Guest Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 They can hold a gun to our heads, but they can't make people willingly accept a nickname that nobody wants. They can't make us buy merchandise, dictate what fans wear to games etc. The fan base is so divided and personally, I think the options stink. Whatever happens, it's not going to go well......... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 So basically what I said in my last post a few pages back. The NCAA won't do anything until they are forced to act. Currently the stakeholders could vote for a different name than "no nickname." If "no nickname" is selected, it's fine until the vocal minority starts it's complaining and getting the attention of Big Sky/NCHC Presidents, etc...which won't take long. No need for the NCAA to do anything else at this point.No consipiracy theories here, UND needs to pick a new name, otherwise it's a matter of time until someone starts complaining that "no nickname" is by default, keeping UND the Fighting Sioux.I didn't think the NCAA would issue a statement ahead of any action by UND but the end result is the same, UND ends up back under sanctions and the NCAA has clean hands. You last point is dead-on. UND's only way out of this is to pick a replacement. If they do, the NCAA can't or won't do anything about what people wear or cheer. If they don't, they have effectively said that UND is fostering an environment where a retired nickname is being allowed to be used as a de facto nickname and the consequences will be the same as if they were officially using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen4sioux Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 The argument that this new info is a blow to the no nickname crowd is bogus.The NCAA says sanctions can be placed if fans continue to use the old SIOUX name?????!!!!!Guess what, fans are still going to use Fighting Sioux and wear the logo..... even if our new logo was a couple of fighting hawks protected by roughriders while sundogging under the North star. So NCAA is REALLY saying is if anyone complains......read this will happen immediately. .......UND will face sanctions unless the old logo is banned and use of the word is forbidden.Good luck with that NCAA..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 The argument that this new info is a blow to the no nickname crowd is bogus.The NCAA says sanctions can be placed if fans continue to use the old SIOUX name?????!!!!!Guess what, fans are still going to use Fighting Sioux and wear the logo..... even if our new logo was a couple of fighting hawks protected by roughriders while sundogging under the North star. So NCAA is REALLY saying is if anyone complains......read this will happen immediately. .......UND will face sanctions unless the old logo is banned and use of the word is forbidden.Good luck with that NCAA.....Only if "no nickname" is chosen. If UND moves forward with a new nickname, then they have continued to do everything in their power to comply with the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA won't lift a finger, they will have finally got what their ultimate goal was, replacement of the Fighting Sioux nickname.I do however see this misdirection being used by some in the "no nickname" crowd to muddy the waters saying that the NCAA is going to do it regardless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Some of you are scrambling given your comments the past several weeks/months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Some of you are scrambling given your comments the past several weeks/months.Like who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 says the poster named 'Guest'...good call. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Then Nodaks should win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 There are two ways UND can be sanctioned under the existing framework. 1) if it is in violation of the policy, or 2) if it is in violation of the settlement agreement. UND is not in violation of the original policy because it no longer uses a nickname that violates the policy. The NCAA has now confirmed that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. How fans "use" a nickname that is not sanctioned by the University has no basis in policy or contract. There's nothing in the original policy or the settlement agreement that talks about fans continuing to "use" a nickname, whatever that even means. From a legal standpoint, this is pure lunacy. If the NCAA wants to sanction a school over how fans "use" a nickname that is not actually used or sanctioned by the University, the NCAA will have to enact a new policy. I'll stand by what I've said since reading the settlement agreement addendum months ago. Not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. That much has been confirmed. Whether the NCAA would enact a new policy to sanction UND based on what "fans" do is a new argument and new debate. But people will read what they want to read into this latest statement. The message board debate on this has grown tiresome to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 There are two ways UND can be sanctioned under the existing framework. 1) if it is in violation of the policy, or 2) if it is in violation of the settlement agreement. UND is not in violation of the original policy because it no longer uses a nickname that violates the policy. The NCAA has now confirmed that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. How fans "use" a nickname that is not sanctioned by the University has no basis in policy or contract. There's nothing in the original policy or the settlement agreement that talks about fans continuing to "use" a nickname, whatever that even means. From a legal standpoint, this is pure lunacy. If the NCAA wants to sanction a school over how fans "use" a nickname that is not actually used or sanctioned by the University, the NCAA will have to enact a new policy. I'll stand by what I've said since reading the settlement agreement addendum months ago. Not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement. That much has been confirmed. Whether the NCAA would enact a new policy to sanction UND based on what "fans" do is a new argument and new debate. But people will read what they want to read into this latest statement. The message board debate on this has grown tiresome to me.The NCAA will just change the rules again until they get what they want. We've all seen it before. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen4sioux Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) The NCAA has ZERO authority to sanction a University of what fans say.....ZERO.If that were the case UMD would be sanctioned for the smallpox blanket displayed at WCHA Final Five.....aand NDSU would be sanctioned for the tshirt of the bison fellatied "sp?" By the Indian figure.Using this argument to try and denounce staying "North Dakota" is just flat out false. A lie. NCAA can not by the agreement or settlement or legally in any way sanction a University athletic program based on spectators free speech. Edited August 3, 2015 by Frozen4sioux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 The NCAA will just change the rules again until they get what they want. We've all seen it before.Exactly. If/when the vocal minority make some noise start complaining to conference Presidents, which in turn complain to the NCAA, the the NCAA will take action. As we've learned before, they have an executive board that can propose and vote on policy changes. If the NCAA sees that UND isn't in violation by not choosing a new nickname, they will just enact a new policy stating members need to have an official nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) The NCAA will just change the rules again until they get what they want. We've all seen it before.If UND chooses "no nickname", if (WHEN) the first "but we still hear that old name because they haven't picked a new one complain" comes in the NCAA Executive Committee can (will) pass a policy immediately that mandates you have an official nickname. Edited August 3, 2015 by The Sicatoka 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 The NCAA has ZERO authority to sanction a University of what fans say.....ZERO.If that were the case UMD would be sanctioned for the smallpox blanket displayed at WCHA Final Five.....aand NDSU would be sanctioned for the tshirt of the bison fellatied "sp?" By the Indian figure.Using this argument to try and denounce staying "North Dakota" I'd just flat out false. NCAA can not by the agreement or settlement or legally in any way sanction a University athletic program based on spectators free speech. You are correct that they can't sanction UND for what people where or say. But they can propose NCAA legislation stating all members need to have an official nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 The NCAA has ZERO authority to sanction a University of what fans say.....ZERO.If that were the case UMD would be sanctioned for the smallpox blanket displayed at WCHA Final Five.....aand NDSU would be sanctioned for the tshirt of the bison fellatied "sp?" By the Indian figure.Using this argument to try and denounce staying "North Dakota" is just flat out false. A lie. NCAA can not by the agreement or settlement or legally in any way sanction a University athletic program based on spectators free speech. Like I said before, spectacularly played by the NCAA:They hold to their "you're free to choose any nickname you want" stance; yet, they also hold their "if people complain we'll hit you with sanctions" position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Exactly. If/when the vocal minority make some noise start complaining to conference Presidents, which in turn complain to the NCAA, the the NCAA will take action. As we've learned before, they have an executive board that can propose and vote on policy changes. If the NCAA sees that UND isn't in violation by not choosing a new nickname, they will just enact a new policy stating members need to have an official nickname.I have no problem with this argument. There are still lots of reasons to pick a new nickname. I just have a problem with all the bar-stool lawyers on this site who take one sentence of a settlement agreement in isolation and think they're Clarence Darrow all of a sudden. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted August 3, 2015 Author Share Posted August 3, 2015 I have no problem with this argument. There are still lots of reasons to pick a new nickname. I just have a problem with all the bar-stool lawyers on this site who take one sentence of a settlement agreement in isolation and think they're Clarence Darrow all of a sudden. Spot on. There's definitely some about facing taking place on this message board today. Sure seemed to be a lot of bar-stool lawyers on here last week who were certain that UND's decision to not chose a new nickname would be in violation of the settlement agreement. Looks like Goon did a great job of clearing up those errors as I don't seeing anyone willing to stick by their (old) position today. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 I would love to see UND take the NCAA to court for trying to force unfair sanctions on a university based on words uttered by a third party.The reality is it would never come to that. This silly, weak response from the NCAA is proof they know they have no leg to stand on. It's a green light for no nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) I would love to see UND take the NCAA to court for trying to force unfair sanctions on a university based on words uttered by a third party.The reality is it would never come to that. This silly, weak response from the NCAA is proof they know they have no leg to stand on. It's a green light for no nickname.UND won't take the NCAA to court. The NCAA will only act once other School President and/or activists start complaining. At that point (when the activists/Presidents start complaining), they will simply pass new legislation stating members need to have a nickname, or something similar. Don't think they will do that? Just look back to how they changed the rules regarding Native American nicknames when this whole mess started. They essentially took decision making away from members and gave it to an executive committee which resulted in an easier, quicker way for them to change NCAA policy as they see fit. Have most of the "No nickname" proponents not learned anything in this whole process? Edited August 3, 2015 by dmksioux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 UND won't take the NCAA to court. The NCAA will only act once other School President and/or activists start complaining. At that point (when the activists/Presidents start complaining), they will simply pass new legislation stating members need to have a nickname, or something similar. Don't think they will do that? Just look back to how they changed the rules regarding Native American nicknames when this whole mess started. They essentially took decision making away from members and gave it to an executive committee which resulted in an easier, quicker way for them to change NCAA policy as they see fit. Have most of the "No nickname" proponents not learned anything in this whole process?Correct. When UND sued the NCAA, it's best argument was its breach of contract count, which argued that the NCAA bylaws did not authorize the Execute Committee to enact the 2005 policy and that only the membership, as a whole, could enact such a policy. As a result of the lawsuit by UND, the NCAA changed its bylaws shortly after the settlement agreement to specifically authorize the Executive Committee to make these types of policies without a membership vote. Thus, UND may have won the battle in the lawsuit, but still would have lost the war. That is why the criticism of the "surrender agreement" is unwarranted. UND was going to lose the issue even if it won in court. The settlement agreement bought UND three years to get tribal approval. Unfortunately, there was an utter lack of leadership after the settlement agreement and there was no serious effort to get tribal approval until it was too late. To your point, yes, the Executive Committee could easily, and quickly, enact a new policy requiring the use of a nickname. I know this nuance will be lost on a lot of people, but that is DIFFERENT than saying having no nickname violates the settlement agreement. It does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Along the same lines of the "won battle, lost war" thought, ...The nickname protesters (especially those on campus) have just given the "go" on sending letters to the NCAA about how the last three years of "no nickname" is fostering an environment where the old nickname continues on and they keep hearing it. And the NCAA has said they'll act on their complaints. What I believe is both sides were right on this one: No nickname complies with settlement agreement. Point for that side. No nickname harboring or fostering an environment where the old name lives on leading to NCAA sanctions all over again. Point for that side. It's like the NCAA read this site and figured out how to both make everyone right and wrong at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Spot on. There's definitely some about facing taking place on this message board today. Sure seemed to be a lot of bar-stool lawyers on here last week who were certain that UND's decision to not chose a new nickname would be in violation of the settlement agreement. Looks like Goon did a great job of clearing up those errors as I don't seeing anyone willing to stick by their (old) position today.What part of what has been said above don't you get? The NCAA just stated they are leaving the door open to sanctions. Siiux Forever, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 To "no nickname" fans living in denial: If there's one thing we all should have learned by now, it's that the NCAA can do whatever the < bleep > it pleases. What is the NCAA's ultimate goal? To make sure the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo disappears. If the NCAA perceives that having no nickname is simply a pretext for continuing to use the old nickname, don't think that the organization is above finding a reason to revisit the issue. They just fired a warning shot saying they will. Wise up. And let's not forget about our "friends" in the Big Sky who let us join their conference on the basis that they wouldn't have to deal with the Fighting Sioux controversy any longer. If the issue continues to come back, they will be putting pressure on the NCAA ... and UND. Are we prepared to go conference shopping again knowing that the Summit want's no part of us, either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Spot on. There's definitely some about facing taking place on this message board today. Sure seemed to be a lot of bar-stool lawyers on here last week who were certain that UND's decision to not chose a new nickname would be in violation of the settlement agreement. Looks like Goon did a great job of clearing up those errors as I don't seeing anyone willing to stick by their (old) position today.I know right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) I'm sticking with my stated position: The clearest way to ensure no future NCAA sanctions is to pick a new nickname. As Peter Johnson said: However, the NCAA did say that if fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux, the NCAA believes other schools will complain and that, in turn, would very likely result in sanctions.The clearest way to ensure no future NCAA sanctions is to pick a new nickname. Why let complainers control us even further. Edited August 3, 2015 by The Sicatoka 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.