Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 They don't have to have a policy. The have a signed settlement agreement. Just because a committee decides that it is an option, doen't mean that it actually can. Once again, The NCAA has not given an answer to this question because they are letting the process play out. Why would they wast their time interjecting themselves in the process and comment on hypotheticals?! If you think that Kelley is going to allow "North Dakota" back on the list, you are kidding yourself. Not gonna happen. The settlement agreement is subject to and governed by the addendum. The addendum says UND is compliant. Honest question, do you have evidence or a source to confirm that the NCAA has not given an answer to this question and that they have not given an answer because they are letting the process play out? I gather you may assume that is what the NCAA is doing, but I honestly want to know if anyone can confirm this or if its just based on assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Please read the intellectual property portion of the agreement. It is specific to the name and logo. I'm not sure why this has become part of the discussion but it doesn't specify the Brien Fighting Sioux logo. It obviously includes all Fighting Sioux marks as the first release of the Dacotah Legacy collection had the geometric logo on it. Had it not, UND would have been in violation by commissioning Fighting Sioux gear outside of the agreement. UND is required to keep all of them under their control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSSioux Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I'm not sure why this has become part of the discussion but it doesn't specify the Brien Fighting Sioux logo. It obviously includes all Fighting Sioux marks as the first release of the Dacotah Legacy collection had the geometric logo on it. Had it not, UND would have been in violation by commissioning Fighting Sioux gear outside of the agreement. UND is required to keep all of them under their control. It is part of the argument because it is in the agreement that some like to reference only the section(s) for what they think will find useful and neglect others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddogg1971 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 So if the NCAA did a study on itself, (and they did) and found themselves corrupt, (which they did) how can anything coming from this monopolistic organization be taken seriously or as fact or as a rule set by the NCAA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 The settlement agreement is subject to and governed by the addendum. The addendum says UND is compliant. Honest question, do you have evidence or a source to confirm that the NCAA has not given an answer to this question and that they have not given an answer because they are letting the process play out? I gather you may assume that is what the NCAA is doing, but I honestly want to know if anyone can confirm this or if its just based on assumption. Once again, an addendum only pertains to what the addendum addresses in it. It has nothing to do with anything that IT does not speak to specifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 The 85% is starting to rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Once again, an addendum only pertains to what the addendum addresses in it. It has nothing to do with anything that IT does not speak to specifically. Exactly, like the part of the addendum addressing that UND was removed from sanctions because "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo". "The [settlement] Agreement is amended as follows: . . . the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy." The addendum is part of the settlement agreement; the settlement agreement states that UND is in compliance with NCAA policy. Case solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Exactly, like the part of the addendum addressing that UND was removed from sanctions because "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo". "The [settlement] Agreement is amended as follows: . . . the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy." The addendum is part of the settlement agreement; the settlement agreement states that UND is in compliance with NCAA policy. Case solved. Was UND under sanctions and needed to be removed in September of 2012? Or was it just stating what was obvious to both parties with "if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment" meaning UND was in compliance because they had communicated to the NCAA how they were transitioning towards a new nickname, the second portion of being in compliance stated in the Settlement Agreement (retiring of Fighting Sioux being the first). homer posted quotes from Grant Shaft backing this up. An Addendum about more imagery being allowed at the REA and spelling out what everyone already knew and agreed to at that particular time is not a smoking gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Was UND under sanctions and needed to be removed in September of 2012? Or was it just stating what was obvious to both parties with "if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment" meaning UND was in compliance because they had communicated to the NCAA how they were transitioning towards a new nickname. homer posted quotes from Grant Shaft backing this up. An Addendum about imagery stating what everyone already knew and agreed to at that particular time is not a smoking gun. Yes. The following article explains that UND went back on sanctions in August 2011 because of the the state law mandating the school's use of "Fighting Sioux". http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6391276 You may also recall that the NCAA enforced those sanctions when it prohibited UND from playing as the "Fighting Sioux" in the 2012 NCAA hockey regionals. That law was, of course, repealed in June 2012 by public vote. As such, the NCAA confirmed that UND was no longer subject to those sanctions via the addendum. Since that time, the NCAA has not enforced any sanctions against UND despite the fact that UND has been and is continuing to simply play as "North Dakota" for the past three years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 That law was, of course, repealed in June 2012 by public vote. As such, the NCAA confirmed that UND was no longer subject to those sanctions via the addendum. Since that time, the NCAA has not enforced any sanctions against UND despite the fact that UND has been and is continuing to simply play as "North Dakota" for the past three years. So UND was in compliance from June, 2012 to September, 2012 but still on sanctions because an Addendum related to imagery in the REA had not yet been signed? If true, you think it would be one of the main bullet points as to the purpose of the Addendum, not one of the last things mentioned. And again, at that time UND had conveyed its plan to transition to a new nickname, the NCAA had no reason to enforce sanctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I resent your misleading thread title. I think he should have named this thread: " My mind's made up and nothing anyone says is going to change it" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 So UND was in compliance from June, 2012 to September, 2012 but still on sanctions because an Addendum related to imagery in the REA had not yet been signed? If true, you think it would be one of the main bullet points as to the purpose of the Addendum, not one of the last things mentioned. And again, at that time UND had conveyed its plan to transition to a new nickname, the NCAA had no reason to enforce sanctions. And again, the purpose of this thread was to establish if anyone had any credible evidence and sources or if people are just assuming that the NCAA had no reason to enforce sanctions. If the latter, that is fine. All I'm asking is whether that stance is based on a credible source or based upon the poster's opinion or assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 And again, the purpose of this thread was to establish if anyone had any credible evidence and sources or if people are just assuming that the NCAA had no reason to enforce sanctions. If the latter, that is fine. All I'm asking is whether that stance is based on a credible source or based upon the poster's opinion or assumptions. Yet your position is based only on your opinion and you have no credible evidence or any other source. Maybe it would help if you would admit that rather than trying to pass that opinion off as fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 What part of "transitioning to a new nickname and logo" do people not understand?!! That language is in the settlement is pretty easy to understand. The absense of a nickname is not a new nickname. UND must transition to a new nickname. It really is that simple. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 No one knows for sure if they must transition to a new nickname but it in my opinion it needs to be addressed. What satisfies the written agreement that has been in place since 2012? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 What part of "transitioning to a new nickname and logo" do people not understand?!! That language is in the settlement. Pretty easy to understand. The absense of a nickname is not a new nickname. UND must transition to a new nickname. It really is that simple. You say, "UND must…." as if there is no alternative. I ask in response, "What are the consequences if UND doesn't?" See the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Yet your position is based only on your opinion and you have no credible evidence or any other source. Maybe it would help if you would admit that rather than trying to pass that opinion off as fact. Read the facts in the original post, brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 You say, "UND must…." as if there is no alternative. I ask in response, "What are the consequences if UND doesn't?" See the difference? Read the damn settlemert agreement!! Seriously!! Do I have to make a picture book and read it to you on the magic carpet in the preschool room for you to understand? Come on man!!! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Read the damn settlemert agreement!! Seriously!! Do I have to make a picture book and read it to you on the magic carpet in the preschool room for you to understand? Come on man!!! He should also read the addendum. The addendum expressly amended the settlement agreement to confirm that UND was now in compliance with NCAA's policy because UND was no longer using the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. To the extent there is a conflict between the original settlement agreement and the addendum, the addendum expressly states that the addendum governs the parties' responsibilities. Also, the addendum does not discuss, reference, or imply UND's transition to a new nickname. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 He should also read the addendum. The addendum expressly amended the settlement agreement to confirm that UND was now in compliance with NCAA's policy because UND was no longer using the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. To the extent there is a conflict between the original settlement agreement and the addendum, the addendum expressly states that the addendum governs the parties' responsibilities. Also, the addendum does not discuss, reference, or imply UND's transition to a new nickname. Which means you refer to the original agreement for that. And the original agreement says UND must transition to a NEW nickname. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I think since no other NCAA team has "no nickname" as their nickname, the NCAA will most likely come out and make a statement on it, maybe they are just waiting for this process to end and then comment on the end result if the end result is in favor of no nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Which means you refer to the original agreement for that. And the original agreement says UND must transition to a NEW nickname. Let's assume your last statement above is 100% accurate and factual......................................could Kelley come off looking like any more of a joke? How could he not know this? For him to bring back "no nickname" as an option flies in the face of your comment above. I'm not good at math but this 2 +2 is not equalling 4 if your post is fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Which means you refer to the original agreement for that. And the original agreement says UND must transition to a NEW nickname. Which means that UND fulfilled its obligation under the original agreement; hence, the NCAA removed UND from the list of school's that were in violation of NCAA policy and the NCAA has not enforced sanctions against UND since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Which means that UND fulfilled its obligation under the original agreement; hence, the NCAA removed UND from the list of school's that were in violation of NCAA policy and the NCAA has not enforced sanctions against UND since then. UND is still transitioning towards a new nickname, the cooling off period was still part of the transition. When Kelley announces that UND's new nickname is the XXXXX it will have met the original agreement. However if they announce there is no nickname then they are "done" transitioning towards a new nickname and since they won't have a nickname it violates the original agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Which means that UND fulfilled its obligation under the original agreement; hence, the NCAA removed UND from the list of school's that were in violation of NCAA policy and the NCAA has not enforced sanctions against UND since then. The Addendum talks about changes in requirements for facilities to meet the Settlement Agreement. It does not talk about changes in nickname. That means that all other requirements of the Settlement Agreement, other than the changes outlined in the Addendum, need to be met. The Settlement Agreement specifically says "new nickname". Since the Addendum doesn't address the nickname, it can not over rule the requirement for a new nickname that is listed in the Settlement Agreement. To say otherwise is pure conjecture on your part, it is not a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.