4evrSIOUX Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The whole process was started and is being dragged out for one reason....to decide on and institute a NEW nickname and not continue just as North Dakota without a nickname. Could I live with just being North Dakota...yes. Will that happen? IMO there is zero chance that is the ultimate result. Think of the outrage from the general public on the waste of time, effort and dollars spent to essentially come up with nothing. I am resigned to the fact that there will be a new nickname ultimately chosen........but one the will cause me to regurgate small amounts of vomit in my mouth every time I hear it. Exactly my point. The "move on" people can tolerate North Dakota. Those that think any random nickname is being shoved down our throats( which is many) will have a hard time accepting the new name. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Here we go again…no nickname = no violation = no sanctions. And by "damages," I am referring to the NCAA. A breach of contract case requires the establishment of a contract, a breach, and harm. The NCAA has not been harmed. There is no economic incentive for the NCAA to bring the lawsuit. You seem to believe that the NCAA would try to accomplish their goal by going through the courts and filing for breach of contract. Many of us believe that they would skip the courts and impose their own penalty if they don't like UND going without a nickname. They would first cite the settlement agreement stating UND agreed to choose a new nickname. They would then impose the same penalty given for schools with Native American nicknames that don't have permission. UND would have to sue to fight those penalties. If the NCAA felt they were losing that case they could issue a new rule by the Executive Committee saying that all schools must have a nickname or something similar. That is how they forced UND to accept the settlement agreement, they rewrote the rules that allowed them to create policies like the NA Nickname policy. The NCAA is not going to sue for damages, UND would most likely be the party forced to file a lawsuit. No one can see the future and know for sure, but this scenario fits the pattern of how the NCAA has handled many situations in the past. The NCAA would have a hard time proving monetary damages filing a lawsuit, but that isn't their goal. Their goal is to eliminate NA references at their events where they can. Creating new rules is how they have accomplished that goal so far. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Count rougriders out Consultants think it's too dirrrrty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90siouxfan Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 On the subject of merchandise sales, I suspect some (me) are waiting for some sort of decision. Lame nickname = no sales no nickname = sales one man survey, but I didn't make it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 You seem to believe ... It's not my belief. It's the facts. The settlement agreement is a contract. If one party to the contract feels aggrieved, there's really only one opportunity for redress. And that's litigation. Also, the NCAA is a member-governed body. Keep in mind that even the nickname policy had an out - get permission and you're golden. Do you honestly believe that the NCAA is going to be able to convince its members to agree to a sweeping new policy when it is already on the record saying that nicknames are the sole province of the institutions? And even if they did, it would certainly contain a grandfather clause. Because that's the American way. Associations are not immune to the rule of law. An association is just as obliged to follow its own rules as you and I are the laws of the land. And once and for all, please wake up and realize that not even the NCAA is going to try and impose sanctions for a rule that isn't being violated. That's called anarchy, and it is not going to happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I see the words "new nickname". I'm not willing to overlook those as others may be. Given the ND Attorney General signed that settlement agreement (and addendum) for the State, shouldn't we be able to ask him what he believes he signed? The fact that there's a contract that says "new nickname" doesn't have jack squat to do with the fact that there is a policy that says no Native American nicknames. A breach of contract (for which there is a legal remedy) is not a violation of the policy (for which there are sanctions). Simple logic seems to escape the NCAA tinfoil hat types. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Count rougriders out Consultants think it's too dirrrrty This point of view wouldn't shock many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 It's not my belief. It's the facts. The settlement agreement is a contract. If one party to the contract feels aggrieved, there's really only one opportunity for redress. And that's litigation. Also, the NCAA is a member-governed body. Keep in mind that even the nickname policy had an out - get permission and you're golden. Do you honestly believe that the NCAA is going to be able to convince its members to agree to a sweeping new policy when it is already on the record saying that nicknames are the sole province of the institutions? And even if they did, it would certainly contain a grandfather clause. Because that's the American way. Associations are not immune to the rule of law. An association is just as obliged to follow its own rules as you and I are the laws of the land. Wasn't the NCAA Executive Committee granted the power by the membership to make rules on behalf of the membership? With that, they don't need votes or litigation to make a policy that would subject UND to penalties, though I'm still not sold that the settlement agreement itself doesn't cover it for them but its clear we won't agree on that. The fact that there's a contract that says "new nickname" doesn't have jack squat to do with the fact that there is a policy that says no Native American nicknames. A breach of contract (for which there is a legal remedy) is not a violation of the policy (for which there are sanctions). Simple logic seems to escape the NCAA tinfoil hat types. Doesn't the settlement agreement say that UND is subject to being placed back on the sanctions list if they don't not adhere to terms agreed upon, which was either a)get tribal approval or b)retire the Fighting Sioux nickname and adopt a new nickname? UND subjected itself to different rules (two tribes, timelines, etc) with the settlement agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 The fact that there's a contract that says "new nickname" doesn't have jack squat to do with the fact that there is a policy that says no Native American nicknames. A breach of contract (for which there is a legal remedy) is not a violation of the policy (for which there are sanctions). Simple logic seems to escape the NCAA tinfoil hat types. ^^^^^^^This Kelley would not be making public statements about the no nickname option unless it was an option. Someone on here said that the NCAA makes statements. Not objecting to the "cooling off period" was a statement. Not correcting Kelley/Karl was a statement. Devils and angels on peoples' shoulders and hair standing up on the back of someone's neck because one does not like "North Dakota" or because one does not like associations or connotations does not constitute a violation of any policy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Ok, I understand this yet another silly argument, but if so many choices are made and 25% of them choices are for North Dakota, and the rest are less than that, that makes it the majority choice......no? No. The majority would have voted for something else. Are you trolling us with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 If someone put up to vote on this board: A nickname vs. No nickname Wonder which would win? Here, I would guess "A nickname" would win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 If someone put up to vote on this board: A nickname vs. No nickname Wonder which would win? Here, I would guess "A nickname" would win. The members of the SR and SL reservations who got hosed likely are not posting on this board. As the appointment of Russ on the committee indicates, they're "stakeholders". Let's include them in the vote on this board along with the supposedly uneducated "ditto heads" on Facebook and we'll see how close the vote will be. It would be "North Dakota" in a landslide. Most of the Facebook grunts that I know are certainly invested donation-wise. At least with this, there will be no 8-6 tribal council vote preventing tribal members from voting. If it winds up being a legitimate process, "North Dakota" will be one of the options and the university/Kelley won't be able to ignore a clear majority vote, a la SL 2009 either. If you want to be on the Ron His Horse is Thunder bandwagon, have no problem copying a local high school, have no problem with your team being named after a pack of condoms, assign credibility with a straight face to what's probably at least a $300K process to select something that any drunken frat boy across University Avenue could have chosen in the beginning, vote for Rough Riders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 The members of the SR and SL reservations who got hosed likely are not posting on this board. As the appointment of Russ on the committee indicates, they're "stakeholders". Let's include them in the vote on this board along with the supposedly uneducated "ditto heads" on Facebook and we'll see how close the vote will be. It would be "North Dakota" in a landslide. Most of the Facebook grunts that I know are certainly invested donation-wise. At least with this, there will be no 8-6 tribal council vote preventing tribal members from voting. If it winds up being a legitimate process, "North Dakota" will be one of the options and the university/Kelley won't be able to ignore a clear majority vote, a la SL 2009 either. If you want to be on the Ron His Horse is Thunder bandwagon, have no problem copying a local high school, have no problem with your team being named after a pack of condoms, assign credibility with a straight face to what's probably at least a $300K process to select something that any drunken frat boy across University Avenue could have chosen in the beginning, vote for Rough Riders. In large measure I have no great issue with your position. Everyone can have their own opinion and this is a subject wide open to strong opinions from many different directions. I do, however, take issue with the bolded comment, as it's just not fair to characterize it this way. That's like saying the State of ND takes a nickname after a pack of condoms, and I'm guessing if anyone from MN said that to you in the stands during a hockey game you would strongly disagree with them. No one has to like Rough Riders or Roughriders or whatever, but I think it's reasonable to accept that it's a legitimate choice with some strong merit to back it up. 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.