darell1976 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 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". Yeah UND shouldn't fear the NCAA regarding nickname usage.....just look at 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jk Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I haven't spent much time following the nickname issue (thank God), but I popped over to see what's going on. My suggestion on this issue is: read the agreement. I thought this thread was silly. (Of course no nickname is fine, as it is plainly not offensive.) I was surprised to see the agreement clearly state that UND must transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the policy. Wow, who drafted and signed off on this thing? I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me UND would at a minimum need a legal opinion or some kind of formal no-action letter from the NCAA stating that "no nickname and logo" would not violate the agreement. Perhaps the NCAA has some rule requiring all member schools to have a nickname and logo. If not, UND may be in the unique position of being the only member school legally required to have them. Hilarious. For the record, I'd love UND to permanently have no nickname and logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I haven't spent much time following the nickname issue (thank God), but I popped over to see what's going on. My suggestion on this issue is: read the agreement. I thought this thread was silly. (Of course no nickname is fine, as it is plainly not offensive.) I was surprised to see the agreement clearly state that UND must transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the policy. Wow, who drafted and signed off on this thing? I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me UND would at a minimum need a legal opinion or some kind of formal no-action letter from the NCAA stating that "no nickname and logo" would not violate the agreement. Perhaps the NCAA has some rule requiring all member schools to have a nickname and logo. If not, UND may be in the unique position of being the only member school legally required to have them. Hilarious. For the record, I'd love UND to permanently have no nickname and logo. You don't want a logo either? How come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 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. 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. I understand that. But it all rides on what the NCAA will or wont do depending on which nickname is picked. I don't know if they would go for an explanation that you picked North Dakota because nobody liked anything else. I don't know if they would levy sanctions again because you didn't adopt a nickname per say. Ive always questioned how they can make you have a nickname. The name of your school should be enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 It was partially sarcasm. In your opinion does being only North Dakota move UND further away from the Fighting Sioux name than Sundogs, etc? It was partially sarcasm. In your opinion does being only North Dakota move UND further away from the Fighting Sioux name than Sundogs, etc? IMO No it doesn't. But I think if you were named the Sundogs the Fighting Sioux crowd would never let that fly and the angst would last much longer than some of the other choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 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. I think both of you are simply offering your opinions. BB's sounds slightly more plausible and yours seems like a worse case scenario. Now if UND was even a blip in the national scene I may agree the NCAA could focus on us more. Because we are not I doubt they spend significant time on us. Don't they have their hands full trying to keep the P5 football conferences from breaking off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 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. Did they realize we don't have a nickname? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperman8 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 When I read "will transition to a new nickname, my opinion is that no nickname doesn't satisfy that requirement but I am not well versed in the settlement. The NCAA might see that as a way to continue to use Fighting Sioux. Prob need an opinion from the NCAA on this - the rest of us are just guessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 The NCAA might see that as a way FOR FANS to continue to use Fighting Sioux. FYP. And the response has to be "BIG DEAL." The fans weren't parties to the settlement agreement and cannot be sued. Nor are the fans subject to NCAA's member bylaws, rules, or resolutions and thus the fans cannot be sanctioned. The University is not using anything and thus has no culpability under the nickname policy. Short of stifling individual expression up to and beyond the point of violating people's constitutional rights, what more would you have UND do? Interesting aside about fan behavior -- notwithstanding its own policy, has the NCAA ever ejected a fan from an NCAA event solely for wearing and/or uttering "Sioux"? The NCAA's hands are completely tied on this one, and they know it. Their only options are to (1) deal with it; (2) enact a new nickname rule, which would probably grandfather UND in anyway; and (3) take UND to court on a dubious breach of contract theory, and try to explain to a judge how they have been harmed by UND not having a name and that the court should exercise its extraordinary power to remedy such a gross injustice. Short version, for the cognitively impaired: No nickname = no sanctions No nickname = possible lawsuit for breach with remote chance of money damages against UND and infinitesimal chance of UND being ordered to adopt a name 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Did they realize we don't have a nickname? Reasonable minds are free to disagree, but I think that "North Dakota" is UND's nickname right now and may continue to be going forward. If people recall the public submission process, the committee excluded every suggestion of "no nickname" but allowed the suggestion of "North Dakota" to move forward. So again, even if the university is playing under the name "North Dakota", the NCAA can't say that UND does not have a nickname. But then again, like scpa0305 said, some people are simply pushing "the worst case scenario" in order to force a nickname other than "North Dakota". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 FYP. And the response has to be "BIG DEAL." The fans weren't parties to the settlement agreement and cannot be sued. Nor are the fans subject to NCAA's member bylaws, rules, or resolutions and thus the fans cannot be sanctioned. The University is not using anything and thus has no culpability under the nickname policy. Short of stifling individual expression up to and beyond the point of violating people's constitutional rights, what more would you have UND do? Interesting aside about fan behavior -- notwithstanding its own policy, has the NCAA ever ejected a fan from an NCAA event solely for wearing and/or uttering "Sioux"? The NCAA's hands are completely tied on this one, and they know it. Their only options are to (1) deal with it; (2) enact a new nickname rule, which would probably grandfather UND in anyway; and (3) take UND to court on a dubious breach of contract theory, and try to explain to a judge how they have been harmed by UND not having a name and that the court should exercise its extraordinary power to remedy such a gross injustice. Short version, for the cognitively impaired: No nickname = no sanctions No nickname = possible lawsuit for breach with remote chance of money damages against UND and infinitesimal chance of UND being ordered to adopt a name One problem with your argumnet. The NCAA does not have to prove that they have been harmed by UND not having a name. That was not part of the settlemet agreement. I really don't get how a couple paragraphs can be so twisted and skewed to mean so many things just to prove someones point!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Reasonable minds are free to disagree, but I think that "North Dakota" is UND's nickname right now and may continue to be going forward. If people recall the public submission process, the committee excluded every suggestion of "no nickname" but allowed the suggestion of "North Dakota" to move forward. So again, even if the university is playing under the name "North Dakota", the NCAA can't say that UND does not have a nickname. But then again, like scpa0305 said, some people are simply pushing "the worst case scenario" in order to force a nickname other than "North Dakota". North Dakota is not a nickname. At least be accurate and state that the University of North Dakota currently has no nickname and that is what people are pushing for. They are not pushing for "North Dakota" as that has always been the name of the institution, they are pushing for "no nickname". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSSioux Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I haven't spent much time following the nickname issue (thank God), but I popped over to see what's going on. My suggestion on this issue is: read the agreement. I thought this thread was silly. (Of course no nickname is fine, as it is plainly not offensive.) I was surprised to see the agreement clearly state that UND must transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the policy. Wow, who drafted and signed off on this thing? I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me UND would at a minimum need a legal opinion or some kind of formal no-action letter from the NCAA stating that "no nickname and logo" would not violate the agreement. Perhaps the NCAA has some rule requiring all member schools to have a nickname and logo. If not, UND may be in the unique position of being the only member school legally required to have them. Hilarious. For the record, I'd love UND to permanently have no nickname and logo. You hit the nail on the head as far as the NCAA has NO policy on requiring the usage of a nickname. You can replace something with nothing and it is "new". See Mathematics 101, although that is not Lawyer 101, which I agree can mean anything. The scare tactics folks reference this "new" language, but using that same logic the NCAA could put us on the list by them finding Rough Riders/Roughriders as offensive. I do not agree with either, but it is the same logic. Then again some folks on here seem to think they know what is best for the university. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 North Dakota is not a nickname. At least be accurate and state that the University of North Dakota currently has no nickname and that is what people are pushing for. They are not pushing for "North Dakota" as that has always been the name of the institution, they are pushing for "no nickname". Except that the committee confirmed "North Dakota" as a potential nickname candidate, and President Kelley indicated that he may allow "North Dakota" to go forward as an option for a nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Except that the committee confirmed "North Dakota" as a potential nickname candidate, and President Kelley indicated that he may allow "North Dakota" to go forward as an option for a nickname. Unless they are going to be the University of North Dakota North Dakota (which we all know is not what is being discussed), then it is not a nickname, it is choosing to not have a nickname. I wish the committee would hammered that point home a little bit more. The name of the University can not, by definition, be a nickname unless you want to be redundant. You hit the nail on the head as far as the NCAA has NO policy on requiring the usage of a nickname. You can replace something with nothing and it is "new". See Mathematics 101, although that is not Lawyer 101, which I agree can mean anything. The scare tactics folks reference this "new" language, but using that same logic the NCAA could put us on the list by them finding Rough Riders/Roughriders as offensive. I do not agree with either, but it is the same logic. Then again some folks on here seem to think they know what is best for the university. Then why include the comment about a required transition to a new nickname and not just state "The University of North Dakota is required to drop the Fighting Sioux nickname"? If you are correct, it seems like it was a waste of space to include the language about transitioning to something new. And how can you replace something with nothing and it be new? If I sell my car and don't get a new one, I don't have a new car. If the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux drop their nickname and become the University of North Dakota, they don't have a new nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Unless they are going to be the University of North Dakota North Dakota (which we all know is not what is being discussed), then it is not a nickname, it is choosing to not have a nickname. I wish the committee would hammered that point home a little bit more. The name of the University can not, by definition, be a nickname unless you want to be redundant. So North Dakota can be a nickname; it's just redundant. Glad we finally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 You hit the nail on the head as far as the NCAA has NO policy on requiring the usage of a nickname. You can replace something with nothing and it is "new". See Mathematics 101, although that is not Lawyer 101, which I agree can mean anything. The scare tactics folks reference this "new" language, but using that same logic the NCAA could put us on the list by them finding Rough Riders/Roughriders as offensive. I do not agree with either, but it is the same logic. Then again some folks on here seem to think they know what is best for the university. They don't have to have a policy. The have a signed settlement agreement. Except that the committee confirmed "North Dakota" as a potential nickname candidate, and President Kelley indicated that he may allow "North Dakota" to go forward as an option for a nickname. Just because a committee decides that it is an option, doen't mean that it actually can. Once again, The NCAA has not given an answer to this question because they are letting the process play out. Why would they wast their time interjecting themselves in the process and comment on hypotheticals?! If you think that Kelley is going to allow "North Dakota" back on the list, you are kidding yourself. Not gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSSioux Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Unless they are going to be the University of North Dakota North Dakota (which we all know is not what is being discussed), then it is not a nickname, it is choosing to not have a nickname. I wish the committee would hammered that point home a little bit more. The name of the University can not, by definition, be a nickname unless you want to be redundant. Then why include the comment about a required transition to a new nickname and not just state "The University of North Dakota is required to drop the Fighting Sioux nickname"? If you are correct, it seems like it was a waste of space to include the language about transitioning to something new. And how can you replace something with nothing and it be new? If I sell my car and don't get a new one, I don't have a new car. If the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux drop their nickname and become the University of North Dakota, they don't have a new nickname. Those that get downsized are usually not replaced by a company, but other folks do their job. Just being North Dakota can serve the "job" as a nickname. Just as good of an example as yours. The NCAA does not have a nickname policy. By the way, why would the NCAA have included the intellectual property language in the settlement agreement? Why would they care that UND protect the Brien logo and name "Fighting Sioux"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 So North Dakota can be a nickname; it's just redundant. Glad we finally agree. If you are supporting the University of North Dakota North Dakota, then yes, North Dakota is a nickname and redundant. Is that what your support is for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Those that get downsized are usually not replaced by a company, but other folks do their job. Just being North Dakota can serve the "job" as a nickname. Just as good of an example as yours. The NCAA does not have a nickname policy. By the way, why would the NCAA have included the intellectual property language in the settlement agreement? Why would they care that UND protect the Brien logo and name "Fighting Sioux"? You don't have new employees though. Adding additional "responsibilities" to something that currently exists in no way qualifies as new. Since you brought it up, Mathematics 101 states that 1-1=0, if you have something and take it away, you are left with zero, nothing. Are you honestly asking why the NCAA (and UND for that matter) would want to ensure that UND protects all of the related imagery (not just Fighting Sioux and the Brien logo)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 One problem with your argumnet. The NCAA does not have to prove that they have been harmed by UND not having a name. That was not part of the settlemet agreement. I really don't get how a couple paragraphs can be so twisted and skewed to mean so many things just to prove someones point!! I'm going to speak slowly, and type even slower. The settlement agreement is a contract. In order to establish a breach of contract, a party to the contract must allege and prove 3 things: the existence of the contract, a breach by the other party, and resulting harm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 You hit the nail on the head as far as the NCAA has NO policy on requiring the usage of a nickname. You can replace something with nothing and it is "new". See Mathematics 101, although that is not Lawyer 101, which I agree can mean anything. The scare tactics folks reference this "new" language, but using that same logic the NCAA could put us on the list by them finding Rough Riders/Roughriders as offensive. I do not agree with either, but it is the same logic. Then again some folks on here seem to think they know what is best for the university. All most are asking is for clarification on if selecting no nickname satisfies the signed agreement between the state of North Dakota and the NCAA. You even say above that its not clearly defined and could mean anything. Therefore, it is not a scare tactic, its a legitimate question that should have been answered at the start but needs to be answered before things move along any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 If you are supporting the University of North Dakota North Dakota, then yes, North Dakota is a nickname and redundant. Is that what your support is for? Yes. I don't mind Roughriders though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSSioux Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 You don't have new employees though. Adding additional "responsibilities" to something that currently exists in no way qualifies as new. Since you brought it up, Mathematics 101 states that 1-1=0, if you have something and take it away, you are left with zero, nothing. Are you honestly asking why the NCAA (and UND for that matter) would want to ensure that UND protects all of the related imagery (not just Fighting Sioux and the Brien logo)? Please read the intellectual property portion of the agreement. It is specific to the name and logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSSioux Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 All most are asking is for clarification on if selecting no nickname satisfies the signed agreement between the state of North Dakota and the NCAA. You even say above that its not clearly defined and could mean anything. Therefore, it is not a scare tactic, its a legitimate question that should have been answered at the start but needs to be answered before things move along any further. As the question should be asked than if Rough Riders/Roughriders would be acceptable. 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.