NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname

[Siouxphan27]

 

What is wrong with Roughriders?!!

Evidently you have me on "ignore."

lol 

[The Sicatoka]

Let's start with an authentic, transparent and truly participation-inclusive process that is free from cynical fear-mongering and self-serving propagandizing.  

From which direction? The unhappy side will always make those claims. 

[homer]

As I've said before, I'd prefer to remain "North Dakota" in perpetuity because once you've had the best and once you've rejected a gift that was meant to be for generations and once you've insulted generations of native people any replacement adds to the insult.  Pretty much anything you mentioned, however, is better than the pablum the university paid $300K or so to a consulting firm for.  The real issue is that there is a significant number of people who want to stay "North Dakota".  The real issue is that there is another significant number of people who want a new nickname "just to get it over with for closure" but who also acknowledge that the process was exceedingly clumsy and that the expensive result was/is horrible.  The real issue is that the vast majorities of SL and SR supported the old nickname and logo have not been involved in the selection process.  The only NA with any kind of involvement is the anti-nickname "plant" on the committee.  Weren't these some of the people the university claimed to respect and honor when it was trying to retain the nickname and logo? The real issue is that the process and its results have been forced and the process itself has been tainted by the shameless spreading of falsehoods and propaganda by the university and the Herald.  How stupid do Kelley, Peter Johnson et al think people are that they create false inferences and foment propaganda such as the latest Herald article?  The best they can come up with is some garbage that the NCAA will sanction us if someone "reports" someone else for yelling "Fighting Sioux" at games - something that's been happening for years now, post-nickname surrender?  That's going nowhere just like the whole meme about how retaining just "North Dakota" violates the surrender agreement. 

All of the above is not conducive to closure.  What happened was a consummate, immutable moral wrong and the university exacerbated it.  Moving along for the sake of moving along and continuing to blunder forward will only perpetuate the matter.  What should happen is that the university and the NCAA should retract the latest irresponsible assertion about "consequences" for free expression and Peter Johnson and Kelley should identify that for what it really is - conveniently timed, irrational and reactionary verbiage.  North Dakota should be one of the options simply because it is supported by a significant segment of "stakeholders"; gauging the input of "stakeholders" was one of the purposes of the process.  IF North Dakota is selected, so what?  It's the will of a majority of the "stakeholders".  Maybe a new agreement with the NCAA involving all of the stakeholders, including those, particularly the NA's, who support "North Dakota", could be derived providing the # of years after which the process to select a new nickname must be commenced.  This was a significant ambiguity in the surrender agreement. 

I don't know Kelley and I've never met him.  I'm sure he's a nice enough guy.  This has obviously been a difficult issue.  He and Johnson, et al have handled the matter clumsily and they have tainted it with antics like the recent Herald article.  Somewhat paradoxically, I would say that they and everyone else have learned that:  1.) The process has been a mess and has been bereft on any authenticity; 2.) Even though the process has been a mess, a significant number of stakeholders want to stay "North Dakota"; 3.) Because a significant number of stakeholders want, as per one of the stated purposes of the process, to stay "North Dakota" it should be included as an option. 

Why would Standing Rock or Spirit Lake be involved with selecting a new nickname?  I think what you are seeing is a portion of that group wants to retain the old logo and does not care about what may be best for the university and  the other portion (who voted to change the name) will want any other name selected.  I don't even know if the reservations will get a vote if the nickname is put to an election unless you are an alum.  

[homer]

Let's start with an authentic, transparent and truly participation-inclusive process that is free from cynical fear-mongering and self-serving propagandizing.  If the result is that things stay North Dakota for some time longer, so be it.  If it takes some time longer to transition away from 80+ years of a nickname and logo loved by pretty much everyone, so be it.  Eventually transitioning to a replacement in that fashion will get UND a lot more closure than forcing an idiotic replacement that is the by-product of Kelley's perfunctory sham.  The selection of a replacement nickname that is the result of simple negative inertia (i.e. we spent a bunch of money and had all of these committees so we must come out with something) of an erroneous course will not only NOT effect closure but will have the opposite effect. 

So what is your idea of a nickname.  Its easy to blast the process, what is your solution?  What nickname would have had to come out of the process to make you happy?  

[Siouxperfan7]

As I've said before, I'd prefer to remain "North Dakota" in perpetuity because once you've had the best and once you've rejected a gift that was meant to be for generations and once you've insulted generations of native people any replacement adds to the insult.  Pretty much anything you mentioned, however, is better than the pablum the university paid $300K or so to a consulting firm for.  The real issue is that there is a significant number of people who want to stay "North Dakota".  The real issue is that there is another significant number of people who want a new nickname "just to get it over with for closure" but who also acknowledge that the process was exceedingly clumsy and that the expensive result was/is horrible.  The real issue is that the vast majorities of SL and SR supported the old nickname and logo have not been involved in the selection process.  The only NA with any kind of involvement is the anti-nickname "plant" on the committee.  Weren't these some of the people the university claimed to respect and honor when it was trying to retain the nickname and logo? The real issue is that the process and its results have been forced and the process itself has been tainted by the shameless spreading of falsehoods and propaganda by the university and the Herald.  How stupid do Kelley, Peter Johnson et al think people are that they create false inferences and foment propaganda such as the latest Herald article?  The best they can come up with is some garbage that the NCAA will sanction us if someone "reports" someone else for yelling "Fighting Sioux" at games - something that's been happening for years now, post-nickname surrender?  That's going nowhere just like the whole meme about how retaining just "North Dakota" violates the surrender agreement. 

All of the above is not conducive to closure.  What happened was a consummate, immutable moral wrong and the university exacerbated it.  Moving along for the sake of moving along and continuing to blunder forward will only perpetuate the matter.  What should happen is that the university and the NCAA should retract the latest irresponsible assertion about "consequences" for free expression and Peter Johnson and Kelley should identify that for what it really is - conveniently timed, irrational and reactionary verbiage.  North Dakota should be one of the options simply because it is supported by a significant segment of "stakeholders"; gauging the input of "stakeholders" was one of the purposes of the process.  IF North Dakota is selected, so what?  It's the will of a majority of the "stakeholders".  Maybe a new agreement with the NCAA involving all of the stakeholders, including those, particularly the NA's, who support "North Dakota", could be derived providing the # of years after which the process to select a new nickname must be commenced.  This was a significant ambiguity in the surrender agreement. 

I don't know Kelley and I've never met him.  I'm sure he's a nice enough guy.  This has obviously been a difficult issue.  He and Johnson, et al have handled the matter clumsily and they have tainted it with antics like the recent Herald article.  Somewhat paradoxically, I would say that they and everyone else have learned that:  1.) The process has been a mess and has been bereft on any authenticity; 2.) Even though the process has been a mess, a significant number of stakeholders want to stay "North Dakota"; 3.) Because a significant number of stakeholders want, as per one of the stated purposes of the process, to stay "North Dakota" it should be included as an option. 

You can have your opinion.  You are entitiled to it.  You bring up a lot of points.  But let's just break it down to the most simplistic way possible.  Having no nickname is just dumb.  If it was such a hip, cool, unique idea, others schools (especially ones that were in the same boat we were that had to change their native american nickname) would have considered and done the same thing.  NONE of them did that.  I could give you reason why like moving forward, marketing possibilities, branding, etc.  But it is really this simple.  Having no nickname is dumb idea.

[Benny Baker]

Just curious, does someone know of or can someone round up a list of schools that have changed their respective nickname as a result of the 2005 NCAA policy?  It would be interesting to look into what process(es) those schools took to make the transition.  Thanks in advance!

[Old Fella]

It isn't fear mongering when there is a real threat.  Until I hear UND administration clearly state that the NCAA has 100% assured them that not choosing a nickname will never lead to sanctions, no matter what complaints are issued to the NCAA, I see a threat.  

 

What would those sanctions be?

[The Sicatoka]

What would those sanctions be?

My guess? Same as if the nickname hadn't changed (up to and including the NCAA sending their "best scheduling practices" recommendations out again to NCAA schools and conferences as they've done in the past). 

[The Sicatoka]

Just curious, does someone know of or can someone round up a list of schools that have changed their respective nickname as a result of the 2005 NCAA policy?  It would be interesting to look into what process(es) those schools took to make the transition.  Thanks in advance!

I'd suspect using this reference, that any school listed that changed on or after 2005 fits your category. Namely, 

Chowam Hawks – formerly Braves (2006)
IUP Crimson Hawks – formerly Indians (2006), their process notes
Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks – formerly Indians (2006), their process notes
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks – formerly Indians and Otahkians (2005)
Stonehill Skyhawks – formerly Chieftains (2005)

Not in the list of < adjective > Hawks would be:

Arkansas State Red Wolves - formerly Indians (2008), their process is noted here. 

 

Basically, those folks sucked it up and got it done. Meanwhile, we're still wallowing a decade later. 

 

PS - I'll be sending you a bill for this brief at the rates you normally bill. And that's a price discount being given by me.  

Edited August 18, 2015 by The Sicatoka

[Benny Baker]

I'd suspect using this reference, that any school listed that changed on or after 2005 fits your category. Namely, 

Chowam Hawks – formerly Braves (2006)
IUP Crimson Hawks – formerly Indians (2006), their process notes
Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks – formerly Indians (2006), their process notes
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks – formerly Indians and Otahkians (2005)
Stonehill Skyhawks – formerly Chieftains (2005)

Not in the list of < adjective > Hawks would be:

Arkansas State Red Wolves - formerly Indians (2008), their process is noted here. 

 

Basically, those folks sucked it up and got it done. Meanwhile, we're still wallowing a decade later. 

 

PS - I'll be sending you a bill for this brief at the rates you normally bill. And that's a price discount being given by me.  

Awesome, thanks!

[Old Fella]

My guess? Same as if the nickname hadn't changed (up to and including the NCAA sending their "best scheduling practices" recommendations out again to NCAA schools and conferences as they've done in the past). 

What are the 'best scheduling practices'?  Regardless of what new name the team is given, does anyone on this blog believe that some 8,000 of the 11,000 fans at the hockey games are going to stop wearing  the Sioux merchandise or shouting out Sioux when their spirit calls them?

[UND1983]

What are the 'best scheduling practices'?  Regardless of what new name the team is given, does anyone on this blog believe that some 8,000 of the 11,000 fans at the hockey games are going to stop wearing  the Sioux merchandise or shouting out Sioux when their spirit calls them?

What does that have to do with what he was saying?  Yell whatever the hell you want to.  If UND picks a new nickname, yell whatever you want til the end of time.  Nobody will care (even the NCAA).

But with no new nickname, the NCAA will do whatever the hell they want to also.  I know hockey fans don't care about that because the Ralph cannot host regionals anymore but other sports and their fans are getting sick of dealing with this crap.  

For example, if for some reason the sanctions come back, I would love for the Sioux Forever crowd to explain to Bubba Schweigert why it's OK he cannot have a home playoff game ever again.

Look at how much time we spend on these message boards talking about this when we could be discussing recruiting, facilities, upcoming season, whatever.

[Old Fella]

What does that have to do with what he was saying?  Yell whatever the hell you want to.

But in turn, the NCAA will do whatever the hell they want to also.  I know hockey fans don't care about that because the Ralph cannot host regionals anymore but other sports and their fans are getting sick of dealing with this crap.  

Look at how much time we spend on these message boards talking about this when we could be discussing recruiting, facilities, upcoming season, whatever.

Relax!

Let,s say, the new name is Sundogs/fans still wear Sioux merchandise and shout out Sioux.  Do we still get sanctions?

[UND1983]

Relax!

Let,s say, the new name is Sundogs/fans still wear Sioux merchandise and shout out Sioux.  Do we still get sanctions?

Nope, have at it if it makes you feel better. 

I am sure the teams team, will appreciate your support through the transition.

[The Sicatoka]

What are the 'best scheduling practices'?  Regardless of what new name the team is given, does anyone on this blog believe that some 8,000 of the 11,000 fans at the hockey games are going to stop wearing  the Sioux merchandise or shouting out Sioux when their spirit calls them?

'Best practice scheduling' in a nutshell: Don't schedule teams that are on our (the NCAA's) < bleep > list. 

Fans will cheer what they know and what fans know changes over time. Look at GFC, or Devils Lake, or Wahpeton, or IUP, or Arkansas State, or Stanford, or Dartmouth. 

[The Sicatoka]

Relax!

Let,s say, the new name is Sundogs/fans still wear Sioux merchandise and shout out Sioux.  Do we still get sanctions?

Honest answer: who knows. 

Honest assessment: Leaving a void leaves UND open to second-guessing by the NCAA . 

Best guess: If UND can say "we've done everything in out power, new name, new logo, new merchandise" what more can be asked of them? 

[Old Fella]

Nope, have at it if it makes you feel better. 

Nope, have at it if it makes you feel better. 

A little background/Have been watching/supporting UND athletics for the past 60 years/hockey season ticket holder since the old Ralph was built.  Have never wore merchandise with Sioux on it/nor to I shout Sioux at the end of the national anthem of join in with 'Lets go Sioux.  Merely trying to bring some common sense to the issue.

[Benny Baker]

What does that have to do with what he was saying?  Yell whatever the hell you want to.  If UND picks a new nickname, yell whatever you want til the end of time.  Nobody will care (even the NCAA).

But with no new nickname, the NCAA will do whatever the hell they want to also.  I know hockey fans don't care about that because the Ralph cannot host regionals anymore but other sports and their fans are getting sick of dealing with this crap.  

For example, if for some reason the sanctions come back, I would love for the Sioux Forever crowd to explain to Bubba Schweigert why it's OK he cannot have a home playoff game ever again.

Look at how much time we spend on these message boards talking about this when we could be discussing recruiting, facilities, upcoming season, whatever.

Lest we forget, there is little to suggest that a new nickname would alleviate UND from potential sanctions.  In fact, the recent Herald article explained that the NCAA would investigate UND if other schools complained about continued use of Fighting Sioux, and that UND would simply encourage its fanbase to adopt the new nickname instead of continuing to use Fighting Sioux.  Don't be so certain that a new nickname fixes the problem.

This is just one of the many new questions that this new threat of sanctions has raised. 

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

You can have your opinion.  You are entitiled to it.  You bring up a lot of points.  But let's just break it down to the most simplistic way possible.  Having no nickname is just dumb.  If it was such a hip, cool, unique idea, others schools (especially ones that were in the same boat we were that had to change their native american nickname) would have considered and done the same thing.  NONE of them did that.  I could give you reason why like moving forward, marketing possibilities, branding, etc.  But it is really this simple.  Having no nickname is dumb idea.

Umm…so what you're saying is, nobody has done it.  Isn't that the very definition of "unique"?

[JohnboyND7]

I can't honestly believe there are people willing leave any room for the NCAA to interpret anything. Especially when they have apparently said they'll drop the hammer if anyone complains.

Here is what you do know, the other schools who changed their names have not suffered as a result of any fan cheers/apparel. 

Some of the people here need to answer the question, is trying to big time the NCAA worth hpotentially losing even one playoff game over? 

If so, write a letter to your football team and tell them you are okay with potentially doing that to them.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Here is what you do know, the other schools who changed their names have not suffered as a result of any fan cheers/apparel. 

I must say, very astute observation. 

[JohnboyND7]

I must say, very astute observation. 

was it something that has been talked about at length on here? I haven't read big chunks of the thread, apologies if redundant statement was redundant.

[Chewey]

From which direction? The unhappy side will always make those claims. 

From the NA side who supported the former nickname and logo and who want to stay "North Dakota", of course.  Namely, the 90% (or at least 70%) of those who are not in the Leigh Jeanotte crowd.  The 10% to 30% who screamed, protested, lied and repeatedly injected incendiary invective into the process without restraint at every turn were met with passive acquiescence.  Seems counterproductive to cave to the first but not do anything as to the other, much larger, group.  The "Sioux Were Silenced/North Dakota Forever" crowd has gained considerable momentum and traction largely because of the university's own conduct.  The university's own conduct lends weight and credibility to the ongoing claim that the Sioux were silenced and are continuing to be silenced.  

[The Sicatoka]

Johnboy:

No. I'm serious. That point had not been expressly stated until now. 

Edited August 18, 2015 by The Sicatoka

[The Sicatoka]

From the NA side who supported the former nickname and logo and who want to stay "North Dakota", of course.  Namely, the 90% (or at least 70%) of those who are not in the Leigh Jeanotte crowd.  The 10% to 30% who screamed, protested, lied and repeatedly injected incendiary invective into the process without restraint at every turn were met with passive acquiescence.  Seems counterproductive to cave to the first but not do anything as to the other, much larger, group.  The "Sioux Were Silenced/North Dakota Forever" crowd has gained considerable momentum and traction largely because of the university's own conduct.  The university's own conduct lends weight and credibility to the ongoing claim that the Sioux were silenced and are continuing to be silenced.  

I think you missed my point, namely, one side will always be unhappy and toss invectives at the other about the process and outcome.