NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname

[bigskyvikes]

That's how we got here in the first place! --> Opposing fans didn't like UND fans chanting "Let's go Sioux!" 

And the NCAA didn't play mommy; they played "who's your daddy." 

No, some, (SOME) Sioux people and the NCAA started this! Not opposing fans! The opposing fans just road the coat tails of it after it started. 

So if  I don't like the way people bash them cute little furry gophers at a hockey game I can complain to the NCAA and Mn would have to change their name?

 

My god this is ridiculous!

 

Why does this new wewebsiteb look print multimultipleple words at a time when I type?? I didn't correct it this time, see wwhathat ii  mean...

[jdub27]

Hmmm. I wonder which one it is.

UND is currently in the same position is has been for the last 3 years or so as they work towards transitioning towards a new nickname.  If "no nickname" is selected and it ends up that "no nickname" actually is just a cover for fans to continue to use Fighting Sioux and not actually going with "no nickname", then it will be apparent that UND did not do everything in its power to comply with the Settlement Agreement and sanction are very likely.

[Benny Baker]

I understand everyone's concerns about possible sanctions if UND supporters (or too many of them)  wear Fighting Sioux gear, but is UND in violation of the settlement agreement if it moves forward with "North Dakota" for its nickname?

[UND1983]

I understand everyone's concerns about possible sanctions if UND supporters (or too many of them)  wear Fighting Sioux gear, but is UND in violation of the settlement agreement if it moves forward with "North Dakota" for its nickname?

What did I just say to you?  No they are not.  

Oh, I almost forgot - Long live the Sioux!  

[mksioux]

UND is currently in the same position is has been for the last 3 years or so as they work towards transitioning towards a new nickname.  If "no nickname" is selected and it ends up that "no nickname" actually is just a cover for fans to continue to use Fighting Sioux and not actually going with "no nickname", then it will be apparent that UND did not do everything in its power to comply with the Settlement Agreement and sanction are very likely.

No.  If the NCAA sanctions UND at some point in the future for not having a nickname, it will have to be through a new policy handed down by the Executive Committee.  The NCAA has now twice confirmed that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement.  

[mksioux]

I understand everyone's concerns about possible sanctions if UND supporters (or too many of them)  wear Fighting Sioux gear, but is UND in violation of the settlement agreement if it moves forward with "North Dakota" for its nickname?

No.

[jdub27]

I understand everyone's concerns about possible sanctions if UND supporters (or too many of them)  wear Fighting Sioux gear, but is UND in violation of the settlement agreement if it moves forward with "North Dakota" for its nickname?

I'm curious why semantics matter?  If fans continue as they have, UND is very likely face sanctions.  Whether its because of the Settlement Agreement or a new rule is both unknown and irrelevant.

[JohnboyND7]

No.  If the NCAA sanctions UND at some point in the future for not having a nickname, it will have to be through a new policy handed down by the Executive Committee.  The NCAA has now twice confirmed that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement.  

did you not read the part where all it takes is some folks from other schools to complain basically?

Easy

[jdub27]

No.  If the NCAA sanctions UND at some point in the future for not having a nickname, it will have to be through a new policy handed down by the Executive Committee.  The NCAA has now twice confirmed that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement.  

Where did it specifically state anything about a new policy?  It said that if UND chooses "no nickname" that is fine as long as fans don't resume using Sioux or Fighting Sioux or sanctions are very likely.  Not that the fans ever stopped but the difference is that at that point UND has chosen to go forward  and they can no longer be viewed as transitioning to a new nickname.  In the end, it doesn't matter whether the sanctions occur because the NCAA says that UND didn't actually transition and is violation or because of a new policy. The end result is the same and not favorable. The NCAA played it perfectly, the same as they did when UND "voluntarily" retired the Fighting Sioux nickname.

[mksioux]

Where did it specifically state anything about a new policy?  It said that if UND chooses "no nickname" that is fine as long as fans don't resume using Sioux or Fighting Sioux or sanctions are very likely.  Not that the fans ever stopped but the difference is that at that point UND has chosen to go forward  and they can no longer be viewed as transitioning to a new nickname.  In the end, it doesn't matter whether the sanctions occur because the NCAA says that UND didn't actually transition and is violation or because of a new policy. The end result is the same and not favorable. The NCAA played it perfectly, the same as they did when UND "voluntarily" retired the Fighting Sioux nickname.

First of all, we're all assuming that UND's statement accurately describes the NCAA's position and what the NCAA told UND officials.  It's probably an incomplete summary.  Perhaps it was in writing and there is an open-records request to be made for enterprising reporter or blogger. But, for now, it's all we have to work with.  Granted, UND's statement does not say sanctions would come from a new policy.  I'll give you that.  It does say, however, that choosing no nickname does not violate the settlement agreement.  Moreover, it does not say that the settlement agreement would be the source for future sanctions.  

 

I'm coming at this from a legal perspective.  If the NCAA chooses the settlement agreement as its vehicle to sanction UND, and UND challenges it in court, I'm relatively confident that the NCAA would lose.  I'm not going to go over all the reasons for that again.   The statement by UND to Goon validates my position that not having a nickname does not violate the settlement agreement.  The part of the statement about how fans "use" the old Sioux nickname and other universities complaining is not anywhere in the settlement agreement, or the 2012 addendum to the settlement agreement.  I struggle to see how the NCAA can unilaterally insert some new undefinable standard into the settlement agreement and claim that it governs the contract between the parties.  However, I don't disagree that the NCAA has other vehicles to sanction UND in the future by enactment of a new policy or by an amendment of the 2005 policy.  

 

[mksioux]

did you not read the part where all it takes is some folks from other schools to complain basically?

Easy

I did.  I'm sorry the nuance of my position was lost on you.

[dagies]

http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/2015/08/being-north-dakota-doesnt-violate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FZTZqA+(Goon's+World)

 

 

First off, Goon, great job actually asking somebody this question.  Why hadn't the Herald asked this question and received a reply long ago?  At least this shows that many of us were correct....selecting no nickname would not be a violation of the agreement.

That said, the NCAA is moving into territory that is even more out of bounds, IMO, than where they have been in the past.  Now they can instill sanctions based on the actions of fans.  Nice.

Clearly, Kelley has the leverage he needs to make a final decision to remove "no nickname" from the list of acceptable nickname options.

Edited August 3, 2015 by dagies

[TBR]

In light of the ongoing discussions and the "Goon letter", I am removing myself from the no-name camp. In terms of a simple risk assessment, UND has far more to lose than it has to gain from going nameless. It may not happen in the first two games, but I would not be the least bit surprised to find rival fans making trouble, and lots of it, perhaps including yellow or maroon clad fans chanting lets go Sioux so they can shortly thereafter complain about it. "Nodaks" is the best middle ground solution.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

1.  In another part of the now-infamous, debated ad nauseam settlement agreement, the NCAA expressly ordered UND to protect the Sioux name and logos, which "shall not be...abandoned."

2.  Now, if fans use (i.e., purchase and wear, or simply read) Sioux gear sold by UND for the purpose of remaining in full compliance with the agreement, the NCAA purportedly tells us it will "very likely result in sanctions."

Why the two orders, Colonel?

[mksioux]

First off, Goon, great job actually asking somebody this question.  Why hadn't the Herald asked this question and received a reply long ago?  At least this shows that many of us were correct....selecting no nickname would not be a violation of the agreement.

That said, the NCAA is moving into territory that is even more out of bounds, IMO, than where they have been in the past.  Now they can instill sanctions based on the actions of fans.  Nice.

Clearly, Kelley has the leverage he needs to make a final decision to remove "no nickname" from the list of acceptable nickname options.

I agree.  It would be very interesting to see when the NCAA communicated this position to UND.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was recently and Kelley will cite this as a reason to remove no-nickname from consideration.  He's probably quite relieved the NCAA threw him a bone and volunteered to be the scapegoat.  All speculation of course.  Whether the NCAA would have actually gone through with sanctioning a university for not having a nickname, we'll probably never know. 

[Cratter]

This thread reads:

"Depends on what the definition of the word "is" is...

[darell1976]

I can see Indian tribes protesting fans using the Fighting Sioux name thus forcing the NCAA to sanction UND. Just play it safe and choose a new name and end this once and for all.

[Benny Baker]

1.  In another part of the now-infamous, debated ad nauseam settlement agreement, the NCAA expressly ordered UND to protect the Sioux name and logos, which "shall not be...abandoned."

2.  Now, if fans use (i.e., purchase and wear, or simply read) Sioux gear sold by UND for the purpose of remaining in full compliance with the agreement, the NCAA purportedly tells us it will "very likely result in sanctions."

Why the two orders, Colonel?

I know, right?

The NCAA mandates that UND protect, if not use, the Fighting Sioux logo. The NCAA allows UND to keep hundreds of Fighting Sioux images in their hockey arena. The NCAA sanctions UND because other schools start complaining that UND fans are wearing the Fighting Sioux logo that the NCAA required UND to protect in the arena where the NCAA allowed UND to keep hundreds of Fighting Sioux logos. 

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[The Sicatoka]

 

However, I don't disagree that the NCAA has other vehicles to sanction UND in the future by enactment of a new policy or by an amendment of the 2005 policy.  

Precisely. And the NCAA has effectively said that's their plan if they start getting complaints from people hearing the old nickname. And nothing stops them from doing it.

[The Sicatoka]

I know, right?

The NCAA mandates that UND protect, if not use, the Fighting Sioux logo. The NCAA allows UND to keep hundreds of Fighting Sioux images in their hockey arena. The NCAA sanctions UND because other schools start complaining that UND fans are wearing the Fighting Sioux logo that the NCAA required UND to protect in the arena where the NCAA allowed UND to keep hundreds of Fighting Sioux logos. 

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

There's your problem: You expect them to make sense. 

What you need to do is look at what they've already done and expect more of the same. 

[Blackheart]

In light of the ongoing discussions and the "Goon letter", I am removing myself from the no-name camp. In terms of a simple risk assessment, UND has far more to lose than it has to gain from going nameless. It may not happen in the first two games, but I would not be the least bit surprised to find rival fans making trouble, and lots of it, perhaps including yellow or maroon clad fans chanting lets go Sioux so they can shortly thereafter complain about it. "Nodaks" is the best middle ground solution.

You had me right up until your last sentence...sorry, but Nodaks is just a small step above Sundogs in my opinion.

[bison73]

One thing UND can do is pick a nickname but not support it. It would die on the vine. Then the NCAA could do nothing even if people kept using the the old moniker. If they tried to sanction if some wore their old gear the NCAA would run in to free speech issues. UND is off the hook because--hey we have a new nickname.

Edited August 4, 2015 by bison73

[homer]

No, some, (SOME) Sioux people and the NCAA started this! Not opposing fans! The opposing fans just road the coat tails of it after it started. 

So if  I don't like the way people bash them cute little furry gophers at a hockey game I can complain to the NCAA and Mn would have to change their name?

 

My god this is ridiculous!

Have you been paying attention to Cecil the Lion?  Not governed by the NCAA but equally as bad. 

There is plenty of blame to go around on this.  NCAA, UND leadership, Standing Rock leadership, etc. it's been going on for years so if you are offended by animal nicknames you better start the petition now. 

[darell1976]

One thing UND can do is pick a nickname but not support it. It would die on the vine. Then the NCAA could do nothing even if people kept using the the old moniker. If they tried to sanction if some wore their old gear the NCAA would run in to free speech issues. UND is off the hook because--hey we have a new nickname.

UND did do that, when they were the Flickertails it didn't get support and Nodaks was still used. 

[Siouxperfan7]

It's all about the risk that UND wants to take.  Sure they could not pick a nickname and the NCAA would be OK with it......for now.  But there is a chance that the NCAA could revisit the issue if they see that problems exist with retaining the old name exist (in their opinion).  So why risk it?  Why go through all this again in a couple years?