NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname

[Old Fella]

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.

 

Too old to keep living in 'the wreckage of the future'.

[Siouxperfan7]

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?

I honeslty believe that fans will transition to a new name.  You will see less and less Sioux gear out there and more (insert new nickname here) merchandise and apparel.  Fans will yell out the new nickname at the Ralph, Betty, Alerus, etc when cheering on UND teams.  It will happen.  history has shown that.  Now will it be everyone right away?  Of course not.  There will be those that will wear there Sioux apparel to games till the day they die.  But as time goes by, new students will come thru the doors, and younger fans will grow up with a new name and want the new merchandise being sold.  They are going to yell out and cheer for the nickname of the team.

We have already seen it at UND sporting events even with no nickname.  You are seeing less Sioux apparel being worn by fans at all venues, (yes even the Ralph).  I am not here to say that I am glad this is happening.  It is just a reality.  Now while I hope that people will trasnition to the new name at different speeds, I truley hope that we can al be unified and support the teams that we all bleed green for every year and not have to deal with all these distractions that have been plagueing our fanbase for over a decade!

[Benny Baker]

I must say, very astute observation. 

presupposing that those fanbases had not continued to use their former nicknames and/or that other schools obviously did not complain, of course.  Moreover, the NCAA's position via-a-vis other member institutions is not a great barometer of the NCAA's position with respect to any other school.  If it was, I'd say throw "Fighting Sioux" back on the ballot because the Seminoles, Aztecs, Utes, and Fighting Irish are free to use ethnic or race-related nicknames.

At the end of the day, however, I'm not going to live in fear of potential sanctions that aren't currently in existence.

[Siouxperfan7]

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 Sioux were Silenced" crowd is about 8 years late on their efforts.  At this point, trying to convince UND and the NCAA that the Sioux people didn't get their voices heard is a lost cause.  Having a rally with Standing Rock and Spirit Lake tribal memebers telling of the times they granted UND permission to use the name are going to do any good at the point.  The "Move on" crwod is not saying that we need to move on because that is our opinion. It is because it is the only viable option right now.

[zonadub]

I am just thinking in print here...

 

for or all those people who support staying North Dakota and facing the NCAA sanctions, whatever they may be, why not just come out and say stay Fighting Sioux? The sanctions would be the same whether the nickname is Fighting Sioux in fact or no nickname in endorsement, but Fighting Sioux de facto. So why not just be honest and support returning to the Fighting Sioux name?

 

we all realize that no nickname will be as strong or unique as the Fighting Sioux name, but there has to be resolution to this. For those of you who say the choices are bad, my guess is that your proposed names would not be universally accepted either, IF YOU HAD AN ACTUAL NAME TO PROPOSE, not just have the position of being against any name.

[ericpnelson]

I am just thinking in print here...

 

for or all those people who support staying North Dakota and facing the NCAA sanctions, whatever they may be, why not just come out and say stay Fighting Sioux? The sanctions would be the same whether the nickname is Fighting Sioux in fact or no nickname in endorsement, but Fighting Sioux de facto. So why not just be honest and support returning to the Fighting Sioux name?

 

we all realize that no nickname will be as strong or unique as the Fighting Sioux name, but there has to be resolution to this. For those of you who say the choices are bad, my guess is that your proposed names would not be universally accepted either, IF YOU HAD AN ACTUAL NAME TO PROPOSE, not just have the position of being against any name.

very well said

[Benny Baker]

I am just thinking in print here...

 

for or all those people who support staying North Dakota and facing the NCAA sanctions, whatever they may be, why not just come out and say stay Fighting Sioux? The sanctions would be the same whether the nickname is Fighting Sioux in fact or no nickname in endorsement, but Fighting Sioux de facto. So why not just be honest and support returning to the Fighting Sioux name?

 

we all realize that no nickname will be as strong or unique as the Fighting Sioux name, but there has to be resolution to this. For those of you who say the choices are bad, my guess is that your proposed names would not be universally accepted either, IF YOU HAD AN ACTUAL NAME TO PROPOSE, not just have the position of being against any name.

That's the problem.  These sanctions don't exist.  As the gf herald reported, for what it's worth:  

"(H)e was told—just as a friendly word—that if fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux, the NCAA believes it is possible that other schools might—might—complain and that, in turn, could result in sanctions," UND spokesman Peter Johnson said in the email.

So yes, (1) "if fans resumed using Sioux" (whatever that means); and (2) "it is possible that other schools might--might--complain"; then (3) it "could result in sanctions."  

[UND-1]

That's the problem.  These sanctions don't exist.  As the gf herald reported, for what it's worth:  

"(H)e was told—just as a friendly word—that if fans resumed using Sioux or Fighting Sioux, the NCAA believes it is possible that other schools might—might—complain and that, in turn, could result in sanctions," UND spokesman Peter Johnson said in the email.

So yes, (1) "if fans resumed using Sioux" (whatever that means); and (2) "it is possible that other schools might--might--complain"; then (3) it "could result in sanctions."  

Why do you keep saying the sanctions don't exist?  They exist.  Whether they are applied to UND is yet to be seen.

[Benny Baker]

Why do you keep saying the sanctions don't exist?  They exist.  Whether they are applied to UND is yet to be seen.

Can you please cite to those sanctions then? 

Of course sanctions are in existence if UND plays as the "Fighting Sioux", which everyone agrees they are not.  So, the NCAA would have to adopt a new policy and commission new sanctions in the event (1) "fans resumed using Sioux"; and (2) "other schools might--might--complain."  I am not aware of any NCAA policy or applicable sanctions that currently apply to a university that competes simply as the name of its institution.  Put another way, there is no current policy in existence that would result in sanctions against UND for competing as UND.

If you think I am wrong, will you please provide a link to that policy and/or sanctions for everyone on this message board to see?  Thank you.

[UND-1]

Can you please cite to those sanctions then? 

Of course sanctions are in existence if UND plays as the "Fighting Sioux", which everyone agrees they are not.  So, the NCAA would have to adopt a new policy and commission new sanctions in the event (1) "fans resumed using Sioux"; and (2) "other schools might--might--complain."  I am not aware of any NCAA policy or applicable sanctions that currently apply to a university that competes simply as the name of its institution.  Put another way, there is no current policy in existence that would result in sanctions against UND for competing as UND.

If you think I am wrong, will you please provide a link to that policy and/or sanctions for everyone on this message board to see?  Thank you.

There are not new sanctions for every policy.  I know one of them was not being able to host a home playoff game in any sport, etc.  That right there is enough for me but probably not for you.  Would probably have to look back 5 years and find what the rest of the sanctions were.  Don't care enough but they are real.

The NCAA can simply put UND back on sanctions for NOT meeting the stipulations of the agreement.  Would pretty much be like having the Sioux name again, no? 

And for everyone who says "then we would sue them"....who is going to pay for the lawyer fees on "our" end?  Not UND or the State I know that.  

[mksioux]

I am just thinking in print here...

 

for or all those people who support staying North Dakota and facing the NCAA sanctions, whatever they may be, why not just come out and say stay Fighting Sioux? The sanctions would be the same whether the nickname is Fighting Sioux in fact or no nickname in endorsement, but Fighting Sioux de facto. So why not just be honest and support returning to the Fighting Sioux name?

 

we all realize that no nickname will be as strong or unique as the Fighting Sioux name, but there has to be resolution to this. For those of you who say the choices are bad, my guess is that your proposed names would not be universally accepted either, IF YOU HAD AN ACTUAL NAME TO PROPOSE, not just have the position of being against any name.

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.

 

 

The NCAA can simply put UND back on sanctions for NOT meeting the stipulations of the agreement.  Would pretty much be like having the Sioux name again, no? 

 

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

[jdub27]

Can you please cite to those sanctions then? 

http://www.uscho.com/2012/02/29/ncaa-announces-sanctions-to-north-dakota-for-use-of-nickname-logo/

1. No University of North Dakota team may host an NCAA championship round. If a North Dakota team is selected as the lower-seeded team in a championship competition, North Dakota would be designated as the “home” team but would be assigned to play at the higher-seeded institution’s venue.

2. If the university accepts an invitation to participate in any postseason competition, the NCAA policy requires that student-athletes, band, cheerleading, dance and mascot uniforms and paraphernalia not have hostile or abusive racial/ethnic/national original references during the NCAA championship competition.

3. If an invitation is accepted and the university must forfeit competition because it has not adhered to this requirement, the NCAA reserves its right to seek reimbursement for expenses incurred by the Association for travel, per diem or other expenses in connection with the championship.

You're so adamant about things being nothing more than assumptions yet continue to have a laundry list of your own without the same concern for possibilities that they may or may not happen.  The NCAA body granted the Executive Committee power to change rules as necessary.  That is where the argument starts and ends, regardless of what the rules currently say or don't say or how each individual interprets them.

[UND-1]

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.

Since I am uninformed after reading 100's of posts on this, why don't you explain in one sentence why I am wrong?  Just so you don't wear yourself out.

[UND-1]

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.

Also, your idea of good solution is to not do anything, stay North Dakota, wait for the NCAA to tell UND they need a nickname, then do the entire process over again?  That is best for the University of North Dakota?

[Hayduke]

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

[mksioux]

Since I am uninformed after reading 100's of posts on this, why don't you explain in one sentence why I am wrong?  Just so you don't wear yourself out.

Because the NCAA acknowledge that going without a nickname would NOT violate the settlement agreement.  So whatever sanctions the NCAA may impose on UND in the future would not be based on the settlement agreement.  

[mksioux]

Also, your idea of good solution is to not do anything, stay North Dakota, wait for the NCAA to tell UND they need a nickname, then do the entire process over again?  That is best for the University of North Dakota?

Perhaps not.  That's a debatable point.  I have no problem with that debate and think there are good reasons for moving on now and choosing a new nickname.  I just want people to acknowledge it's an option.

[UND-1]

Because the NCAA acknowledge that going without a nickname would NOT violate the settlement agreement.  So whatever sanctions the NCAA may impose on UND in the future would not be based on the settlement agreement.  

 

 

So the NCAA would need to use another reason related to the Sioux nickname and not fully retiring it/moving forward as the basis for the sanctions.  Is that what you are saying?

[mksioux]

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

I don't view it as playing chicken.  I'm not questioning the NCAA's authority and I don't advocate going back to court.  I'm just saying that waiting until the NCAA actually says it is required (and then doing it) is an option.

[jdub27]

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. 

I find this hard to believe.  There are still people who want to play as the Fighting Sioux despite knowing the consequences.  There are people who still think we should go on with no nickname despite both athletes and administrators from with UND's athletic department stating reasons why that shouldn't be an option.  There are people who think despite the NCAA saying that while choosing no nickname doesn't technically violate the settlement agreement it "would very likely result in sanctions" that it is still fine to choose "no nickname" just to see what happens.  I gave up on people being "remotely informed" and making the correct decision long ago.

[Benny Baker]

 

http://www.uscho.com/2012/02/29/ncaa-announces-sanctions-to-north-dakota-for-use-of-nickname-logo/

You're so adamant about things being nothing more than assumptions yet continue to have a laundry list of your own without the same concern for possibilities that they may or may not happen.  The NCAA body granted the Executive Committee power to change rules as necessary.  That is where the argument starts and ends, regardless of what the rules currently say or don't say or how each individual interprets them.

Are you kidding me?  That link has absolutely nothing to do with UND competing as UND, but absolutely everything to do with UND competing as "Fighting Sioux"!  Like I just said, UND will face sanctions for competing as the Fighting Sioux.  No one has ever disputed that!  

How conveniently you forget the addendum that lifted sanctions against UND, and the herald article that just confirmed that playing as UND does not violate the settlement agreement.  By the way, feel free to admit that your 100% wrong on that one.  Your unabashed, albeit completely incorrect opinion, is etched in stone on the first several pages of this thread.

Simply put, there are no current sanctions in place against UND for competing as UND . . .  otherwise, UND would have been on sanctions for the past three years!  The NCAA would have to adopt new sanctions against UND for competing as UND.  I've never said the NCAA can't do that.  What I have said, however, is that I'm not going to live in fear of potential future sanctions that do not even exist but ultimately depend on (1) "fans resumed using Sioux"; and (2) that "other schools might--might--complain."

[Benny Baker]

There are not new sanctions for every policy.  I know one of them was not being able to host a home playoff game in any sport, etc.  That right there is enough for me but probably not for you.  Would probably have to look back 5 years and find what the rest of the sanctions were.  Don't care enough but they are real.

The NCAA can simply put UND back on sanctions for NOT meeting the stipulations of the agreement.  Would pretty much be like having the Sioux name again, no? 

And for everyone who says "then we would sue them"....who is going to pay for the lawyer fees on "our" end?  Not UND or the State I know that.  

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.

[jdub27]

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 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.

 

Are you kidding me?  That link has absolutely nothing to do with UND competing as UND, but absolutely everything to do with UND competing as "Fighting Sioux"!  Like I just said, UND will face sanctions for competing as the Fighting Sioux.  No one has ever disputed that!  

What other sanctions do you think they are referring to?  You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand they will be the same thing.  They make the rules and have been given full power and blessing to change them as they see fit.

[UND-1]

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.

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?  

[Siouxperfan7]

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 NCAA said that UND would not violate the settlement agreement if no nickname was selected and went as just North Dakota.  But they also said that if there are issues with the continued use of the name and there are complaints from other schools, they may have to impose sanctions based on the settlemet agreement.

The NCAA right now is being pretty lenient on the settlement agreement.  Mainly because they got what they wanted and UND retired the Fighting Sioux name.  They have every right to enforce the rules based on the settlement as they see fit.  At any moment they can enforce rules, sanctions, etc.  This is not scare tactics.  This is realilty.

If there is even the slightest chance that the NCAA would come down with sanctions becuase of their actions, why even go there!  It is not worth the risk.