NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname

[Benny Baker]

Now who's fear mongering? 

it was tongue-in-cheek, but I think you get that.

[Benny Baker]

Not so fast.

The NCAA has all but stepped in it here.  They have threatened punishment on vague grounds with zero leverage.  On what basis can they possibly hope to impose these mythical sanctions?  Sure, they have rules for attendance at NCAA championships, and can boot spectators for proscribed activities, but to punish member schools with associational sanctions for isolated episodes, let alone mere reports, of spectator conduct?  Especially when the standard is, as yet, wholly undefined?  Any enforcement action would have to be preceded by the implementation of clear guidance and new rules.

The biggest problem in this rapid-fire analysis of third-party hearsay is that we don't know the precise contours of the conversation.  Maybe somebody just teed it up for the NCAA representative, who then blindly took advantage and swung for the fences with an ill-informed response on an incomplete hypothetical.  There are far too many variables and missing material facts to render so definite a prediction.  I would hesitate to conclude that tyranny shrouded in mystery is the official company line of the NCAA, although they do at times recklessly wield the power they do have.

My guess would be a new executive committee policy.  Just throwing it out there, but lack of institutional control that encourages and fosters "hostile and abusive" undertones at sporting events.  I know that sounds dumb, but so does sanctioning a school for not having a nickname, apparently.

Agree with your later point.  I think the e-mail correspondence was genuine and honest, but then again, it was a brief e-mail paraphrasing what the NCAA apparently told a UND administrator.  No need to over analyze it when weren't privy to the actual, full discussion.

 

[The Sicatoka]

I would hesitate to conclude that tyranny shrouded in mystery is the official company line of the NCAA, although they do at times recklessly wield the power they do have.

That's printed on their business cards. It's their motto. 

(Yeah, that's a flip response, but if you look at their track record of policies and investigations it's their pattern all too often.)

Edited August 4, 2015 by The Sicatoka

[The Sicatoka]

My guess would be a new executive committee policy.  Just throwing it out there, but lack of institutional control that encourages and fosters "hostile and abusive" undertones at sporting events.

Knowing they changed the bylaws to allow ExecComm such powers, that's the approach they'd take, and I think you just wrote the update to their policy. I'd bill them. 

Edited August 4, 2015 by The Sicatoka

[CMSioux]

Have there been schools that complained about UND's nickname situation over the last three years?  Or does the NCAA expect that some administration is going to now become upset about all the Fighting Sioux logos in Engelstad Arena, which will not even be removed when UND becomes the North Stars? 

Honest question, but feel free to attack.

If no one complains you can bet the NCAA simply picks up the phone and asks someone to complain - the same way that once it appeared UND might keep Fighting Sioux and take the NCAA punishments of not hosting etc. they simply sent out some letters to schools advising them not to schedule UND and the schools quickly fell in line. 

[darell1976]

If no one complains you can bet the NCAA simply picks up the phone and asks someone to complain - the same way that once it appeared UND might keep Fighting Sioux and take the NCAA punishments of not hosting etc. they simply sent out some letters to schools advising them not to schedule UND and the schools quickly fell in line. 

Are you talking about the NCAA or Tom Douple?

[Siouxperman8]

Didn't St Clown State not print the Sioux name and logo and just referred to us as only North Dakota before the NA policy by the NCAA even came out. You know that would be one school once hockey season starts would complain. 

yes they did

[Blackheart]

So Kelley knew this all along (allegedly) and his statement last week to consider "North Dakota" as a viable nickname option was just done to quell the firestorm of social media outrage.  There's no way "North Dakota" is on the final ballot IMHO.

[jdub27]

So, I'll be more direct, has anyone been told by a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions?  Has anyone read anything from a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions?

Guess you got your answer yet somehow it has not seemed to change the minds of those who are convinced nothing bad will happen.  Seems very similar to the group that was convinced the NCAA would never force UND to drop the Fighting Sioux name, even if it was "voluntary".

[dagies]

Perhaps.  But even if not, there are nicknames that were summarily rejected in Round 1 of this process that are much better than 4 of the 5 finalists.  

Bombers

 

[darell1976]

Bombers

 

Jets

[petey23]

Wow, the NCAA played it even better than giving "No comment".  Basically said that UND is fine to do as they please but if the fans continue to use Sioux or Fighting Sioux in place of "no nickname" which the NCAA is fully aware happens already then all it would take is "other schools" to complain and sanctions are very likely.  Basically put it on UND to replace it without actually forcing them to because they know exactly what will happen if "no nickname" is chosen and they keep their hands clean because there is no one to blame but the fans themselves. Well played NCAA.

Also the NCAA believes UND has done its best to comply with the settlement agreement, which is what has been stated as the reason the NCAA has refrained from issuing sanctions, despite the dates on the original Settlement Agreement.

If this clarification is true, I can't see any possible way that "no nickname" remains as a viable option. Despite the "no nickname" crowd who state they aren't in the Fighting Sioux Forever crowd, there are many who are and will ensure that this becomes an issue.

And what will the response be if UND does choose a new name and the fans still cheer "Lets go Sioux".

 

I also like how the NCAA puts it on "other schools" complaining like this was an issue before the NCAA made it one.

[darell1976]

And what will the response be if UND does choose a new name and the fans still cheer "Lets go Sioux".

 

I also like how the NCAA puts it on "other schools" complaining like this was an issue before the NCAA made it one.

It doesn't matter if UND has a new nickname and fans cheer Lets go Sioux, I am sure some Miami fans chant lets go Redskins. 

[petey23]

It doesn't matter if UND has a new nickname and fans cheer Lets go Sioux, I am sure some Miami fans chant lets go Redskins. 

So if we have a new name and fans chant for the Sioux and if we decide to be referred to as The University of North Dakota and fans chant for the Sioux these are different? Got it.

[Benny Baker]

Guess you got your answer yet somehow it has not seemed to change the minds of those who are convinced nothing bad will happen.  Seems very similar to the group that was convinced the NCAA would never force UND to drop the Fighting Sioux name, even if it was "voluntary".

Right!  The e-mail confirmed that failure to adopt a new nickname will not result in sanctions because it does not violate the settlement agreement.

[darell1976]

So if we have a new name and fans chant for the Sioux and if we decide to be referred to as The University of North Dakota and fans chant for the Sioux these are different? Got it.

If UND chooses no nickname the NCAA sees that as being "unofficially" the Fighting Sioux, no other NCAA school does that. If we have a nickname and some fans cheer for the Sioux the NCAA can't change that since UND will already have a new name. Also when UND has a new name the chants for Fighting Sioux will get less and less it already has with no nickname. How many people will chant Lets Go Sioux in 5 years of being the Fighting Hawks or the Rough Riders. Unfortunately it will die out. 

[darell1976]

How many people who attend Grand Forks Central games cheer Lets go Redskins? After 21 years of being the Knights I don't think there is a single person, it will eventually happen at UND with a new nickname. Time will decrease (kill) the Fighting Sioux chants, and thats what the NCAA wants.

[jdub27]

And what will the response be if UND does choose a new name and the fans still cheer "Lets go Sioux".

I also like how the NCAA puts it on "other schools" complaining like this was an issue before the NCAA made it one.

To the first part: nothing.  By all appearances, UND will have done everything in its power to move on, similar to my guess as why they haven't done anything to date (and is backed up by the NCAA stating that they feel UND has done everything in its power to comply).  As has been previously stated, when part of the crowd that is publicly pushing for "no nickname" continues to simultaneously push Fighting Sioux Foreever, UND picking "no nickname" can easily be tied to them being OK with and encouraging Fighting Sioux being the de facto nickname.  The difference between now and then would be UND would officially be taking a stance that they are fine with it as they would have "completed" the nickname transition.

To the second part, it is a crapshoot to where the people who complained came from but I'd guess that there were multiple other schools that did (SCSU comes to mind along with the B1G scheduling policies), not to mention people within UND and others that have no affiliation with the school.

[Benny Baker]

I also like how the NCAA puts it on "other schools" complaining like this was an issue before the NCAA made it one.

Not saying it won't happen, but it's hard to reconcile the notion that an opposing school would actually complain to the NCAA about a university with no nickname because a subset of that unversity's fan base reveres a retired logo even though the complaining school will also compete against the likes of the Central Michigan, Utah, San Diego State, Florida State, etc., all of which openly endorse the use of Native American imagery. 

[jdub27]

Right!  The e-mail confirmed that failure to adopt a new nickname will not result in sanctions because it does not violate the settlement agreement.

You specifically asked if there has been comments from UND or the NCAA on whether choosing "no nickname" would result in sanctions.  There is a statement from Peter Johnson stating the NCAA has said that it is very likely if UND chooses "no nickname" and the fans continue to use Sioux and Fighting Sioux (which there is absolutely zero doubt that they will).  Your question was answered when it was stated UND was very likely to face sanctions (because it is a foregone conclusion on what the fans will do).  And yet somehow, out of all that, what you get is that UND will not face sanctions? 

I get you're just playing a bit here, but being intentionally being dense to muddy the waters does no one any good.

[Benny Baker]

You specifically asked if there has been comments from UND or the NCAA on whether choosing "no nickname" would result in sanctions.  There is a statement from Peter Johnson stating the NCAA has said that it is very likely if UND chooses "no nickname" and the fans continue to use Sioux and Fighting Sioux (which there is absolutely zero doubt that they will).  Your question was answered when it was stated UND was very likely to face sanctions (because it is a foregone conclusion on what the fans will do).  And yet somehow, out of all that, what you get that UND not face sanctions? 

I get you're just playing a bit here, but being intentionally being dense to muddy the waters does no one any good.

No, not at all. This thread involved a discussion of whether "no nickname" violated the settlement agreement.  We both know that.  Peter Johnson's e-mail absolutely, 100% confirmed that I was correct; i.e., no nickname will not result in sanctions.  I've quoted the e-mail below for those who have not read it or for those who may need a refresher.

1. "If fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux";

2. "the NCAA believes other schools will complain about" it; and

3. Those two prerequisites "would very likely result in sanctions."

I'm not disputing that statement at all.  But that statement does not mean that no nickname equals sanctions.  What the statement does mean, however, is that: (1) if fans resume using Fighting Sioux; and (2) if other school's complain about it; then (3) it could very likely result in sanctions.

Eric, thanks for the email and the support for our university. The NCAA says there would not be a violation of the settlement agreement as far as they are concerned if UND didn't adopt a new nickname. 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 NCAA does seem to believe that UND has done its best to comply with the settlement agreement.

[UND1983]

To sum it up:  Fighting Sioux Forever.  

[Benny Baker]

To sum it up:  Fighting Sioux Forever.  

But only if UND picks a new nickname.

[Shawn-O]

"Other schools complaining" = a letter from one university president, perhaps even solicited from the NCAA themselves.  

[UND1983]

"Greatest nickname of all time!!!!!"  "Nothing will replace it."  "Every nickname in the world sucks."