Cratter Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Yes I have a new client. He's sitting in that chair next to you... What you can't see him? Quote
southpaw Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Anyone else find it a little funny that there is a group of people who are saying the NCAA won't overstep their bounds or care about little ol UND? Yet these same people were calling out the NCAA in 2005 for overstepping its bounds and punishing UND. 2 Quote
STS Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Anyone else find it a little funny that there is a group of people who are saying the NCAA won't overstep their bounds or care about little ol UND? Yet these same people were calling out the NCAA in 2005 for overstepping its bounds and punishing UND. It's also funny that the people who believe the NCAA is waiting in the shadows, sharpening knives, just salivating over the oppurtunity to punish UND has simply ignored the fact that UND has violated the settlement agreement for just shy of four years. I believe the agreement says "new" because nobody really considered the possibility of a school forgoing a nickname and the word "different" could be substituted and follow the spirit of the agreement. For example, had Flickertails been chosen? Would the NCAA come down on UND because it's not a "new" nickname? It's simple, if the no nickname options wins the vote, have the Law School write a letter asking for clarification on whether it violates the agreement and rules on Native American imagery. I don't think Kelly can do this by himself, he doesn't have the credibility, so it would need to be a transparent process to get many peoples buy-in. Quote
CMSioux Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Don't say that. That says the NCAA would be a grudge-holding group of backstabbers. Surely Marco Hunt on the ice in Boston, the Marco Hunt UND got kicked out of NCHC officiating, the Marco Hunt that was angry about it and had a grudge against UND, surely that was a fluke, a mere coincidence. The NCAA forgot all about that history and by pure randomness put Marco Hunt on the ice. Nothing more. Move along. Not to mention the letter writing campaign that pretty much put UND on a black list for scheduling, the certainty that UND won't be chosen if they have a team that is ever on the bubble for at large play-offs and of course there's that hosting thing - hey one benefit is that UND could actually get Fargo blackballed. Quote
scpa0305 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Have you read the Settlement Agreement? You keep going on and on about it, but it doesn't sound like you have actually read it. In Section 2 d (page 5) it plainly states that if UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy. The Policy refers to the policy against the use of Native American nicknames and imagery that was announced on August 5, 2005. That is the rule being violated, it's actually a clause in a contract between UND and the NCAA, and that is what UND agreed to when they signed the Settlement Agreement. I didn't imagine the Settlement Agreement. You're reaching. The NCAA will not hand out sanctions for not breaking a rule. The NCAA would be forced to hand out sanctions to other schools with no nickname (yes i know there are only a couple and are small schools but the point is the same), the NCAA would set precedent with und. If you simply want a new nickname just say it, others have. The thinking that the big bad NCAA will come down on us when we've already went through the process of removing the nickname and logo are ridiculous. The NCAA would be forced to adopt a rule that every school must have a nickname and that would have to be done very soon. 1 Quote
GeauxSioux Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 My take is that UND would be in breach of the Settlement/Addendum, if no nickname was chosen. But, I don't think the NCAA would do anything. Their original intent with all of this was to get rid of the hostile and abusive nicknames, mascots and imagery. With the Fighting Sioux name and logo gone, they achieved their original intent. They would look rather petty in the eyes of the media to force North Dakota have a nickname. 1 Quote
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Because a legally-binding agreement says so. That trumps any quotes or press clippings you post on here. The last thing the NCAA will tolerate is the Fighting Sioux name and logo living on as an "unofficial" nickname. They are not that stupid. Misguided, yes. Stupid, no. But your carefully selected phrase "legally-binding" is only meaningful because there are legal consequences for not complying, right? Nothing is absolute, and these things cannot be viewed in a vacuum. How can you possibly conduct yourself in a society of laws without knowing which types of activities warrant the stiffest penalties and which are throwaways? Speed limits are "legally-binding." What does that mean? Can you get a lengthy prison sentence or death? Of course not. One reason people speed is that the consequences of being caught are relatively mild. Anyone who concludes that UND should not risk breaching the settlement agreement without having first critically examined the possible (and likely) consequences of doing so is either intellectually lazy or a holier-than-thou hypocrite. Be honest, who among you has never breached a contract; website terms of use, iTunes user agreements, and software licenses are contracts, by the way. Moral relativism has no place here; UND is not above breaching a contract when the risks are outweighed by the benefits, and neither are you. So I turn it back on all of the doomsayers: just what is it about the legal consequences of breaching the contract that chills you? An award of money damages? How much is too much to pay? A court order mandating that UND select a name? Is that any worse than the NCAA, or is it in some way actually better? Or are you worried about reputation and appearances? Do you fear for UND's credibility in the business world? Is UND not well served by adhering to principles and fighting rather than capitulating to a bully? Quote
GeauxSioux Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Yes I have a new client. He's sitting in that chair next to you... What you can't see him? Wait, is the clients name Harvey? Quote
bigskyvikes Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Don't say that. That says the NCAA would be a grudge-holding group of backstabbers. Surely Marco Hunt on the ice in Boston, the Marco Hunt UND got kicked out of NCHC officiating, the Marco Hunt that was angry about it and had a grudge against UND, surely that was a fluke, a mere coincidence. The NCAA forgot all about that history and by pure randomness put Marco Hunt on the ice. Nothing more. Move along. This kills me.... Do you think the refs were picked for that weekend the day after UND punched its ticket to the FF? Or, were the refs informed on who is working the FF several weeks before the FF?! Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Anyone else find it a little funny that there is a group of people who are saying the NCAA won't overstep their bounds or care about little ol UND? Yet these same people were calling out the NCAA in 2005 for overstepping its bounds and punishing UND. I was one of those people in 2005 saying the NCAA overstepped their bounds. Why? I'd read the bylaws. I communicated with the then administration of UND (Kupchella and Harmeson) about it. They agreed. They pushed back at the NCAA. What happened? The NCAA changed their rules so they weren't breaking them any longer. But now, seeing that and experiencing that, I see that the NCAA plays fast and loose with the rules to their benefit. Worse? The general membership has given approval and power to the Board of Governors (formerly called the Executive Committee) to keep on doing it. 1 Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 This kills me.... Do you think the refs were picked for that weekend the day after UND punched its ticket to the FF? Or, were the refs informed on who is working the FF several weeks before the FF?! Game assignments were made after regionals. Quote
jdub27 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 So I turn it back on all of the doomsayers: just what is it about the legal consequences of breaching the contract that chills you? An award of money damages? How much is too much to pay? A court order mandating that UND select a name? Is that any worse than the NCAA, or is it in some way actually better? Or are you worried about reputation and appearances? Do you fear for UND's credibility in the business world? Is UND not well served by adhering to principles and fighting rather than capitulating to a bully? The sanctions UND could face have been spelled out very clearly if they do not remain in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Quote
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 NCAA sanctions are not a legal consequence for breach of contract. Next. Quote
jdub27 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 NCAA sanctions are not a legal consequence for breach of contract. Next. I'm not concerned about legal consequences at this point, I'm concerned about the NCAA enforcing the sanctions as referenced in the Settlement Agreement, one's the UND is aware of and agreed to face if they are found to be out of compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 NCAA sanctions are not a legal consequence for breach of contract. Next. Ah, the word "legal". There are not "legal" consequences; but, breech of the settlement agreement contract has consequences and ramifications, namely sanctions. And if it were to happen, UND's recourse would be through the courts, the legal system, potentially. But a court would laugh and say ... (wait for it) ... you're in breech. Quote
GeauxSioux Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Ah, the word "legal". There are not "legal" consequences; but, breech of the settlement agreement contract has consequences and ramifications, namely sanctions. And if it were to happen, UND's recourse would be through the courts, the legal system, potentially. But a court would laugh and say ... (wait for it) ... you're in breech. breech brēCH/ noun 1. the part of a cannon behind the bore. 2. archaic a person's buttocks. verb archaic 1. put (a boy) into breeches after being in petticoats since birth. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 You're reaching. The NCAA will not hand out sanctions for not breaking a rule. The NCAA would be forced to hand out sanctions to other schools with no nickname (yes i know there are only a couple and are small schools but the point is the same), the NCAA would set precedent with und. If you simply want a new nickname just say it, others have. The thinking that the big bad NCAA will come down on us when we've already went through the process of removing the nickname and logo are ridiculous. The NCAA would be forced to adopt a rule that every school must have a nickname and that would have to be done very soon. Pay attention to more than hockey. I've listed a lot of reasons in other threads that explain why UND should have a nickname. A few of those include marketing and branding; something that can be used for cheers, chants, songs; creating an identity that current and future students can identify with, etc. This discussion is about other potential issues. This penalty is written into the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA would not have to adopt a new rule, and they wouldn't have to apply this to any other schools. We've even had a real attorney say that this is a possibility. So forgive me if I decide not to take your legal advice. 4 2 Quote
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Posted July 30, 2015 It's also funny that the people who believe the NCAA is waiting in the shadows, sharpening knives, just salivating over the oppurtunity to punish UND has simply ignored the fact that UND has violated the settlement agreement for just shy of four years. This is the credited response. Most of you are neglecting to consider that the original settlement agreement said transition to a new nickname "on or before August 15, 2011". UND did not do that, and NCAA put UND on sanctions for the 2011-2012 season. Then UND dropped "Fighting Sioux" in June 2012, and the NCAA and UND "amended " the settlement agreement to remove UND from sanctions on September 24, 2012. END OF STORY. 1 1 Quote
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Posted July 30, 2015 Pay attention to more than hockey. I've listed a lot of reasons in other threads that explain why UND should have a nickname. A few of those include marketing and branding; something that can be used for cheers, chants, songs; creating an identity that current and future students can identify with, etc . This discussion is about other potential issues. This penalty is written into the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA would not have to adopt a new rule, and they wouldn't have to apply this to any other schools. We've even had a real attorney say that this is a possibility. So forgive me if I decide not to take your legal advice. And if that is the case, UND could do a better job of marketing and branding. University of Michigan doesn't seem to have an issue with selling merchandise, branding it's school name, or having one of the most recognizable school songs in the country, all of which have nothing to with wolverines. Go Blue? Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 This is the credited response. Most of you are neglecting to consider that the original settlement agreement said transition to a new nickname "on or before August 15, 2011". UND did not do that, and NCAA put UND on sanctions for the 2011-2012 season. Then UND dropped "Fighting Sioux" in June 2012, and the NCAA and UND "amended " the settlement agreement to remove UND from sanctions on September 24, 2012. END OF STORY. And we have yet more cherry picking. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 This is the credited response. Most of you are neglecting to consider that the original settlement agreement said transition to a new nickname "on or before August 15, 2011". UND did not do that, and NCAA put UND on sanctions for the 2011-2012 season. Then UND dropped "Fighting Sioux" in June 2012, and the NCAA and UND "amended " the settlement agreement to remove UND from sanctions on September 24, 2012. END OF STORY. The Settlement Agreement was amended to change the terms regarding the display of Fighting Sioux imagery within Ralph Engelstad Arena. The purpose of the Addendum was not to remove UND from sanctions. 4 Quote
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Posted July 30, 2015 The Settlement Agreement was amended to change the terms regarding the display of Fighting Sioux imagery within Ralph Engelstad Arena. The purpose of the Addendum was not to remove UND from sanctions. And yet, it removed UND from sanctions. Get real. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 And if that is the case, UND could do a better job of marketing and branding. University of Michigan doesn't seem to have an issue with selling merchandise, branding it's school name, or having one of the most recognizable school songs in the country, all of which have nothing to with wolverines. Go Blue? Sorry, there is a major difference marketing and branding one of the best known schools in the country, and a smaller state school that is much less well known. Also, that well known school has been branding that school name and image for more than 100 years, while UND is trying to rebrand after losing the Fighting Sioux nickname. Quote
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Many of you are the NCAA's bitch, some seem content to be the NCAA's bitch, and some appear to even relish the role. There are ways out, but you have closed your minds to the concept of freedom. For you, there is no hope. I am sorry. 2 Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 And yet, it removed UND from sanctions. Get real. It mentioned nothing about the nickname part of the issue. The addendum only applies to the specific issues that were addressed in the addendum. You can't extrapolate the addendum to address everything else. So no, it did not explicitly remove UND from sanctions. It says that UND will not be on sanctions if they follow the settlement agreement as amended to include the changes in what can be displayed at REA. Quote
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.