NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname

[jdub27]

Peter Johnson's e-mail absolutely, 100% confirmed that I was correct; i.e., no nickname will not result in sanctions.  

Simple yes or no. From the information now known, what is the most likely end result to the question "Will the NCAA Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname"?

[Benny Baker]

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

[mksioux]

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.

 

To be fair, the email did not 100% confirm that no nickname will not result in sanctions.  It confirmed that choosing no nickname will not violate the settlement agreement.  There's a difference there.  Your ability to properly analyze a legal document has been vindicated, but I wouldn't go much beyond that given what we know at this point.

Edited August 5, 2015 by mksioux

[Benny Baker]

Simple yes or no. From the information now known, what is the most likely end result to the question "Will the NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname"?

I don't know, you're clearly asking me to speculate.

I don't know what constitutes "if fans resume using Sioux"; i.e, one, several, plurality, or a majority of fans?  Does it take one sporting event, several, or a majority? 

I don't know the basis upon which the NCAA "believes other schools will complain" nor am I aware of whether one, several, or many complaints are necessary to force the NCAA into action.  Has the NCAA received any complaints from any other schools over the past three years?  Are these schools complaining about the University of North Dakota while not mentioning a word about other schools that promote Native American imagery?

I don't know what specific, additional steps the NCAA would need to take in order to levy sanctions against UND in this instance.  They would first need to go through the administrative procedure of adopting a new executive committee policy.  I don't know what that all entails.  Even if they do, we don't even know what the sanctions would be.

So, I don't know the answer to your question.

[Benny Baker]

To be fair, the email did not 100% confirm that no nickname will not result in sanctions.  It confirmed that choosing no nickname will not violate the settlement agreement.  There's a difference there.  Your ability to properly analyze a legal document has been vindicated, but I wouldn't go much beyond that given what we know at this point.

Well, maybe we're just talking semantics then.  I guess the way I read it is that sanctions are likely if fans start using the Fighting Sioux logo and other schools complain about it.

[jdub27]

I don't know, you're clearly asking me to speculate.

I don't know what constitutes "if fans resume using Sioux"; i.e, one, several, plurality, or a majority of fans?  Does it take one sporting event, several, or a majority? 

I don't know the basis upon which the NCAA "believes other schools will complain" nor am I aware of whether one, several, or many complaints are necessary to force the NCAA into action.  Has the NCAA received any complaints from any other schools over the past three years?  Are these schools complaining about the University of North Dakota while not mentioning a word about other schools that promote Native American imagery?

I don't know what specific, additional steps the NCAA would need to take in order to levy sanctions against UND in this instance.  They would first need to go through the administrative procedure of adopting a new executive committee policy.  I don't know what that all entails.  Even if they do, we don't even know what the sanctions would be.

So, I don't know the answer to your question.

 I asked you the most likely outcome.  And you seem to have no problem speculating on what the NCAA would need to do in order to enforce sanctions (which also are already known). Your long winded non-answer is pretty telling on what you think it actually will be despite your refusal to admit it.  The NCAA using the words "very likely" should have been a tip off considering the actions that will trigger that are going to happen with 100% certainty.

[mksioux]

Well, maybe we're just talking semantics then.  I guess the way I read it is that sanctions are likely if fans start using the Fighting Sioux logo and other schools complain about it.

Yes, there is some semantics going on here.  You and I (and others) have been arguing with others for quite some time about whether choosing no nickname would violate the settlement agreement.  For me, it was an exercise of analyzing legal documents.  That is where I made my strongest opinions.  I was tired of seeing posters take one sentence in isolation and claiming it was a black and white issue.  After looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the 2012 addendum, I was relatively convinced that not having a nickname would not be a violation of the settlement agreement.  We appear to have been vindicated on that point.  

But doesn't mean the NCAA couldn't find another basis to sanction UND.  On that issue, yes, the NCAA has apparently threatened sanctions if UND does not adopt a new nickname, if fans "use" the old nickname (whatever that means), and if they receive complaints from other institutions.  I say "apparently" because we don't have the source communication of what the NCAA actually said to UND, just a UND administrator's summary or interpretation of the communication.  We also don't know if UND invited the threat so it had a scapegoat to take no-nickname out of consideration. Moreover, we don't know whether the NCAA would actually go through with such a policy.  I know to many posters on here believe that if the NCAA says something, you can take it to the bank.  But I'm not so sure. There's a big difference between threatening sanctions and actually going through with it, particularly in case like this where 99% of the public would think sanctioning a school for not having a nickname is beyond ridiculous.   The NCAA bit off more than they could chew with the original 2005 nickname policy.  The NCAA had to back-peddle and quelled the outrage by creating the namesake exemption within a few days after the original policy was enacted. Personally, I think the NCAA would think twice before creating another policy that sanctions a school for, of all things, not having a nickname.  But that is just speculation.  My larger point is that there would be time to adopt a new nickname if the NCAA actually decides to go through with a policy.  And given how bad the finalists are, I don't think it would be a horrible thing to have to do this a second time.

Having said all that, if they choose Roughriders, I'd be willing to move on and you can disregard everything I just wrote.   

[petey23]

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

If UND announces that we will go by THE University of North Dakota and some fans continue to use the "Fighting Sioux" on their own without the Universities sanctioning I think that is a free speech case that even Stenehjem couldn't screw up.

 

To reiterate, I am in favor of choosing a new name if something comes up that makes sense. We just wasted a lot of time and effort and unfortunately the result failed. Rework the process, let Kelly leave and who knows under competent leadership if could happen. Forcing a name that will be hated by well over 50% is not the ideal end result. Time to cut bait for the next round.

Edited August 5, 2015 by petey23

[Benny Baker]

Yes, there is some semantics going on here.  You and I (and others) have been arguing with others for quite some time about whether choosing no nickname would violate the settlement agreement.  For me, it was an exercise of analyzing legal documents.  That is where I made my strongest opinions.  I was tired of seeing posters take one sentence in isolation and claiming it was a black and white issue.  After looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the 2012 addendum, I was relatively convinced that not having a nickname would not be a violation of the settlement agreement.  We appear to have been vindicated on that point.  

But doesn't mean the NCAA couldn't find another basis to sanction UND.  On that issue, yes, the NCAA has apparently threatened sanctions if UND does not adopt a new nickname, if fans "use" the old nickname (whatever that means), and if they receive complaints from other institutions.  I say "apparently" because we don't have the source communication of what the NCAA actually said to UND, just a UND administrator's summary or interpretation of the communication.  We also don't know if UND invited the threat so it had a scapegoat to take no-nickname out of consideration. Moreover, we don't know whether the NCAA would actually go through with such a policy.  I know to many posters on here believe that if the NCAA says something, you can take it to the bank.  But I'm not so sure. There's a big difference between threatening sanctions and actually going through with it, particularly in case like this where 99% of the public would think sanctioning a school for not having a nickname is beyond ridiculous.   The NCAA bit off more than they could chew with the original 2005 nickname policy.  The NCAA had to back-peddle and quelled the outrage by creating the namesake exemption within a few days after the original policy was enacted. Personally, I think the NCAA would think twice before creating another policy that sanctions a school for, of all things, not having a nickname.  But that is just speculation.  My larger point is that there would be time to adopt a new nickname if the NCAA actually decides to go through with a policy.  And given how bad the finalists are, I don't think it would be a horrible thing to have to do this a second time.

Having said all that, if they choose Roughriders, I'd be willing to move on and you can disregard everything I just wrote.   

Totally Agree.  Similar to what I mentioned earlier, I have a hard time reconciling the idea that NCAA would actually go through the administrative hoops to sanction a university without a nickname because other schools are complaining that fans are continuing to wear "Fighting Sioux" clothes while the Central Michigan Chippewa and Florida State Seminole fans are painting their faces and mimicking tomahawk chops.  And really, what school is going to take time to complain to the NCAA about UND when much more is happening at those other campuses around the country?  But then again, maybe the higher ups in academia have too much time on their hands.

[jackal]

I think he should have named this thread: " My mind's made up and nothing anyone says is going to change it"

Bump

[southpaw]

If UND announces that we will go by THE University of North Dakota and some fans continue to use the "Fighting Sioux" on their own without the Universities sanctioning I think that is a free speech case that even Stenehjem couldn't screw up.

Or the NCAA could approach it from the grounds that UND didn't do everything it could to replace the Fighting Sioux name by staying North Dakota.

[4evrSIOUX]

If UND announces that we will go by THE University of North Dakota and some fans continue to use the "Fighting Sioux" on their own without the Universities sanctioning I think that is a free speech case that even Stenehjem couldn't screw up.

 

To reiterate, I am in favor of choosing a new name if something comes up that makes sense. We just wasted a lot of time and effort and unfortunately the result failed. Rework the process, let Kelly leave and who knows under competent leadership if could happen. Forcing a name that will be hated by well over 50% is not the ideal end result. Time to cut bait for the next round.

Completely agree!!!

[Fetch]

If UND announces that we will go by THE University of North Dakota and some fans continue to use the "Fighting Sioux" on their own without the Universities sanctioning I think that is a free speech case that even Stenehjem couldn't screw up.

 

To reiterate, I am in favor of choosing a new name if something comes up that makes sense. We just wasted a lot of time and effort and unfortunately the result failed. Rework the process, let Kelly leave and who knows under competent leadership if could happen. Forcing a name that will be hated by well over 50% is not the ideal end result. Time to cut bait for the next round.

I also agree

[bigskyvikes]

If UND announces that we will go by THE University of North Dakota and some fans continue to use the "Fighting Sioux" on their own without the Universities sanctioning I think that is a free speech case that even Stenehjem couldn't screw up.

 

To reiterate, I am in favor of choosing a new name if something comes up that makes sense. We just wasted a lot of time and effort and unfortunately the result failed. Rework the process, let Kelly leave and who knows under competent leadership if could happen. Forcing a name that will be hated by well over 50% is not the ideal end result. Time to cut bait for the next round.

Bingo! Feel the exact same way...

[The Sicatoka]

The NCAA has already once listened to and supported the folks who didn't like hearing "Sioux". 

If those folks call again, and complain again, the NCAA will blow them off this time? In a word, no, they can't, otherwise they'd be two-faced against their own PC backers and positions. 

The NCAA has already all but said (via UND's Peter Johnson's statement) they're waiting by the phone for the next complaint call so they can drop the hammer. 

 

Edited August 5, 2015 by The Sicatoka

[bigskyvikes]

I think it's great how you guys have this all figured out! Please Sic, what name will you allow us to have?

[scpa0305]

I think it's great how you guys have this all figured out! Please Sic, what name will you allow us to have?

Roughriders....that's it. It's been posted and reposted 3k times:)

[Blackheart]

Roughriders....that's it. It's been posted and reposted 3k times:)

Kind of like the same arguments for and against the new nickname.

[obborg]

"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."

Wow, there's a lot of conjecture crammed into that.  Sounds like somebody's read of the situation rather than their knowledge of it.

[Teeder11]

"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."

Wow, there's a lot of conjecture crammed into that.  Sounds like somebody's read of the situation rather than their knowledge of it.

You're getting very warm, bordering on white hot. 

 

[Sioux>Bison]

So what would happen if UND adopted a new nickname and that fans refused to use it? Even with a new nickname you will see a ton of sioux jerseys in every crowd and saying sioux after the national anthem will not go away.

what is the ncaa going to do about that? Sanction UND because the fans won't adopt a new nickname? I'm tire of hearing all this nonsense out of the administration. I can't wait til Kelley leaves. He did have some questionable statements at the summer commencement. 

[SWSiouxMN]

So what would happen if UND adopted a new nickname and that fans refused to use it? Even with a new nickname you will see a ton of sioux jerseys in every crowd and saying sioux after the national anthem will not go away.

what is the ncaa going to do about that? Sanction UND because the fans won't adopt a new nickname? I'm tire of hearing all this nonsense out of the administration. I can't wait til Kelley leaves. He did have some questionable statements at the summer commencement. 

Care to elaborate?

 

[darell1976]

So what would happen if UND adopted a new nickname and that fans refused to use it? Even with a new nickname you will see a ton of sioux jerseys in every crowd and saying sioux after the national anthem will not go away.

what is the ncaa going to do about that? Sanction UND because the fans won't adopt a new nickname? I'm tire of hearing all this nonsense out of the administration. I can't wait til Kelley leaves. He did have some questionable statements at the summer commencement. 

No sanctions will be handed to UND if fans wear Fighting Sioux gear ONLY if UND gets a nickname. If UND goes without one and someone complains ( And you know they will) about fans dressing in Fighting Sioux gear then the NCAA will hand down sanctions. To sum it up: get a nickname and the NCAA is off our backs, go without a nickname and you are playing with fire.

[Hayduke]

Bottom line for the no nickame crowd, if you truly don't want harm done to UND, go along with an actual nickname change.  

 

Then, wear your Sioux gear at games knowing that UND is in the clear from sanctions.  

[CMSioux]

Here is how it is going to roll:

UND will share how not having a nickname will result in the Big Sky Conference revisiting our membership, how no nickname will "once again" impact recruiting, how other schools are once again not scheduling us because of the issue. The NCAA will claim they are receiving complaints from other schools (if they don't get complains they will seek them out) and put UND back on sanctions, The UND Alumni Association will come out with a huge magazine touting the new nickname and alluding to how important it is for "the best interest of UND's future" to adopt and wear the new logo. The high rollers will cave, the new students won't have any choice - that leaves the die-hards in the midddle - some of them will fall off of the bandwagon in 2-3 years and those who continue to wear Sioux gear will begin to be ostracized - it will be subtle but it has already started.

As I have shared many times I am fine with moving on - the B**stards won. I'm not changing my donation or my support - but i'm also not changing the logo on my game-day gear.