homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Same would go for no nickname, ND, sun whatever's, etc... "Not our problem...we dropped that name." And replaced it with what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 BB, they're afraid of their own shadows... Funny, we're not afraid of stating our opinions here any more than you are. Some of us just realize that there may be other issues that need to be addressed. The NCAA isn't speaking, so no one knows what they are going to do. All we can do is review the public information, like the Settlement Agreement, and look at their track record in enacting policies. But it would be irresponsible if the UND administration didn't review any potential problems and address them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 . . . . is what so many people oddly seem to fear around here. But if we look at reality and undisputed facts, we know the following is true: Fact 1: NCAA removed UND from sanctions when UND did not have a nickname. Fact 2: NCAA awarded UND the right to host hockey regionals when UND did not have a nickname. Fact 3: NCAA has not placed UND on sanctions even though the statutory "cooling off" period ended months ago, and there is still a possibility that UND does not adopt a new nickname. But, despite these undisputed facts, some of you believe that "no nickname" will result in the NCAA putting UND back on sanctions, refusing to award regionals to UND, and blowing up Grand Forks with the Death Star. Some people are clearly speculating and offering conjecture as to what the NCAA bogeyman might or potentially could do to UND; i.e, the argument that the NCAA is acquiescing to "no nickname" so long as UND is continuing a transition to a new nickname. Can you guys provide a source, or is it just your honest opinion? Others offer strained legal opinions as to what the NCAA is legally allowed to do under the terms of the settlement agreement. Again, can you guys provide a source, or is this just your honest, internet message board legal analysis? Ready, set, go! I resent your misleading thread title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes, in September 2012, NCAA lifted sanctions UND was under sanctions in September, 2012? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes, in September 2012, NCAA lifted sanctions against UND [no nickname] during a time that UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname. The NCAA awarded regionals to UND [no nickname] at a time that UND was legally prohibited from transitioning to a new nickname. These are the facts; I don't need any more concrete examples than that. And it's fine if you want to speculate about the possibility of the NCAA creating new policies or changing the rules as they go. But just admit that it's your opinion. The NCAA lifted sanctions against UND on October 26, 2007 when the Settlement Agreement was signed. The Addendum did not lift sanctions, it just enforced the Settlement Agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 The NCAA removed UND from the sanctions list when UND signed the Settlement Agreement several years ago. You seem to have missed that fact. They would have to actively put UND back on the list, and only if they decide that UND did not live up to the Agreement. Your opinion is that the NCAA would have put UND back on the list immediately after the state forced UND to stay without a nickname until 2015, or immediately after that deadline was met. You have no proof of that other than your opinion. Many of us are of the opinion that the NCAA is giving a grace period as long as UND is making attempts to move toward a new nickname. We have no proof of that and have stated that. Several have also offered the theory that the NCAA could enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement at any time after the deadlines written in it, they don't have to enforce those deadlines specifically on those dates. UND hosting a regional and not being on the sanctions list fit within the theories of the NCAA giving a grace period and extending deadlines. You have offered no real proof that your opinion is any more valid than any other opinion. Don't know if you're a hockey guy, but remember 2012 regionals when the University North Dakota Fighting Sioux were prohibited from playing as the Fighting Sioux? UND was put back on sanctions after the settlement agreement, but you seem to have missed that fact. Winner, winner! While I don't recall anyone admitting that in the past, I am glad you have brought clarity to the issue and informed the fine posters of siouxsports.com that the threats of future NCAA sanctions are simply opinions without proof. Goodbye, post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 You think it is just a coincidence that the processes were started shortly before that date? And that maybe the NCAA was clued in on that? What benefit does the NCAA gain by taking UND and the State of ND to court or an unnecessary PR black-eye if UND had informed them that as the "cooling off" period neared completion, they would finish the transition, which is exactly what happened last fall. Wow, lots of speculation and conjecture in this post. Take a cue from 82SiouxGuy and own up to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes... The sky is falling. Not really, but the NC$$ has a history of governing its charges in arbitrary and capricious manners, depending on the "offense" and the relative strength of the defendant. They may grant big, powerful North Carolina a pass for its "class" scandal, but they're also as likely to hammer North Dakota into dust for not toeing the line on its Indian mascot crusade. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 I resent your misleading thread title. I do apologize for that. I took a page out of the huffingtonpost's playbook, but I did lay an easter egg in the title thread to clue people in on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Don't know if you're a hockey guy, but remember 2012 regionals when the University North Dakota Fighting Sioux were prohibited from playing as the Fighting Sioux? UND was put back on sanctions after the settlement agreement, but you seem to have missed that fact. Winner, winner! While I don't recall anyone admitting that in the past, I am glad you have brought clarity to the issue and informed the fine posters of siouxsports.com that the threats of future NCAA sanctions are simply opinions without proof. Goodbye, post. Maybe they were prohibited based on the meeting in August, 2011 between state leaders and the NCAA. According to people who were actually in the room, the NCAA acknowledged UND was doing everything it could to try and satisfy the agreements with the NCAA and the state legislature. They were attempting to move forward even though some who were outside UND were holding them back. If UND would have played as the Fighting Sioux in 2012, they would have gone against the agreement in place with the NCAA and what was discussed in a face to face a year earlier. Its similar to the situation of the cooldown period, UND can argue that they have been doing everything in their power to move towards a new nickname but the mandated cool down period is holding them back. The NCAA can't argue that but since the cool down period is up, the big question remains "will no nickname satisfy the agreement between the state of North Dakota and the NCAA?" http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-08-16/fighting-sioux-nickname-ends-2011 Grant Shaft, the board's president, said NCAA officials were sympathetic to the university's plight during last week's meeting, which was held at the NCAA's headquarters in Indianapolis. "The NCAA seemed to acknowledge the difficult position that the University of North Dakota was in, being that it was trying to comply with both the settlement agreement and the NCAA policy, along with the legislative mandate," Shaft said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Not really, but the NC$$ has a history of governing its charges in arbitrary and capricious manners, depending on the "offense" and the relative strength of the defendant. They may grant big, powerful North Carolina a pass for its "class" scandal, but they're also as likely to hammer North Dakota into dust for not toeing the line on its Indian mascot crusade. It has to many discussing this topic. I'm still searching for these specific offenses you speak of. Seems UND has complied with everything requested of it... including dropping its former nickname and ultimately choosing a new one, even if that new one is simply no name at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 Maybe they were prohibited based on the meeting in August, 2011 between state leaders and the NCAA. According to people who were actually in the room, the NCAA acknowledged UND was doing everything it could to try and satisfy the agreements with the NCAA and the state legislature. They were attempting to move forward even though some who were outside UND were holding them back. If UND would have played as the Fighting Sioux in 2012, they would have gone against the agreement in place with the NCAA and what was discussed in a face to face a year earlier. Its similar to the situation of the cooldown period, UND can argue that they have been doing everything in their power to move towards a new nickname but the mandated cool down period is holding them back. The NCAA can't argue that but since the cool down period is up, the big question remains "will no nickname satisfy the agreement between the state of North Dakota and the NCAA?" http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-08-16/fighting-sioux-nickname-ends-2011 Agree. NCAA put UND back on sanctions after North Dakota's 2011 state law mandated the school's use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. Thus, UND could not play as the "Fighting Sioux" in the NCAA tournament in Spring 2012. Then, in June 2012, the public voted to remove the law mandating the school's use of "Fighting Sioux", and the NCAA took UND back off of sanctions in the September 2012 addendum to the settlement agreement. Big picture though. NCAA decided to remove UND from sanctions at a time when UND had no nickname and was not transitioning to any new nickname. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6391276 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Agree. NCAA put UND back on sanctions after North Dakota's 2011 state law mandated the school's use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. Thus, UND could not play as the "Fighting Sioux" in the NCAA tournament in Spring 2012. Then, in June 2012, the public voted to remove the law mandating the school's use of "Fighting Sioux", and the NCAA took UND back off of sanctions in the September 2012 addendum to the settlement agreement. Big picture though. NCAA decided to remove UND from sanctions at a time when UND had no nickname and was not transitioning to any new nickname. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6391276 They couldn't transition towards a new nickname because of the state mandated cool down period. Please explain how they can transition towards a new nickname when state law tells them they can't? And for consistency to your requests, site sources and examples. http://blogs.mprnews.org/oncampus/2011/11/solution-to-fighting-sioux-controversy-drags-on/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Don't know if you're a hockey guy, but remember 2012 regionals when the University North Dakota Fighting Sioux were prohibited from playing as the Fighting Sioux? UND was put back on sanctions after the settlement agreement, but you seem to have missed that fact. Winner, winner! While I don't recall anyone admitting that in the past, I am glad you have brought clarity to the issue and informed the fine posters of siouxsports.com that the threats of future NCAA sanctions are simply opinions without proof. Goodbye, post. I forgot about the Spring of 2012. There was a short time where the sanctions did apply. But the sanctions ended as soon as UND was able to drop the nickname, which was after the vote in June 2012. That put UND back in compliance with the Settlement. The Addendum did not drop UND from the sanctions list. Nothing about the Addendum talks about UND going without a nickname no matter what you keep saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Why were the sanctions lifted? Because UND was in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Why were they in compliance? Because they had announced they were retiring the Fighting Sioux nickname and transitioning towards a new nickname, playing out exactly as the Settlement Agreement stated. Is picking "no nickname" considered a transition to a new nickname in the eyes of the NCAA? No one knows. If it is, what can the NCAA do once they see that UND has now encouraged an environment where Fighting Sioux is the de facto nickname and continued to be widely used even though it has been retired? Whatever they want. THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 They couldn't transition towards a new nickname because of the state mandated cool down period. Please explain how they can transition towards a new nickname when state law tells them they can't? And for consistency to your requests, site sources and examples. http://blogs.mprnews.org/oncampus/2011/11/solution-to-fighting-sioux-controversy-drags-on/ This is exactly the point! If the absence of a nickname violated any cognizable NCAA policy or the Settlement Agreement, why would the NCAA agree to lift sanctions against a school that was prohibited from having a nickname!!!!! There was no guarantee and still is no guarantee that UND will ever have a nickname. Yet, some people think it's the gospel truth that the NCAA is waiting in the lurches to pounce on UND. And that's fine if some of you people believe that, but just admit it's your opinion and you don't have proof to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Go ....sundogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 This is exactly the point! If the absence of a nickname violated any cognizable NCAA policy or the Settlement Agreement, why would the NCAA agree to lift sanctions against a school that was prohibited from having a nickname!!!!! There was no guarantee and still is no guarantee that UND will ever have a nickname. Yet, some people think it's the gospel truth that the NCAA is waiting in the lurches to pounce on UND. And that's fine if some of you people believe that, but just admit it's your opinion and you don't have proof to back it up. Why don't you look in the mirror and say the exact same thing to yourself!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 Why don't you look in the mirror and say the exact same thing to yourself!! Challenge accepted. And the mirror said, "the NCAA took UND off of sanctions and awarded regionals to UND at a time during which UND was legally prohibited from even having a nickname. You need not fear anything, the is no evidence to suggest that the lack of a nickname will cause any issue between UND and the NCAA despite some other people's speculative fear". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Going back to what started this whole thing. ... http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/PressArchive/2005/Announcements/NCAA%2BExecutive%2BCommittee%2BIssues%2BGuidelines%2Bfor%2BUse%2Bof%2BNative%2BAmerican%2BMascots%2Bat%2BChampionship%2BEvents.html Their intent was to get rid of the nicknames, mascots and imagery that were deemed hostile and abusive. Settlement aside, just going with North Dakota achieves that end. Yes, that is just my opinion. Model institution, Wisconsin, has been scheduling North Dakota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I do apologize for that. I took a page out of the huffingtonpost's playbook, but I did lay an easter egg in the title thread to clue people in on it. Apology accepted - just don't like to be tricked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I'm okay with just North Dakota and I am fine with moving on from Fighting Sioux - the lefties won. BUT the reality is the NCAA says "Vi Have Vays to make your life difficult". They may not be able to do anything about it but as we have experienced they can be clandestine in punishing a school that crosses them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Unless the name is the University of North Dakota North Dakota, its not the same. I just don't understand why people use this example. It makes no sense and Nobody in their right mind would ever consider this saying that. If North Dakota was chosen I don't see an issue with it. You will be known as North Dakota, UND or University of North Dakota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 If North Dakota was chosen I don't see an issue with it. You will be known as North Dakota, UND or University of North Dakota. That doesn't really constitute transitioning to something new (as spelled out by the settlement agreement) since those have all been is use since 1883. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I just don't understand why people use this example. It makes no sense and Nobody in their right mind would ever consider this saying that. If North Dakota was chosen I don't see an issue with it. You will be known as North Dakota, UND or University of North Dakota. It was partially sarcasm. In your opinion does being only North Dakota move UND further away from the Fighting Sioux name than Sundogs, etc? 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.