fightingsioux4life Posted July 30, 2015 Share 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. And what would those be? Bringing back the Fighting Sioux name and logo and "accept the sanctions"? Have separate hockey jerseys that don't have the name and/or logo because regionals aren't held on-campus anymore anyway? Give a big FU (not a reference to that other school 75 miles away this time) to all the other sports we sponsor because they aren't played on ice? Are thoses the "ways out" you are thinking of? Sorry, that ship sailed a long time ago. We are coming up on 10 years of fighting this battle and we are still in the same place we were on August 5, 2005. When is enough enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 OVERULED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 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. Other than "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo" and that "the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I FIND U IN CONTEMPT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Other than "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo" and that "the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy." remains in compliance with the Settlement Agreement if it has already not been removed Continuing to cherry pick words from an Addendum about imagery will not make it true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 remains in compliance with the Settlement Agreement if it has already not been removed Continuing to cherry pick words from an Addendum about imagery will not make it true. Hey Pot-- What about the the fact that the transition must be "completed on or before August 15, 2011"? Thanks, Kettle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Hey Pot-- What about the the fact that the transition must be "completed on or before August 15, 2011"? Thanks, Kettle The NCAA not acting on that does not preclude them from doing so in the future. If UND was in communication with them (and quotes from Grant Shaft show they were) and outlining their processes and progress towards implementing a new nickname, the NCAA has little to nothing to gain by enforcing the sanctions until they feel UND is no longer following the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA had the pleasure of dealing with Al Carlson, they likely felt some sympathy for UND being held hostage by him and the legislature and again, had nothing to gain by imposing sanctions on UND when they were doing the best they could at the time. It is not a coincidence that the search for a new nickname started as the cooling off period was winding down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choyt3 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Having read no answer, I'll ask the question again. I believe the question stands as asked. If "no nickname" is not a legal option, why would Kelley even give the matter consideration? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 The NCAA not acting on that does not preclude them from doing so in the future. If UND was in communication with them (and quotes from Grant Shaft show they were) and outlining their processes and progress towards implementing a new nickname, the NCAA has little to nothing to gain by enforcing the sanctions until they feel UND is no longer following the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA had the pleasure of dealing with Al Carlson, they likely felt some sympathy for UND being held hostage by him and the legislature and again, had nothing to gain by imposing sanctions on UND when they were doing the best they could at the time. And that's more than fine that you believe this. All I've wanted to know is if anyone has any concrete evidence that the NCAA will slap sanctions against UND more than four years after UND was seemingly in violation of the settlement agreement. I am not asking about people's opinion on the matter. So, I'll be more direct, has anyone been told by a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? Has anyone read anything from a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 30, 2015 Share 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. What are they? I'd be open to listening to your ideas of dealing with the NCAA. My opinion on it is yes, there is the legal part and I won't try and argue that as this thread has proven there is a ton of grey area in the agreement. All I have asked is the UND leadership make this black and white for the people who will ultimately be voting on the nickname and at the end of the day don't have skin in the game. It really shouldn't be that difficult for them to lay out what was agreed upon. To me this is part of the "institutional control" that the NCAA loves to use and is very loosely defined. Than there is the NCAA's being able to take things out on UND. The NCAA and various committees make so many decisions that have an effect on UND, why give them any reason to make things difficult? These would include seeding, scheduling and to an extent conference affiliation if UND ever had a reason to switch. I don't think its fair to potentially punish the current or future athletes so some fans can hang on to a past nickname, regardless how popular it was. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 So, I'll be more direct, has anyone been told by a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? Has anyone read anything from a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? Having read no answer, I'll ask the question again. I believe the question stands as asked. If "no nickname" is not a legal option, why would Kelley even give the matter consideration? jdub27 or 82SiouxGuy? Getting an answer to the 2 posts above would seem to clear a lot of this up. You two seem to have lots of answers so let's hear it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 And that's more than fine that you believe this. All I've wanted to know is if anyone has any concrete evidence that the NCAA will slap sanctions against UND more than four years after UND was seemingly in violation of the settlement agreement. I am not asking about people's opinion on the matter. So, I'll be more direct, has anyone been told by a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? Has anyone read anything from a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? You have a nice double standard. You want concrete evidence from everyone else, but you haven't provided any concrete evidence that the NCAA won't slap sanctions on UND. Just because they haven't so far doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to do so, and doesn't mean that they won't in the future. You provide some concrete evidence that the NCAA either can't or won't decide to sanction UND if they permanently go without a nickname and we can continue the discussion. Otherwise you are just spouting your own opinion, and not even admitting it is just an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Having read no answer, I'll ask the question again. I believe the question stands as asked. If "no nickname" is not a legal option, why would Kelley even give the matter consideration? CYA, and giving the impression to the "never say die" set that he values their opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 CYA, and giving the impression to the "never say die" set that he values their opinion. So in essence it is Kelley just being Kelley. Boy are we glad we landed him to guide UND thru this nickname process................. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 jdub27 or 82SiouxGuy? Getting an answer to the 2 posts above would seem to clear a lot of this up. You two seem to have lots of answers so let's hear it. I've asked people within UND and they didn't know. They didn't specify whether that meant the question hadn't been asked or the NCCA declined giving an answer but the way it was presented, I believe the latter to be the most likely explanation. Take it for what its worth. There are people that should have a definitive answer on the question but to date, there has not been a public comment on it that I'm aware of, even if it is that the NCAA has declined to take a stance at this time. I agree fully that whatever questions that have been asked should be made public, regardless of the answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 So, I'll be more direct, has anyone been told by a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? Has anyone read anything from a NCAA or UND representative that failure to adopt something other than "North Dakota" will result in sanctions? You have a nice double standard. You want concrete evidence from everyone else, but you haven't provided any concrete evidence that the NCAA won't slap sanctions on UND. Just because they haven't so far doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to do so, and doesn't mean that they won't in the future. You provide some concrete evidence that the NCAA either can't or won't decide to sanction UND if they permanently go without a nickname and we can continue the discussion. Otherwise you are just spouting your own opinion, and not even admitting it is just an opinion. Okay, 82SiouxGuy clarified that he doesn't have any concrete evidence. How about anyone else, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Okay, 82SiouxGuy clarified that he doesn't have any concrete evidence. How about anyone else, though? Where is your concrete evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Where is your concrete evidence? Anyone else . . . ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 jdub27 or 82SiouxGuy? Getting an answer to the 2 posts above would seem to clear a lot of this up. You two seem to have lots of answers so let's hear it. I'll take a stab. Kelley said he was going to consider it to take control of the situation. There were rally's and public outcry ehen it was removed. By saying he is going to "consider" putting North Dakota back on the list, he can control the lynch mob mentality of the situation without actually going back on the committees decision. North Dakota will not be on the Final ballot. But at least for now, the firestorm is a least under control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Your not going to find any concrete evidence. Our administration or committee members need to be the ones to provide it and I don't know if any of them know for certain. Again, this thread proves the grey area regarding interpretation of the signed agreement between the state of North Dakota and the NCAA. What there is evidence of from the NCAA is them getting their members to cooperate with them by hammering them in ways that can directly affect their success. They can range from putting very loosely defined violation terms on schools- "unethical conduct" or "lack of institutional control" to some of its members not scheduling teams or conference membership deals. Those can be proven and have happened all across the country. The only thing there is concrete evidence of is the NCAA is very inconsistent of the way it goes about its business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 CYA, and giving the impression to the "never say die" set that he values their opinion. Exactly. He didn't become president of a flagship university without understanding how to be a politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I've asked people within UND and they didn't know. They didn't specify whether that meant the question hadn't been asked or the NCCA declined giving an answer but the way it was presented, I believe the latter to be the most likely explanation. Take it for what its worth. There are people that should have a definitive answer on the question but to date, there has not been a public comment on it that I'm aware of, even if it is that the NCAA has declined to take a stance at this time. I agree fully that whatever questions that have been asked should be made public, regardless of the answers. Most large organizations aren't going to issue what amounts to be a legal opinion about a hypothetical situation. The NCAA has always been careful about those situations. I would be shocked if the NCAA answered the question and have said so before. But I haven't had an opportunity to ask anyone whether the NCAA has been asked or not. But any official correspondence or communication in a written or electronic form would be available through FOIA requests. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 MISS TRIAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 MISS TRIAL Is that all you have left? Cute little two word answers in all caps? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Is that all you have left? Cute little two word answers in all caps? He probably means "mistrial" as in the prefix "mis", meaning wrong or incorrect. 1 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.