am not confident that a good nickname will be chosen. I will grant you that a good nickname is better than no nickname. All things being equal, I think UND should move forward with a new nickname. But no nickname is better than a bad nickname. The problem is that everyone has their own ideas on what is good and what is bad. You give me a nickname and I'll tell you if I prefer it to no nickname. There's the rub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonadub Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Let's put all the legal arguments behind. My question for you "no nickname" people is why do you want UND to have no nickname? Is it because you don't want UND to be known by anything other than the Fighting Sioux? Is it because no other name will even come close to being as good as Fighting Sioux? Is it because with no nickname, UND will still be unofficially the Fighting Sioux and you can yell "Go Sioux" at a game and it doensn't contradict with any other name? Is it because you want to wear your Fighting Sioux Jersey/hat/jacket/etc around town and to games still? That is what I want the "no namer" to please explain to me. Another question for the no nickname proponents... how do current, and especially prospective, student athletes feel about this? Other than preferring to stay Fighting Sioux, do current student athletes prefer to not have a nickname? Do prospective recruits prefer no nickname? Or is it old fans who are afraid of/resistant to change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Another question for the no nickname proponents... how do current, and especially prospective, student athletes feel about this? Other than preferring to stay Fighting Sioux, do current student athletes prefer to not have a nickname? Do prospective recruits prefer no nickname? Again, I suspect the answer may have something to do with what the new nickname is. It's hard to have these discussions about "no nickname" versus "new nickname" in the abstract. For me, it all depends on what "new nickname" is. "No nickname" is a lot better than scores of suggestions I've seen on this thread, but it's not better than all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 I understand not having a good name as the Fighting Sioux, it was tough picking a name for GFC in 94, but I think Knights was a good choice by me, my classmates and the 2 grades below us. Knights is now 20 years old and marketing it over just the maroon and grey (think of UND today) is a lot better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Another question for the no nickname proponents... how do current, and especially prospective, student athletes feel about this? Other than preferring to stay Fighting Sioux, do current student athletes prefer to not have a nickname? Do prospective recruits prefer no nickname?Or is it old fans who are afraid of/resistant to change? I think you nailed it. The age-old struggle between young people who want change and old people who want everything to stay the same forever (and maybe even turn the clock back). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Let's put all the legal arguments behind. My question for you "no nickname" people is why do you want UND to have no nickname? Is it because you don't want UND to be known by anything other than the Fighting Sioux? Is it because no other name will even come close to being as good as Fighting Sioux? Is it because with no nickname, UND will still be unofficially the Fighting Sioux and you can yell "Go Sioux" at a game and it doensn't contradict with any other name? Is it because you want to wear your Fighting Sioux Jersey/hat/jacket/etc around town and to games still? That is what I want the "no namer" to please explain to me. Many different reasons why I lean to no nickname. It's unique. It grasps onto the tradition and history of the previous nickname. Don't want a lame ass nickname like other universities ended up with after dropping their nickname. It kind of makes a statement that says screw you NC$$. You can take our beloved nickname, but you can't take our pride, tradition and history! There's more I could come up with, but that's my rationale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Many different reasons why I lean to no nickname. It's unique. It grasps onto the tradition and history of the previous nickname. Don't want a lame ass nickname like other universities ended up with after dropping their nickname. It kind of makes a statement that says screw you NC$$. You can take our beloved nickname, but you can't take our pride, tradition and history! There's more I could come up with, but that's my rationale. I'm confused how a new nickname would take away pride, tradition and history? I guess I associate all those with the University of North Dakota, not whatever nickname or logo they happened to be going by or wearing at the time. Did UND have to start from scratch each time they changed their nickname or logo in the past? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I understand not having a good name as the Fighting Sioux, it was tough picking a name for GFC in 94, but I think Knights was a good choice by me, my classmates and the 2 grades below us. Knights is now 20 years old and marketing it over just the maroon and grey (think of UND today) is a lot better. I was a Redskin, but understood the reason why it needed to be changed. Knights is a lame nickname IMO and that is one reason I lean towards no nickname for UND. Also, ever since junior high (that is what they called it when I was there) my schools nickname has been removed. Valley Jr, GFC, and now UND. The first 2 were done for reasons that were completely understandable. The assault on UND's nickname from the PC loons was at a minimum an abuse of power from the NC$$. Even our closest tribe has backed us on this front. So to me, let them abuse there power, we will play along with their little game. However, that does not mean we have to pick some lame ass nickname to completely change our identity. We have rolled over enough for this PC insanity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I'm confused how a new nickname would take away pride, tradition and history? I guess I associate all those with the University of North Dakota, not whatever nickname or logo they happened to be going by or wearing at the time. Did UND have to start from scratch each time they changed their nickname or logo in the past? That's what you don't get with the previous name change. It was done by choice, not forced by some over-reaching PC police institution. Dropping the Sioux did take away our tradition and history! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonadub Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 OK, here's another perspective... Sine there has been NO NICKNAME there have been NO NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. Maybe change is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 My proposal for deciding the nickname issue: 1. Let the committee come up with 3 or 4 nicknames. 2. Vote and select a proposed new nickname. 3. Have a final vote between the proposed new nickname or no nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 OK, here's another perspective... Sine there has been NO NICKNAME there have been NO NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. Maybe change is needed. Since there has been a new coach, there has been no national championships either. Neither statement holds water, especially the nickname perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 My proposal for deciding the nickname issue: 1. Let the committee come up with 3 or 4 nicknames. 2. Vote and select a proposed new nickname. 3. Have a final vote between the proposed new nickname or no nickname. Clever.... You want to avoid the "Ross Perot" effect! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxfan512 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 When are we supposed to hear more from the school on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 When are we supposed to hear more from the school on this? The voting ends at the end of the month, I suppose it could take a while to narrow down the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 I was a Redskin, but understood the reason why it needed to be changed. Knights is a lame nickname IMO and that is one reason I lean towards no nickname for UND. Also, ever since junior high (that is what they called it when I was there) my schools nickname has been removed. Valley Jr, GFC, and now UND. The first 2 were done for reasons that were completely understandable. The assault on UND's nickname from the PC loons was at a minimum an abuse of power from the NC$$. Even our closest tribe has backed us on this front. So to me, let them abuse there power, we will play along with their little game. However, that does not mean we have to pick some lame ass nickname to completely change our identity. We have rolled over enough for this PC insanity! The final 2 names was Knights or Pride. Which one sounds better out of those two names. One name that was mentioned but didn't make the cut was GreyWolves, I thought that was a good name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 The voting ends at the end of the month, I suppose it could take a while to narrow down the list. No one is voting right now. They are taking nominations. From the list of nominations they will select 3 names that people will vote on to select the new name. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 No one is voting right now. They are taking nominations. From the list of nominations they will select 3 names that people will vote on to select the new name. Thats what i meant. As for the final 3....watch them milk that for almost a month or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 My submission was Kodiaks. North Dakota Kodiaks NoDak Kodiaks UND Kodiaks I think it has a good ring to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 More information: http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/3724522-und-nickname-committee-outlines-plan-narrowing-down-suggestions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 My submission was Kodiaks. North Dakota Kodiaks NoDak Kodiaks UND Kodiaks I think it has a good ring to it. You're correct. I'm not big on generic animal names but that one isn't bad at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Okay who submitted Judy's bar? 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.