dmksioux Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Ok, here's my whole take. The NCAA may have been asked if "no nickname" was an option. Maybe they provided an answer, and it is ok. Or, more likely, they chose not to give an answer, meaning that it is initially ok to use. I truly believe the NCAA won't come out and say yes it's ok at this point. Either they are going to say no or not give an answer. This way, if they don't give the answer, they give the people of ND the opportunity to "do the right thing" and pick a new name with out being the bad guy by taking away the "no nickname option. However, should the "no nickname" option win the vote then there could be issues. Will the NCAA step forward and say they won't allow it, probably not. However, should the NA activists start making noise, protesting, threatening legal litigaion, etc...because the Sioux chants are still happening, etc then you can be rest assured, the NCAA will come out and say we haven't met the terms and will force us to go through the process of picking a name again. If the NCAA needs to, they will change their by-laws making member schools have a nickname because, as we've all learned, the NCAA can do basically what they want. In this scenario, the NCAA doesn't have to get involved until they are 'forced' as their are several "out" options that could keep it from getting to the point of protests again...ie the vote selects a new name, or no nickname is selected and the NA activists don't have an issue with it. This is my .02 on how the NCAA views it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 breech brēCH/ noun 1. the part of a cannon behind the bore. 2. archaic a person's buttocks. verb archaic 1. put (a boy) into breeches after being in petticoats since birth. I hope they're wearing pants. It was too early in the morning ... < facepalm > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 For the lawyer types out there: You have a client. The senior managing partner of your firm walks into your office and says, "Drop that client of yours immediately. We don't do business with that industry any longer. If you keep the client, the sanction you face is dismissal. If you choose to drop them, you have two weeks to find and to transition to a new client that complies with this new firm policy." In two weeks, oh junior associate, when asked, you tell the senior managing partner, "I dropped my client." When asked who your 'new' client is you reply, "I don't have one." So what will senior managing partner do; what happens next? They may ask, "Have you tried?" And if you say yes and can prove it you may get some additional leeway. But if your response is, "No, and I'm not going to; I'm happy without a client" will you be surprised if you don't face sanction (dismissal) for not following the "find and transition to a new client" agreement you made? Benny: I can see your IP address. (I have Moderator powers here.) I'd like to know your response to this scenario with you playing junior associate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Is that all you have left? Cute little two word answers in all caps? psst. It's actually one word "mistrial". ; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 psst. It's actually one word "mistrial". ; But what is the opinion of REAL lawyer?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Ok, here's my whole take. The NCAA may have been asked if "no nickname" was an option. Maybe they provided an answer, and it is ok. Or, more likely, they chose not to give an answer, meaning that it is initially ok to use. I truly believe the NCAA won't come out and say yes it's ok at this point. Either they are going to say no or not give an answer. This way, if they don't give the answer, they give the people of ND the opportunity to "do the right thing" and pick a new name with out being the bad guy by taking away the "no nickname option. However, should the "no nickname" option win the vote then there could be issues. Will the NCAA step forward and say they won't allow it, probably not. However, should the NA activists start making noise, protesting, threatening legal litigaion, etc...because the Sioux chants are still happening, etc then you can be rest assured, the NCAA will come out and say we haven't met the terms and will force us to go through the process of picking a name again. If the NCAA needs to, they will change their by-laws making member schools have a nickname because, as we've all learned, the NCAA can do basically what they want. In this scenario, the NCAA doesn't have to get involved until they are 'forced' as their are several "out" options that could keep it from getting to the point of protests again...ie the vote selects a new name, or no nickname is selected and the NA activists don't have an issue with it. This is my .02 on how the NCAA views it. So to avoid having to walk on eggshells wondering if and when the NCAA is going to act or not act if we move ahead with no nickname, the whole issue can be put to rest by selecting a NEW nickname. That is what most of us want to do. Get this all behind us and focus on more important things like winning games, conference titles, and national titles. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Is that all you have left? Cute little two word answers in all caps?yes Oh & when did u die ? & how is it on the other side ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 However, should the NA activists start making noise, protesting, threatening legal litigaion, etc...because the Sioux chants are still happening, etc Rest assured that this will happen. As I stated previously, there are already groups waiting for it as this type of controversy seems to be the only thing that gets them airtime. The protesters last fall from the Walk for Change or whatever it was called have stated as much if a nickname isn't picked and are a perfect example of what will continue to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 So Roberto Kelley is managing this firestorm by saying he will consider putting the North Dakota option on the ballot? I personally don't think he will but if he does, I hope he has done the due diligence of getting a definitive answer from the NCAA. If he puts North Dakota on the ballot without receiving feedback from the NCAA, it just sets UND up for another spin on this effing merry-go-round. It's the same situation for the North Star and Roughrider nicknames. Don't put them on the ballot if you can't get them trademarked...these are questions that I'm hoping someone is researching to see if they are viable options BEFORE they are voted on. Carry on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I bet Kelly reads this and laughs and laughs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I bet Kelly reads this and laughs and laughs! It wont be funny when the students go nuclear on a certain option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Benny: I can see your IP address. (I have Moderator powers here.) I'd like to know your response to this scenario with you playing junior associate. I'm flattered that you're looking me up! My answer to your question is, no. But I think your hypo neglected to point out some distinguishing facts. Although your hypo gave a "firm" deadline like the August 15, 2011 deadline for UND to transition to a new nickname, the NCAA subsequently choose to remove sanctions when North Dakota obviously had not met that deadline. Quite to the contrary, North Dakota thumbed its nose at the idea and said that it wasn't even going to consider transitioning to a new nickname for over three years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I mean it because of how ridiculous this back and forth conversation is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Rest assured that this will happen. As I stated previously, there are already groups waiting for it as this type of controversy seems to be the only thing that gets them airtime. The protesters last fall from the Walk for Change or whatever it was called have stated as much if a nickname isn't picked and are a perfect example of what will continue to happen. I have no doubts the vocal minority will fire up it's protest machine. I was just sharing my thoughts on what the NCAA is doing at this point. There is no reason for them to be the "bad guy" at this point when there are options that could happen such as the President eliminating it for them, the Public vote eliminating it, or the very slim chance that the vocal minority won't care. Should none of those happen, then I can see the NCAA stepping up and doing one of two things: point to the settlement agreement saying it's in there, or if they feel it's not a strong enough case to prove it's in the settlement, they will just go to their "executive committee," and change their by-laws requiring member schools to select a nickname. Some of us understand this and don't want to have to go through this whole cycle again and form new committees, select names, vote, etc. Others on here like to gamble and are betting that the vocal minority won't step up if we don't pick a nickname. Or that if a new nickname isn't chosen, that perhaps the NCAA will ignore the vocal minority this time. Those are rather slim odds if you ask me, which is why I'm in favor of selecting a new name now, because I fee Roughriders is a very suitable replacement. EDIT: The other reason I posted this is because the whole argument about what the settlement says or doesn't say is moot. Ultimately it's going to come down Nickname A or No Nickname. The NCAA is allowing the process to play out before getting invovled, and only doing so once they are forced. So, after this post we can stop arguing about the settlement...right??? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Don't put them on the ballot if you can't get them trademarked...these are questions that I'm hoping someone is researching to see if they are viable options BEFORE they are voted on. Carry on. That excuse wouldn't hold water. How do the Bison, Wolverines, Badgers ever manage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 That excuse wouldn't hold water. How do the Bison, Wolverines, Badgers ever manage? There is a distinction between the general use of a name (word) and the context in which it used for purposes of trademark. North Dakota can certainly use "North Stars" as its nickname, but it would need the NHL's permission to use the actual Minnesota North Star logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I'm flattered that you're looking me up! My answer to your question is, no. But I think your hypo neglected to point out some distinguishing facts. Although your hypo gave a "firm" deadline like the August 15, 2011 deadline for UND to transition to a new nickname, the NCAA subsequently choose to remove sanctions when North Dakota obviously had not met that deadline. Quite to the contrary, North Dakota thumbed its nose at the idea and said that it wasn't even going to consider transitioning to a new nickname for over three years! The hypothetical addressed that: They may ask, "Have you tried?" And if you say yes and can prove it you may get some additional leeway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 I've asked people within UND and they didn't know. They didn't specify whether that meant the question hadn't been asked or the NCCA declined giving an answer but the way it was presented, I believe the latter to be the most likely explanation. Take it for what its worth. There are people that should have a definitive answer on the question but to date, there has not been a public comment on it that I'm aware of, even if it is that the NCAA has declined to take a stance at this time. I agree fully that whatever questions that have been asked should be made public, regardless of the answers. Thanks for this answer. This is what I've been trying to find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 They may ask, "Have you tried?" And if you say yes and can prove it you may get some additional leeway. I guess I have to disagree, because in this situation it went: The NCAA asked, "Have you tried transitioning to a new nickname?" And North Dakota said, "Hell no, we created a law that prohibited any transition for three years." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Thanks for this answer. This is what I've been trying to find out. I want to clarify that the people I spoke with did not know what the NCAA's stance was. That does not mean that the question hasn't been asked nor if it has been answered, it just means that the people I talked with didn't know. The feeling I got was that there had been some sort of inquiry but the NCAA did not respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I guess I have to disagree, because in this situation it went: The NCAA asked, "Have you tried transitioning to a new nickname?" And North Dakota said, "Hell no, we created a law that prohibited any transition for three years." The state of North Dakota created the law, the University of North Dakota made every attempt to transition away from the name. We already addressed how the NCAA handled the same situation with state law before and addressed it with state leaders in the face to face meeting. You must have read that quote. Now that the 3 year cooling off period is up, I would assume the NCAA wants to see movement towards full retirement of the nickname and transition to a new nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 The state of North Dakota created the law, the University of North Dakota made every attempt to transition away from the name. We already addressed how the NCAA handled the same situation with state law before and addressed it with state leaders in the face to face meeting. You must have read that quote. Now that the 3 year cooling off period is up, I would assume the NCAA wants to see movement towards full retirement of the nickname and transition to a new nickname. fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STS Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I have no doubts the vocal minority will fire up it's protest machine. I was just sharing my thoughts on what the NCAA is doing at this point. There is no reason for them to be the "bad guy" at this point when there are options that could happen such as the President eliminating it for them, the Public vote eliminating it, or the very slim chance that the vocal minority won't care. Should none of those happen, then I can see the NCAA stepping up and doing one of two things: point to the settlement agreement saying it's in there, or if they feel it's not a strong enough case to prove it's in the settlement, they will just go to their "executive committee," and change their by-laws requiring member schools to select a nickname. Some of us understand this and don't want to have to go through this whole cycle again and form new committees, select names, vote, etc. Others on here like to gamble and are betting that the vocal minority won't step up if we don't pick a nickname. Or that if a new nickname isn't chosen, that perhaps the NCAA will ignore the vocal minority this time. Those are rather slim odds if you ask me, which is why I'm in favor of selecting a new name now, because I fee Roughriders is a very suitable replacement. EDIT: The other reason I posted this is because the whole argument about what the settlement says or doesn't say is moot. Ultimately it's going to come down Nickname A or No Nickname. The NCAA is allowing the process to play out before getting invovled, and only doing so once they are forced. So, after this post we can stop arguing about the settlement...right??? Roughriders is my second choice also, but I don't believe it will make the ballot, North Stars either. Do you want to be a Sundog, a Nodak, or a Fighting Hawk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Roughriders is my second choice also, but I don't believe it will make the ballot, North Stars either. Do you want to be a Sundog, a Nodak, or a Fighting Hawk? In order of preference: 1. Roughriders- ND is the Roughrider state, Highest award is the Roughrider award, it's unique to NCAA athletics, many marketing/logo opportunities (horse, Teddy,) etc. 2. No name- (not realistic as I've described in my post that you quoted) 3. Start the process over if Roughriders doesn't win because the rest stink. This is why I selected No Nickname as #2 because it virtually guarantees we will be doing it all over again until a name is selected. So Vote on RR and No Name and see what happens. I too tend to think RR might not make the final vote, which would be unfortunate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I guess I have to disagree, because in this situation it went: The NCAA asked, "Have you tried transitioning to a new nickname?" And North Dakota said, "Hell no, we created a law that prohibited any transition for three years." They started the process and got halted by outside forces. I guess if I were the managing senior partner I'd cut some slack. 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.