[Gothmog]

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 12:49 PM, said:

Chewey, on Jul 27 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

One can never predict anything when it comes to a jury. There is a possibility that a jury may see the NC00 in a different way than UND sees it. Juries and judges certainly do get upset if they feel their time is being wasted. There is a possibility that a jury would be sympathetic to the NC00. I am just indicating that UND is better off in ND than somewhere else. After all of the facts are put out there and a jury sees just how arbitrary and capricious and tyrannical the NC00 has been with respect to its own policies, I don't see how a jury could perceive the NC00 as a benevolent player but it could happen. Juries and judges also don't like bullies. People generally don't like players from foreign areas/states trying to ram-rod things in their own areas. I would not be surprised if the NC00 favored moving people into GF. Perhaps this is paranoid but I know it's happened before in ND (See the derailment in Minot involving the CP Rail where CP Rail was paying people at $250.00 per pop at the Town & Country Shopping Center and, allegedly, moving people into Minot in case some cases went to trial there). If it does go to trial, I am sure a lot of money will be spent on analysis teams reviewing prospective jurors.

So, would you say that there's no chance that the NCAA really is a "benevolent player" in this matter? That they created this policy and are attempting to enforce it because they believe that the policy is in the best interest of its membership.

If it was in the best interest of the member, why not get membership approval instead of circumventing the members? Instead, they pushed it through the back door.

Certainly, they should have done exactly that. But that does not mean that Myles Brand and the NCAA leadership are evil people, bent on imposing some sort of dictatorship over college sports.

[GeauxSioux]

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 12:49 PM, said:

Chewey, on Jul 27 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

One can never predict anything when it comes to a jury. There is a possibility that a jury may see the NC00 in a different way than UND sees it. Juries and judges certainly do get upset if they feel their time is being wasted. There is a possibility that a jury would be sympathetic to the NC00. I am just indicating that UND is better off in ND than somewhere else. After all of the facts are put out there and a jury sees just how arbitrary and capricious and tyrannical the NC00 has been with respect to its own policies, I don't see how a jury could perceive the NC00 as a benevolent player but it could happen. Juries and judges also don't like bullies. People generally don't like players from foreign areas/states trying to ram-rod things in their own areas. I would not be surprised if the NC00 favored moving people into GF. Perhaps this is paranoid but I know it's happened before in ND (See the derailment in Minot involving the CP Rail where CP Rail was paying people at $250.00 per pop at the Town & Country Shopping Center and, allegedly, moving people into Minot in case some cases went to trial there). If it does go to trial, I am sure a lot of money will be spent on analysis teams reviewing prospective jurors.

So, would you say that there's no chance that the NCAA really is a "benevolent player" in this matter? That they created this policy and are attempting to enforce it because they believe that the policy is in the best interest of its membership.

If it was in the best interest of the member, why not get membership approval instead of circumventing the members? Instead, they pushed it through the back door.

Certainly, they should have done exactly that. But that does not mean that Myles Brand and the NCAA leadership are evil people, bent on imposing some sort of dictatorship over college sports.

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

[Shawn-O]

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 12:49 PM, said:

Chewey, on Jul 27 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

One can never predict anything when it comes to a jury. There is a possibility that a jury may see the NC00 in a different way than UND sees it. Juries and judges certainly do get upset if they feel their time is being wasted. There is a possibility that a jury would be sympathetic to the NC00. I am just indicating that UND is better off in ND than somewhere else. After all of the facts are put out there and a jury sees just how arbitrary and capricious and tyrannical the NC00 has been with respect to its own policies, I don't see how a jury could perceive the NC00 as a benevolent player but it could happen. Juries and judges also don't like bullies. People generally don't like players from foreign areas/states trying to ram-rod things in their own areas. I would not be surprised if the NC00 favored moving people into GF. Perhaps this is paranoid but I know it's happened before in ND (See the derailment in Minot involving the CP Rail where CP Rail was paying people at $250.00 per pop at the Town & Country Shopping Center and, allegedly, moving people into Minot in case some cases went to trial there). If it does go to trial, I am sure a lot of money will be spent on analysis teams reviewing prospective jurors.

So, would you say that there's no chance that the NCAA really is a "benevolent player" in this matter? That they created this policy and are attempting to enforce it because they believe that the policy is in the best interest of its membership.

If it was in the best interest of the member, why not get membership approval instead of circumventing the members? Instead, they pushed it through the back door.

Certainly, they should have done exactly that. But that does not mean that Myles Brand and the NCAA leadership are evil people, bent on imposing some sort of dictatorship over college sports.

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

How about the banning of bottled water at it's events? Plastic bottles are very hostile and abusive to the enviornment, you know....wait, Coca-Cola and Pepsi are multi-billion dollar enterprises, so scratch that.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

...but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

Coaches? Don't give them any ideas. We've already taken Title IX to quite illogical conclusions.

[Gothmog]

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

Obviously, it was much cheaper and easier not to get that approval, and they may have believed that they didn't need it. The fact that they didn't seek the approval of the membership does not necessarily mean that they would not have gotten it had they done so.

[Shawn-O]

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

Obviously, it was much cheaper and easier not to get that approval, and they may have believed that they didn't need it. The fact that they didn't seek the approval of the membership does not necessarily mean that they would not have gotten it had they done so.

Sometimes cheap is expensive...as the NCAA is finding out.

[mksioux]

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it?

I've stated this before, but since the topic has come up again, I'll state it again. I believe the reason the Executive Committee didn't get membership approval has less to do with whether they would have been able to get it, and more to do with the role they see the Executive Committee playing in the future. More to the point, the Executive Committee wants more power. Not just for this issue, but for future issues. I believe that many within the organization, including the current President, want the NCAA to be a catalyst for social change. If the NCAA needs the entire membership's approval on every policy it wants to enact in furtherance of this goal, it can not become what it wants to be.

The Executive Committee started its power grab against an easy target - the Confederate flag. Next it moved on to Indian nicknames. And by and large, the committee has been pretty successful. Next, they'll probably move on to something more controversial...maybe race/gender coaching requirements .

[GeauxSioux]

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

Obviously, it was much cheaper and easier not to get that approval, and they may have believed that they didn't need it. The fact that they didn't seek the approval of the membership does not necessarily mean that they would not have gotten it had they done so.

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote? What kind of expenses are involved in getting a membership vote? Right now they have likely spent over $1M on the UND case.

You don't think, if they felt they had the membership votes they would have gone that route. How about since the edict came down? They could have gone to the members after they declared some schools "hostile and abusive" and tried to shore up support with a vote after the fact. It didn't happen.

[Shawn-O]

mksioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it?

I've stated this before, but since the topic has come up again, I'll state it again. I believe the reason the Executive Committee didn't get membership approval has less to do with whether they would have been able to get it, and more to do with the role they see the Executive Committee playing in the future. More to the point, the Executive Committee wants more power. Not just for this issue, but for future issues. I believe that many within the organization, including the current President, want the NCAA to be a catalyst for social change. If the NCAA needs the entire membership's approval on every policy it wants to enact in furtherance of this goal, it can not become what it wants to be.

The Executive Committee started its power grab against an easy target - the Confederate flag. Next it moved on to Indian nicknames. And by and large, the committee has been pretty successful. Next, they'll probably move on to something more controversial...maybe race/gender coaching requirements .

Agree 100% here. Ironically, I also think that the nickname ban would have breezed through a membership vote with about a three-quarters majority.

[PCM]

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote?

Exactly. The NCAA routinely has its members vote on policies of far less importance. The idea that trashing the organization's constitution and bylaws was necessary to save time and money is laughable.

[PCM]

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

So you're saying that I should be banished because I disagree with the majority opinion, or because I responded to a smart aleck question with a smart aleck answer?

Relax. Nobody's going to ban you for disagreeing. I would have been banned years ago if that happened.

[Gothmog]

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

Obviously, it was much cheaper and easier not to get that approval, and they may have believed that they didn't need it. The fact that they didn't seek the approval of the membership does not necessarily mean that they would not have gotten it had they done so.

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote? What kind of expenses are involved in getting a membership vote? Right now they have likely spent over $1M on the UND case.

You don't think, if they felt they had the membership votes they would have gone that route. How about since the edict came down? They could have gone to the members after they declared some schools "hostile and abusive" and tried to shore up support with a vote after the fact. It didn't happen.

You're right, foregoing the vote certainly will turn out to be much more expensive.

[Gothmog]

PCM, on Jul 27 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

So you're saying that I should be banished because I disagree with the majority opinion, or because I responded to a smart aleck question with a smart aleck answer?

Relax. Nobody's going to ban you for disagreeing. I would have been banned years ago if that happened.

Thanks, I wasn't really worried.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote? What kind of expenses are involved in getting a membership vote? Right now they have likely spent over $1M on the UND case.

I can't believe that there would be virtually ANY additional expenses with a full membership vote. Issue the Executive committee report to all members (internet or piggyback on other regularly scheduled mailings), add an item to the annual convention agenda and there you have it.

Shawn-O, on Jul 27 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

Ironically, I also think that the nickname ban would have breezed through a membership vote with about a three-quarters majority.

Interesting. I have to think that there would be a lot of lobbying going on, and hard line, scorched-earth schools like FSU would have been out in front of that effort. Furthermore, I don't think all of our Big Ten bretheren would have been as PC as Wisconsin and Iowa.

And I really think that a few well-written ammendments to the original resolution would have shot down its "this group, but not that group" effect.

[Gothmog]

PCM, on Jul 27 2007, 01:45 PM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote?

Exactly. The NCAA routinely has its members vote on policies of far less importance. The idea that trashing the organization's constitution and bylaws was necessary to save time and money is laughable.

It seems to have been a serious mistake.

I suspect that they would have gotten approval had they just asked for it.

[PCM]

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

I suspect that they would have gotten approval had they just asked for it.

It would seem to be a no-brainer. So why didn't they?

[Gothmog]

Chief Illiniwek Supporter, on Jul 27 2007, 01:59 PM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jul 27 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote? What kind of expenses are involved in getting a membership vote? Right now they have likely spent over $1M on the UND case.

I can't believe that there would be virtually ANY additional expenses with a full membership vote. Issue the Executive committee report to all members (internet or piggyback on other regularly scheduled mailings), add an item to the annual convention agenda and there you have it.

Oh, I don't know there may have been some additional expense associated with a vote.

[GeauxSioux]

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

PCM, on Jul 27 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

So you're saying that I should be banished because I disagree with the majority opinion, or because I responded to a smart aleck question with a smart aleck answer?

Relax. Nobody's going to ban you for disagreeing. I would have been banned years ago if that happened.

Thanks, I wasn't really worried.

[Gothmog]

PCM, on Jul 27 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

I suspect that they would have gotten approval had they just asked for it.

It would seem to be a no-brainer. So why didn't they?

Pride, arrogance, stupidity, poor judgment...perhaps. An evil intent...no.

[puck]

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

PCM, on Jul 27 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

I suspect that they would have gotten approval had they just asked for it.

It would seem to be a no-brainer. So why didn't they?

Pride, arrogance, stupidity, poor judgment...perhaps. An evil intent...no.

Bingo..... I think we have a winner.