Benny Baker Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/AddendumToSettlement.pdf "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment". And you are free to provide your speculation and conjecture as well. However you forgot an important part of the Addendum: "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment" The original Settlement called for UND to be removed from the sanctions list once it announced the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and started on transition towards a new nickname and logo. That was the situation UND was in when the Addendum was signed. What benefit did the NCAA have to punish UND when they were showing that they were doing what they could in their power to work towards transitioning to a new nickname and logo? The NCAA also continues to have the power to punish or change their policies to punish UND as they see fit. What would stop them from putting a new policy in place to prevent a University from going with "no nickname" because it fosters an environment where a nickname that was previously deemed hostile and abusive is encouraged to be used. The Addendum governs the Settlement Agreement. The Addendum says UND is in compliance. Sure, if UND adopts "Fighting Sioux", the NCAA will put UND back on sanctions. But UND was taken off of sanctions at time when UND did not have a nickname. This is really simple, and it's a non-issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Isn't an addendum an addendum to a document and the original document stands as original and governing? Otherwise, wouldn't you create a new settlement agreement that voided the old and defined the new settlement terms? I'm no lawyer and I don't carry a legal dictionary with me, but this is what I can find: Addendum. " ... an addition to a completed written document. Most commonly this is a proposed change or explanation (such as a list of goods to be included) in a contract, or some point that has been subject of negotiation after the contract was originally proposed by one party." This addendum seems like a list of definitions after the original document was written that were subject of negotiation (what can stay, what must go). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 The Addendum governs the Settlement Agreement. The Addendum says UND is in compliance. Sure, if UND adopts "Fighting Sioux", the NCAA will put UND back on sanctions. But UND was taken off of sanctions at time when UND did not have a nickname. This is really simple, and it's a non-issue. Again, that is because at the time UND had announced the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and were working towards transitioning towards a new nickname and logo (albeit at an incredibly slow pace). The exact scenario in which the Settlement Agreement stated would put them in compliance. Why would the Addendum state anything differently outside of the REA being out of compliance with the original settlement agreement's imagery guidelines? Your interpretation of single paragraph in an Addendum that was drafted for the sole purpose fixing that and allowing the REA to have more imagery does not magically make the original Settlement Agreement null and void. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 The Addendum governs the Settlement Agreement. The Addendum says UND is in compliance. Sure, if UND adopts "Fighting Sioux", the NCAA will put UND back on sanctions. But UND was taken off of sanctions at time when UND did not have a nickname. This is really simple, and it's a non-issue. If you read the Addendum, it actually says that UND will be removed from the list of institutions not in compliance with the policy, if it has not already been removed from the list, provided the University remains in compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the Addendum. The bulk of the addendum is related to changes at REA. It does not say that UND is in compliance, nor does it say anything about UND not having a nickname at that time. UND was not considered on the list and were considered in compliance with the Settlement Agreement before the Addendum, so the Addendum just confirmed it. The Settlement Agreement also provides for adding UND back on the list of institutions not following the policy if UND does not adopt a new nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 An addendum only changes what is addressed in the addendum itself. It does not pertain to anything that it does not discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 OK, so I broke down and read the Addendum. I see two key portions: On page 1, it only stipulates that "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo" On page 2, item 3: "It is further agreed that on the date of signing this agreement, the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy, if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment." (emphasis added) That says the Settlement Agreement still rules and as such the NCAA can define the word "new" from the Settlement Agreement how and when it chooses. It seems the ND AG got us off the list for a while with this addendum; but, what stops the NCAA from highlighting the word "new" and saying what's your new nickname? Or just define a new policy ("Thoust shalt have a nickname.") whenever it chooses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Food for thought: When did the NCAA jump into the nickname fray? Dare I say after they knew their preferred outcome wasn't going to happen. What do you believe the NCAA's desired outcome of this is. And if that doesn't happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I suppose some of you think the NCAA Sanctions List itself is nothing more than a "scare tactic" and that it wouldn't hurt us at all if we went back to the old name and logo and voluntarily went back on the naughty list? Then please explain why all but one school (Alcorn St.) did what they had to do to get off that list? And Alcorn St. should have an asterisk since they are bad in almost every sport anyway and sanctions don't affect them all that much. Because being on the naughty list has real and tangible consequences that make it harder to recruit and retain top notch athletes. But if you simply choose to not believe that, go right on ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Have you been paying attention at all? The No Nickname people ARE the Sioux Forever people. They don't want a nickname so they can keep calling it them the Sioux. Of course they are going to tear apart each name choice, they don't want one! C'mon. Paying attention? Yes! But not to your garbage, your opinion doesn't make it real! I am a no nickname person and I'm ok with RR and FH, as I've written many times on here, so my case in point proves you wrong, talk about come on!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Paying attention? Yes! But not to your garbage, your opinion doesn't make it real! I am a no nickname person and I'm ok with RR and FH, as I've written many times on here, so my case in point proves you wrong, talk about come on!! So who do you think the crowd is that are writing letters to the editor trying to rip apart a former president? What option do those people want and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Using absolute characterizations of the other POV is setting yourself up to be shown wrong, as has been shown here time and again. Having said that, the "we don't need a nickname" rally last Friday lost some credibility when many of its speakers brought up the old moniker. If we don't need a moniker why bring up the old one at all. It just served to better make a case for the "no nickname is just de facto old nickname" argument. Now I'm sure there were some there sincere in wanting no nickname; but they became harder to find because of the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I suppose some of you think the NCAA Sanctions List itself is nothing more than a "scare tactic" and that it wouldn't hurt us at all if we went back to the old name and logo and voluntarily went back on the naughty list? Then please explain why all but one school (Alcorn St.) did what they had to do to get off that list? And Alcorn St. should have an asterisk since they are bad in almost every sport anyway and sanctions don't affect them all that much. Because being on the naughty list has real and tangible consequences that make it harder to recruit and retain top notch athletes. But if you simply choose to not believe that, go right on ahead. No, I don't think I've seen anyone say that. Those sanctions are very real, and the "Fighting Sioux" are long gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Using absolute characterizations of the other POV is setting yourself up to be shown wrong, as has been shown here time and again. Having said that, the "we don't need a nickname" rally last Friday lost some credibility when many of its speakers brought up the old moniker. If we don't need a moniker why bring up the old one at all. It just served to better make a case for the "no nickname is just de facto old nickname" argument. Now I'm sure there were some there sincere in wanting no nickname; but they became harder to find because of the others. We weren't at the rally, because we do not agree with the fighting Sioux forever part of their stance.....maybe that's why it was poorly attended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 We weren't at the rally, because we do not agree with the fighting Sioux forever part of their stance.....maybe that's why it was poorly attended? Ahh ... but it was supposed to be a "no nickname" rally, aimed at just those folks (like you as you say), but somehow it got overwhelmed by the "old nickname forever" point of view. What does that say about what is reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 No, I don't think I've seen anyone say that. Those sanctions are very real, and the "Fighting Sioux" are long gone. I remember before the name and logo were retired, a good number of people on here wanted to just keep the name and logo and "live with" the sanctions because they didn't impact hockey all that much. I believe some of those are the same people that are saying the legal settlement doesn't require us to pick a new nickname, when it is clearly stated within the document that the North Dakota Attorney General signed on behalf of the SBHE and UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Here is your "let's just go with no nickname crowd (because the choices are bad)". Seriously, they brought their kids to the rally and had them make signs. Has nothing to do with the old nickname at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 After thinking about this issue for awhile, the fact that Kelley hasn't come out and clearly stated that the NCAA has an issue with UND having no nickname leads me to believe that maybe the NCAA does not have a problem with it. If he clearly didn't want "no nickname" to be an option, he could just pull out the "the NCAA has a problem with it" card out of his back pocket to push his "agenda". (Of course it still may be in play and he may wait to play it if "North Dakota" moves on to the popular vote and comes out on top." Now lets just say that is the case. It is still in the best interest of the University to select a new nickname. First an foremost to move past the Fighting Sioux nickname debacle that has plagued this University, it's fanbase, and this state for a decade. Forget settlemet agreements, forget recruiting scare tactics, forget marketing opportunities. UND and all of its invested stakeholders need to move on from this issue. Not selecting a new nickname will not allow all of us to do that. Two scenarios have been quite obvious to everyone for awhile now. 1. Kelley has asked and received permission, or 2. Kelley has gone to bed each night praying the no nickname supporters will go away, and has avoided asking the NCAA until he absolutely has to. If scenario 2 is true, he's probably asking the NCAA right now. OR, he's trying to find a way to justify having north stars and Sundogs as our only 2 options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I remember before the name and logo were retired, a good number of people on here wanted to just keep the name and logo and "live with" the sanctions because they didn't impact hockey all that much. I believe some of those are the same people that are saying the legal settlement doesn't require us to pick a new nickname, when it is clearly stated within the document that the North Dakota Attorney General signed on behalf of the SBHE and UND. Gotcha. I recall that, but haven't seen those arguments much lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Retirement - can't it be semi-retired or decide it wants to work again ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Ahh ... but it was supposed to be a "no nickname" rally, aimed at just those folks (like you as you say), but somehow it got overwhelmed by the "old nickname forever" point of view. What does that say about what is reality. I'll take a stab. No nickname forever folks are employed, while fighting Sioux forevers are not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 For the audience playing along at home: If you had to guess at the break down of the "no nickname" camp .... __% really sincerely mean no nickname and won't use the old name __% want no nickname so they can de facto the old one into the void __% want no nickname because they believe they can get the old nickname back some day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I'll take a stab. No nickname forever folks are employed, while fighting Sioux forevers are not? It was an after standard work hours rally (5 pm), wasn't it. I guess I'm not going to buy that take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Many are retired & in the land of the free & home of the SIOUX We can protest what we want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 For the audience playing along at home: If you had to guess at the break down of the "no nickname" camp .... __% really sincerely mean no nickname and won't use the old name __% want no nickname so they can de facto the old one into the void __% want no nickname because they believe they can get the old one back some day I would call it like this: 10% really sincerely mean no nickname and won't use the old name 85% want no nickname so they can de facto the old one into the void 5% want no nickname because they believe they can get the old one back some day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 What % just think all potential new names suck ? 1 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.