The New Nickname vs. No Nickname Debate Thread

[MafiaMan]

OK boys and girls, have at it!  

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

Please don't let the tinfoil hat crowd sway you...the NCAA is a lot of things but they are powerless on this. Even if the agreement is interpreted in the manner least favorable to UND (which is doubtful), a breach of contract without demonstrable harm is hardly worth fretting over. There is no naughty list, and there are no sanctions for not having a nickname.

Carry on.

[Cratter]

Now move all the discussion here.

It'd be 200 pages.

[Cratter]

I don't have a middle name. Makes me feel badass.

But my birth certificate says "nmn" on that space.

So Technically..

[Cratter]

Kelley himself would not have said that just "North Dakota" is an option if it violated the surrender agreement.  It does not violate the surrender agreement.  The controversy addressed by the litigation and resolved via the surrender agreement was having a NA nickname that violated the NCAA policy against having offensive NA nicknames.  The directive was to transition to a new nickname that does not violate the policy.  Not having a nickname does not implicate or violate the policy. The policy and the surrender agreement concerning the policy are irrelevant.  There was no mandate against not having a nickname in the surrender agreement.  The reason behind this was that this was not the controversy being addressed.  For nearly 8 years, there's been no amendment to the surrender agreement addressing this.  Why?  See above.  There was an amendment concerning the imagery at The Ralph.  Why?  See above.  The "cooling off period" was passed into law by the ND Legislature.  Why? See above.  The NCAA did not object to the "cooling off period" even now, after it has passed.  Why? See above.  If you think that the NCAA was motivated by what the state of North Dakota, UND, alumni, fan base, etc. had all been put through, you're dead wrong.  The NCAA has not objected to (it in fact agreed to it, at least implicitly) the sale of "Fighting Sioux" material for years now so the whole argument that the NCAA would sanction us for just being "North Dakota" because we'd be perpetuating and supporting the old nickname and logo is without merit.  If this is a concern at all, the NCAA has certainly been complicit in exacerbating and perpetuating the racism it sought to prevent. 

 

If you want to tender the argument that we should have a new nickname and logo because the NCAA Executive Committee could change the rules and indicate that it will sanction any school that doesn't have a nickname and logo, fine.  The argument that the surrender agreement prohibits just having "North Dakota" is just wrong.

[Cratter]

So you don't want a new nickname.

Some people want a new nickname.

Wouldnt the compromise be. Get a new nickname so those new nickname fans can have that.

And the no nickname fans can jut buy plain UND gear and not cheer on the new nickname?

[bigskyvikes]

So you don't want a new nickname.

Some people want a new nickname.

Wouldnt the compromise be. Get a new nickname so those new nickname fans can have that.

And the no nickname fans can jut buy plain UND gear and not cheer on the new nickname?

How about no nickname, and the people that are whining that bad things will happen if we don't get a new nickname, just bury their heads in the sand?

[siouxfan512]

But I'm already so tired from having this argument on like 5 other threads

[Cratter]

So let's just have the debate in one.

[Cratter]

I'm in the no nickname is better than spirit or sundogs camp.

[The Sicatoka]

I read Chewey's past opinions about how the Spirit Lake lawsuit was going to win in Federal court over the NCAA. I actually attended sessions in Judge Ralph Erickson's courtroom. I saw how the NCAA attorneys and how a Federal judge views these matters, first hand.

Given that track record, I temper my belief in Chewey's opinions posted here.

[Siouxphan27]

How about no nickname, and the people that are whining that bad things will happen if we don't get a new nickname, just bury their heads in the sand?

LOL.     UND Ostriches for the compromise?

[siouxfan512]

ok, here is my summation from other threads.

 

North Dakota has been my 1st pick. Roughriders is my second, Cavalry is surprisingly not too bad. Disappointed Nokota didn't make the top 15, and I think Flickertails is better than the majority of that list.

 

I DO understand why there are people who want a new nickname, and if that is there opinion then I respect that. What I don't respect is trying to use BS logic and trying to play pseudo lawyer to demean other people's opion that University of North Dakota would be a suitable option.

 

I am incredibly disappointed in the list put out by this committee, but as other posters pointed out ... anyone who even entertains Bison Slayers as a legitimate option, should not be taken seriously. Overall this entire process has been a pathetic failure.

 

SO ....

 

North Dakota or NoDaks

Roughriders (like some of the logos ideas that have been tossed around)

Cavalry

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

I read Chewey's past opinions about how the Spirit Lake lawsuit was going to win in Federal court over the NCAA. I actually attended sessions in Judge Ralph Erickson's courtroom. I saw how the NCAA attorneys and how a Federal judge views these matters, first hand.

Given that track record, I temper my belief in Chewey's opinions posted here.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that what transpired in the courtroom between UND and the NCAA was active litigation of contested legal positions, various claims and defenses, posturing, etc. Once the parties entered into a voluntary settlement agreement, every bit of that went out the window. The only issues now are whether the contract was breached and if so, what are the damages. The NCAA cannot use the prior lawsuit or settlement to craft shadow sanctions against UND for violating non-existent associational rules. Period.

[The Sicatoka]

Fair enough, but keep in mind that what transpired in the courtroom between UND and the NCAA was active litigation of contested legal positions, various claims and defenses, posturing, etc. Once the parties entered into a voluntary settlement agreement, every bit of that went out the window. The only issues now are whether the contract was breached and if so, what are the damages. The NCAA cannot use the prior lawsuit or settlement to craft shadow sanctions against UND for violating non-existent associational rules. Period.

I agree with your last sentence. The only problem?

The NCAA general assembly has since voted to give the NCAA executive committee vast and far reaching powers to rule (I won't even call it govern) in matters of this nature. Today's non-existent rules are tomorrow's executive committee arbitrary and capricious edicts.

[niouxsiouxfan]

I agree with your last sentence. The only problem?

The NCAA general assembly has since voted to give the NCAA executive committee vast and far reaching powers to rule (I won't even call it govern) in matters of this nature. Today's non-existent rules are tomorrow's executive committee arbitrary and capricious edicts.

This is where the concern should be.  They have the power now to do pretty much anything they want.  Don't like something, make a rule, and subsequent penalty to make sure they get the result they are looking for

[UND-RedSox fan]

My view of the NCAA is that they are a bunch of hypocritical a-holes that will do whatever they feel like. They hold all of the power right now. So anything short of having some sort of legally binding statement from the NCAA saying, "UND can proceed with no nickname and is not fostering a hostile and abusive by allowing the former nickname to be the unofficial nickname," would make me uncomfortable with having no nickname. Without the NCAA stating that, what is to stop them from being the all powerful, hypocritical d-bags that they are and deciding to throw UND back on some list to try and act like they have morals?

 

If we select no nickname right now, what is to stop them from throwing UND back under the bus in the future? Some day a large school, like Florida State or Texas, will have a real scandal going on and the NCAA will be a little hesitant to go after one of their big dogs. Instead they will find one of their little dogs and kick them instead. They will look at UND and say those hicks up there are still fostering a racist environment with their old hostile and abusive nickname. They will find another little dog doing the same thing as the big dog and over punish the little dog. 

 

For me, if we don't have something concrete from the NCAA saying no nickname is fine, why give them a reason to kick us. This may seem like a paranoid rant, but I do not trust the NCAA to be fair and the safest thing for UND would be to pick a nickname no matter how stupid the final list is (I like cavalry and roughriders).

[Frozen4sioux]

KIAC can put all the "North Dakota only" questions to bed with one act.

All he has to do is send a letter to the NCAA with the simple question of:

"If the process produces "No Nickname, or "North Dakota" as the nickname, does this satisfy the agreement. YES or No."

Now it may seem like I've just relayed to this oozing arogant prick exactly how he can stop out this no name camp, (of which I am a resident), or .....maybe not.

What if the NCAA says, yeah sure, we good.

Then what, I would think NoNick would win in a monumental landslide at that point.

That's almost too much of a gamble to take for him.

But surely the NCAA would Never go for such a thing, I mean that is what the armadillo hat and ostrich crowd keeps saying. So why not send the letter???

Either 1 of 2 reasons.

1: The NCAA would clarify that UND will be in compliance with just North Dakota.

Or

2: This entire process is a giant horse and pony show, and he has already selected (Spirit) and the voting nor committees matter in the slightest, thus no need to be concerned with what is being "considered".

[bigskyvikes]

ok, here is my summation from other threads.

North Dakota has been my 1st pick. Roughriders is my second, Cavalry is surprisingly not too bad. Disappointed Nokota didn't make the top 15, and I think Flickertails is better than the majority of that list.

I DO understand why there are people who want a new nickname, and if that is there opinion then I respect that. What I don't respect is trying to use BS logic and trying to play pseudo lawyer to demean other people's opion that University of North Dakota would be a suitable option.

I am incredibly disappointed in the list put out by this committee, but as other posters pointed out ... anyone who even entertains Bison Slayers as a legitimate option, should not be taken seriously. Overall this entire process has been a pathetic failure.

SO ....

North Dakota or NoDaks

Roughriders (like some of the logos ideas that have been tossed around)

Cavalry

I'm basically a 99% in agreement with this, other than 100% against flickertails.

But, now that I understand what Sic is saying in his next post, that makes me nervous about no nickname!

But, BUT, why is it still an option from the committee still today?! I just can't believe anyone on here knows more than they do about the rules!

[Oxbow6]

I don't have a middle name. Makes me feel badass.

Badass......hence your nickname submission of "Gleeful Unicorns" when this party started.

[MafiaMan]

Now move all the discussion here.

It'd be 200 pages.

Sorry, but that task is above my pay grade here at SiouxSports.com.

[DamStrait]

I think the solution is pretty simple, really.  It looks pretty clear that continuing with no nickname or adopting Roughriders are going to be the two most popular choices - since I believe there needs to be three for the voting process, pick a token third - not Cavalry, since that would really put the PC zealots in full hysteria and therefore will never be selected as an option for the voting process; not North Stars, since UND is not in Minnesota - so let's say Explorers.  Whatever receives the most votes gets adopted - if it is Roughriders, all the chicken littles will be able to breathe again - if it is no nickname, UND goes with that, and IF the NCAA has a problem with it, a respectable effort to bring their heavy-handed ways to full light should be undertaken.  If at the end of the day we are further forced into more abject PC stupidity, all should be content that the good fight has been fought and all that could be done has been done, and we can at that point effortlessly adopt the second most popular option, i.e. Roughriders.  This may cause the rabidly anti no-nickname crowd untold amounts of additional wailing and gnashing of teeth, but you know, I'm okay with that.

[siouxfan512]

I think the solution is pretty simple, really.  It looks pretty clear that continuing with no nickname or adopting Roughriders are going to be the two most popular choices - since I believe there needs to be three for the voting process, pick a token third - not Cavalry, since that would really put the PC zealots in full hysteria and therefore will never be selected as an option for the voting process; not North Stars, since UND is not in Minnesota - so let's say Explorers.  Whatever receives the most votes gets adopted - if it is Roughriders, all the chicken littles will be able to breathe again - if it is no nickname, UND goes with that, and IF the NCAA has a problem with it, a respectable effort to bring their heavy-handed ways to full light should be undertaken.  If at the end of the day we are further forced into more abject PC stupidity, all should be content that the good fight has been fought and all that could be done has been done, and we can at that point effortlessly adopt the second most popular option, i.e. Roughriders.  This may cause the rabidly anti no-nickname crowd untold amounts of additional wailing and gnashing of teeth, but you know, I'm okay with that.

 

well put

[jdub27]

I DO understand why there are people who want a new nickname, and if that is there opinion then I respect that. What I don't respect is trying to use BS logic and trying to play pseudo lawyer to demean other people's opion that University of North Dakota would be a suitable option.

 

What you call BS logic is rationalization of why going with no nickname is not only a terrible idea itself but also sets up UND for potential for consequences, giving it two pretty heavy marks against it. 

 

Even if I didn't think there was potential ramifications for selecting no nickname (hypothetically, because I do), I still think it is just a flat out bad idea.  At some point, a group of students/alumni/outside source will start the push to put a nickname in place and we end up in this exact same spot.  My concern is that it ends up being the outside source because they continue to see an environment where the "Fighting Sioux" nickname is the de facto nickname because nothing has been put in place to fill the void. 

 

I'm not in favor of the majority of the nicknames left on the list.  But I could look at 95%+ of the college nicknames across the country and if they were on the list, I'd think the same thing.  The funny thing is, alumni of all of those schools support their nickname because they have become acclimated to it.  The same thing will happen at UND regardless of what nickname is chosen.  The teams and student-athletes will still play the same games, the same way.  It will still be just as enjoyable to watch.  But not picking a nickname continues to leave open what has become a festering wound because it leaves UND fair game for criticism from the outside groups that were part of creating this mess in the first place.  I want to hear about positive things when I see UND in the news, not the same old nickname stuff that has been the overshadowing tone for a decade or so now.

[Siouxperfan7]

If "North Dakota" is going to be on the final list to be voted on, I don't think that it is too much for anyone to ask UND to provide a statement from the NCAA stating that having no nickname and just being North Dakota is a viable option moving forward.  Goehring, Kelley, the committee, etc seem so confident that it is still an option that it should be pretty easy for them to provide that information.  It's kind of the big elephant in the room.  One statement from the NCAA that supports their claim would clear everything up.  Why haven't we seen this?