NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname

[Benny Baker]

The point of the those who claimed the NCAA could put UND on sanctions for not having nickname is now a matter of semantics for the reasoning because they confirmed that they could and will because fans continuing to use the Fighting Sioux name is a given and someone either at a different school or UND is going to complain.  You seem to keep missing that point and keep bringing up an addendum that spoke to imagery at the REA.

Hey, whatever helps you cope with reality. 

[bigskyvikes]

You set up an assumption that all of the people advocating to stay without a nickname are not being honest.  Your assumption is incorrect.  Different people want to stay without a nickname for different reasons.  Many will acknowledge that going back to the Fighting Sioux is not an option, and would not support that option.  For those people, wanting to stay without a nickname IS being honest.  You may not agree with their opinion, but to call them dishonest just shows you're being intellectually lazy by lumping them all together.

Moreover, there is a huge difference between staying without a nickname and returning the Fighting Sioux.  Returning to the Fighting Sioux would result in immediate sanctions; staying North Dakota would not.  If the NCAA takes action on some sort of new policy/rule/sanctions, UND would have to adopt a new nickname at that time and nobody who is remotely informed and serious would oppose it.  Nobody who is at all serious is suggesting that UND should play under sanctions indefinitely.  To ensure that UND is not blindsided with sanctions would require knowing more about what basis the NCAA thinks it can sanction UND for not having a nickname and what procedure it would have to go through to impose sanctions.  I admit I don't have all the answers on this question, but neither do any of you.

 

<SIGH>  I won't go into this for the umpteenth time, but you are wrong.

Dammit, still a limit on voting for GREAT post's? Why?

Excellent post!

[Benny Baker]

MKSioux already addressed it.  So basically the NCAA is going to come up with fancy new lingo related to the old rules, though not exactly saying that UND violated the old agreement.  It will say they don't comply with the new rules (that are directly related to not moving forward from the Sioux name).  Does that sound better?  

Yup, like I said, the sanctions everyone is talking about do not even exist.

[jdub27]

Hey, whatever helps you cope with reality. 

At least I'm living there. If you could join us, it'd be great and a lot less tiring reading you ask the same questions over and over again, pretending that the answer and reasoning others are presenting don't exist.

[Benny Baker]

At least I'm living there. If you could join us, it'd be great.

Hey, whatever helps you cope with reality.

[Siouxperfan7]

There are many that say they support no nickname/North Dakota because the names that are left aren't good.  The problem is no matter what names were left, the mojority of those people wouldn't support it.  And most of the time they will not provide an acceptable name that they would support.  It is failry obvious that the no nickname/North Dakota supporters are not going to support any name that isn't the Fighting Sioux.  They refuse to aknowledge that a new name is going to be chosen and are seen as stubborn because they do not want things to change.  And they wonder why people call them out for being childish.  

[82SiouxGuy]

Oh, boy.  Here we go again.  Ask jdub or 82SiouxGuy about how wrong they were on that one. . . . Or, just read the first half of this thread.

The fact that the NCAA has chosen not to use the settlement agreement to force UND to pick a name does not prove that we were wrong in believing that the NCAA could have made that choice. They found an easier way to get what they want. They have already stated that they will enforce sanctions if they believe fans using the name is a problem. This is a group that set up sanctions against every school in the state of South Carolina because there was a single confederate flag flown in a corner of the state capital grounds. They have the power and the will to create sanctions when, and for whatever they want. They have already given a broad idea of the reasons they will use. Giving them a reason to put UND back on sanctions, when they have already said that was an option for them, is pure foolishness.

[The Sicatoka]

The fact that the NCAA has chosen not to use the settlement agreement to force UND to pick a name does not prove that we were wrong in believing that the NCAA could have made that choice. They found an easier way to get what they want. They have already stated that they will enforce sanctions if they believe fans using the name is a problem. This is a group that set up sanctions against every school in the state of South Carolina because there was a single confederate flag flown in a corner of the state capital grounds. They have the power and the will to create sanctions when, and for whatever they want. They have already given a broad idea of the reasons they will use. Giving them a reason to put UND back on sanctions, when they have already said that was an option for them, is pure foolishness.

Yes, yes they did. 

And yes, yes they do. 

[Benny Baker]

Waiting for the next quarterly meeting for the NCAA Board of Governors to convene, recommend, vote upon, and ultimately pass a new policy and set of sanctions is easier than enforcing an already existing, written agreement?

Or you could just admit you're wrong.

[JohnboyND7]

Playing chicken with the NC$$ is not a viable option.  They'll win.  We will lose.  

yep. A few schools probably can play ball with them. Florida St, Notre Dame, etc.

Florida St has permission. Utah has permission. San Diego St really has no one to ask I don't think... Someone else can maybe look up if there is any Aztecs left. Notre Dame has a great relationship with Ireland I believe. 

UND lost and some of you seem determined to sink the ship. I feel bad for those of you who have been reasonable and grown up about it.

[Old Fella]

The fact that the NCAA has chosen not to use the settlement agreement to force UND to pick a name does not prove that we were wrong in believing that the NCAA could have made that choice. They found an easier way to get what they want. They have already stated that they will enforce sanctions if they believe fans using the name is a problem. This is a group that set up sanctions against every school in the state of South Carolina because there was a single confederate flag flown in a corner of the state capital grounds. They have the power and the will to create sanctions when, and for whatever they want. They have already given a broad idea of the reasons they will use. Giving them a reason to put UND back on sanctions, when they have already said that was an option for them, is pure foolishness.

It seems some believe there are no limits to what the NCAA or can not do/my guess is that any sanction based on 'freedom of speech', (which is what fans would be doing if they used the dreaded "S" word) would not pass the 'laugh test'.  Even the Attorney General couldn't lose that case.

[Benny Baker]

It seems some believe there are no limits to what the NCAA or can not do/my guess is that any sanction based on 'freedom of speech', (which is what fans would be doing if they used the dreaded "S" word) would not pass the 'laugh test'.  Even the Attorney General couldn't lose that case.

The problem is that the NCAA is not a state actor or, ultimately, the government.  The first amendment and free speech laws are not necessarily going to apply to NCAA rules and procedures. 

[Old Fella]

The problem is that the NCAA is not a state actor or, ultimately, the government.  The first amendment and free speech laws are not necessarily going to apply to NCAA rules and procedures. 

As I recall free speech does not include shouting 'fire in a crowded theater'.  (assuming there is no fire)  In the context we are addressing It does include using the dreaded "S" word at a sporting event. 

[The Sicatoka]

(I'm about to agree with Benny ...  < gulp > ...   )

If you come into my house and say "Go Gophers!" I'm well within my rights to sanction you (by kicking you out).

Your First Amendment rights end at my front door. 

In this case, it's the NCAA's house. 

[Chewey]

You're right. The bluff is by the "no nickname" folks: We're fine without a nickname (but we'll keep wearing the old nickname). 

The NCAA (per Goon, and now GFH) seems more than willing to call that bluff with their "no nickname is fine if you're serious; but, if we hear complaints about hearing too much of the old nickname we're coming back at you" stance.

I'm willing to say the NCAA is not bluffing on that. Why? It's the same approach they took last time, namely, you can have any nickname you want, but if it's the wrong one in our minds we're coming at you. 

 

 

So, if we have a nickname and people still cheer "Go Sioux", which they will for years to come, and the NCAA "hears about it", they'll sanction UND.  If we don't have a nickname and people still cheer "Go Sioux", which they will for years to come, and the NCAA "hears about it", they'll sanction UND.

[Chewey]

If the NCAA enforces rules on speech in a forum that has public ties, they become a state actor = problems.

[Benny Baker]

As I recall free speech does not include shouting 'fire in a crowded theater'.  (assuming there is no fire)  In the context we are addressing It does include using the dreaded "S" word at a sporting event. 

I think it's also important to point out that NCAA sanctions aren't necessarily designed to directly limit free speech.  Take the South Carolina sanction for example.  The NCAA has acknowledged the state is free to fly its flag, but if they do, South Carolina member institutions cannot host NCAA tournament events. 

[82SiouxGuy]

So, if we have a nickname and people still cheer "Go Sioux", which they will for years to come, and the NCAA "hears about it", they'll sanction UND.  If we don't have a nickname and people still cheer "Go Sioux", which they will for years to come, and the NCAA "hears about it", they'll sanction UND.

The message from the NCAA was that they wouldn't force UND to choose a nickname as a part of the settlement agreement; but if they don't choose a nickname and others complain, then the NCAA will impose sanctions against UND. They didn't make that threat if UND chooses a nickname. Choosing a nickname shows that UND is making an effort to move on to a new nickname. Choosing to go without a nickname does not show the same level of commitment to moving away from the Fighting Sioux name.

[Old Fella]

I think it's also important to point out that NCAA sanctions aren't necessarily designed to directly limit free speech.  Take the South Carolina sanction for example.  The NCAA has acknowledged the state is free to fly its flag, but if they do, South Carolina member institutions cannot host NCAA tournament events. 

Much to my dismay I hear the cart coming down the hall/must be time to take my meds/if I may be so presumptuous may I suggest others may want to get back on theirs? 

[82SiouxGuy]

As I recall free speech does not include shouting 'fire in a crowded theater'.  (assuming there is no fire)  In the context we are addressing It does include using the dreaded "S" word at a sporting event. 

You are not allowed to shot "fire in a crowded theater" because that could cause harm to others if it caused a panic. That is a completely different situation. Better examples of speech that can be limited would be schools limiting articles that are printed in the school newspaper because the administration found them objectionable, and not allowing students to make an obscene speech at a school sponsored event. Both of these were upheld by the courts.

[82SiouxGuy]

I think it's also important to point out that NCAA sanctions aren't necessarily designed to directly limit free speech.  Take the South Carolina sanction for example.  The NCAA has acknowledged the state is free to fly its flag, but if they do, South Carolina member institutions cannot host NCAA tournament events. 

UND is also free to use the Fighting Sioux nickname, but if they do the NCAA has a list of sanctions that would be imposed.

[Hawkster]

As I recall free speech does not include shouting 'fire in a crowded theater'.  (assuming there is no fire)  In the context we are addressing It does include using the dreaded "S" word at a sporting event. 

I brought up that very argument back in about 2007 that the NCAA could and probably would frown on the continued use of the Sioux name after we lost it, and I was shouted down by a chorus of free speech advocates who said I was full of bunk.    We need to select a name and move on, there is no way the NCAA is going to let us stay as UND only, with the Sioux name then being the name we continue to use.   I know you will still hear Fighting Sioux at games for years, we are going to have to at least make a good faith effort at this and select a new name.

[darell1976]

http://www.uni-watch.com/2012/09/11/a-look-at-marquettes-unusual-mascot-history/

 

Today’s Marquette players and students weren’t even born when the team was last known as the Warriors. Yet students still wear “Indian” headdresses to games and chant for the Warriors.

Now if the NCAA doesn't put sanctions on Marquette for this they won't touch UND as long as UND has a new nickname. Marquette changed theirs in 1994 and people still cheer for the Warriors. Just pick a new name, wear your Sioux gear and life at UND will continue. Don't pick a new nickname and the fear of sanctions, the division of the fan base will continue to tear the University apart. 

[obborg]

The message from the NCAA was that they wouldn't force UND to choose a nickname as a part of the settlement agreement; but if they don't choose a nickname and others complain, then the NCAA will impose sanctions against UND. They didn't make that threat if UND chooses a nickname. Choosing a nickname shows that UND is making an effort to move on to a new nickname. Choosing to go without a nickname does not show the same level of commitment to moving away from the Fighting Sioux name.

The message you are referring to was not from the NCAA.  It was from UND insiders, eventually including Kelly himself. 

If we are even on the NCAA's radar for any reason, would somebody please display the proof?  (A local media article quoting somebody quoting another unnamed person does not qualify as proof).

[TBR]

Still seems to me "Nodaks" would be a good compromise choice. The UI Illini name has the obvious phonetic reference to the state it represents and the U Sooners recognize the residents of Oklahoma. Somehow people in Illinois and Oklahoma have long since grown to identify with these names, and the use of Nodaks circumvents the assuming of a new identity. Make the name official to placate the NCAA and then simply ignore it if need be in deference to those that don't want to be anything other than the FS.