Gothmog

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

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

It seems to have been a serious mistake. I suspect that they would have gotten approval had they just asked for it.

Thanks, I wasn't really worried.

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

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.

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.

Well, whomever may have instituted this policy, did they do so because they have a problem with UND?

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?

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.

And the NCAA is only doing this because they have some axe to grind with UND.

I can't help but notice that much of your argument is based on the assumption that a jury would be favorable to UND. While that may be a reasonable assumption, isn't there at least a chance that the opposite might happen? Isn't it possible that the jury might see the NCAA as a sympathetic figure? After all, UND could have resolved this issue years ago if they had simply done as many other schools have done. Don't juries usually get upset if they believe their time is being wasted on an issue that could have easily been resolved by one of the parties? Also, would you admit any possibility that the NCAA really is acting in what it sees, however misguided, as the best interests of college sports?

Well, I'm not an attorney, from your post you seem to be. If you are an attorney, what is your honest legal opinion? Is UND likely to prevail?

C'mon! Saying "what if" doesn't get you off the hook. You were assuming that there is a realistic chance of those things actually happening, which seems not to be the case given the judges instructions to the parties regarding a settlement. Unlike you, I only assumed what the previous poster had asserted as fact. And, I might add, that assumption was clearly stated in the second sentence of my post - "If UND were to win on those grounds..."

"millions in damages" "I don't think they will be able to pass the new and improved version of it" And you think I'm assuming too much?

Ahhh, but that's the rub isn't it? If UND were to win on those grounds, wouldn't they just be setting themselves up for a cleaned-up version of the same policy? One that would be much more difficult to challenge in court because the previous lawsuit resolved most, if not all, of the other legal claims UND had available? This lawsuit appears to be a lose-lose situation for UND. If they win this round they're just that much less likely to win the next round.

The "FCS" designation is simply an attempt to correct the common misconception that "DI-AA" was a completely separate division. Including the word "Football" in the title emphasizes the one-sport scope of the designation. I agree that it's a bit clumsy, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it changed in the near future. However, for now, it's FCS not I-AA. Why not just use that name out of courtesy to those who have worked hard to make the sub-division what it is and are proud of it? UND is, after all, about to shell out a pile of cash to join that group.

I'm curious. Other than your personal bias against NDSU, where do you get the idea that Minnesota played so poorly in that game? The Gophers had no turnovers, only 2 sacks given up, and generally put up respectable numbers. Certainly it wasn't their best game, but it was hardly "their worst football ever."

Well, the reports are that Moss ran a 4.29 for New England and a 4.3 for that Packers. Get ready, Moss and New England will dominate the league.

Except that there is no separate mascot debate.

Yes, everyone realizes that, to its credit, UND doesn't have a guy dressed up in an Indian suit, and that that fact is relevant to the discussion. But, you manage to completely miss the point. Your interpetation of the meaning of that word is debatable, at best, and in my view flat wrong! In any case, how one defines that word makes no absolutely no difference to the nickname debate.

Why is it that Sioux fans make such a point of insisting that UND does not have a "mascot"? Why does the definition of that word make any difference?

No, you've got it backwards. Hating NDSU doesn't make you crazy, being crazy makes you hate NDSU.

Sorry, the guy really frustrates me. I'll take my own advice and take a step away from this topic.

Again, in your opinion.