PCM

There almost always is.

Or is Brandon Bochenski coming back for his final year?

In case you haven't noticed, my official sudo-reporter title is "USCHO Arena Reporter." When Ralph Engelstad Arena makes the trip to Anchorage, I'll be there.

Everybody's gone north to Alaska.

I wonder how many universities come to Sitting Bull College offering "the same thing" as UND? Proabably all those that have the same or more Indian-related programs as UND. I've known for nearly five years that Sitting Bull College wasn't happy with UND's nickname. Just consider who served as the college's president for many years. Now it's suddenly newsworthy. I wonder why?

I haven't heard any specifics for tonight, but in the past when the team travels to Alaska, there is no hockey segment on the show.

Donald the Puck knows all!

The Crookston Times says: Here's the mistake that many in the media and the activists make. They assume that this issue creates nothing but negative PR for UND. They are wrong. Most sports fans can't stand the NCAA and applaud UND for standing up to it. Most people can't stand political correctness and admire UND for fighting it. Most Americans love it when the underdog takes on the heavy favorite and wins. The fact that both liberals and conservatives can find common ground to support UND on the issue demonstrates this. The mistake that name-change activists, the media and academia make is believing that the average American thinks like them and believes what they believe. They are wrong.

And you could be right. For all I know, the NCAA could put the policy to a member vote before the trial ever happens. Time will tell.

Plus, links to this story have been posted at least three times in the Sioux Names Forum.

Yes.

So why didn't they? You claim that passing the legislation is a slam-dunk. If that's true, the members would have done it and made the policy bullet-proof. But they didn't, and there has to be a reason why they didn't. I'm giving a reason that's pure speculation on my part, but it's based on my experience in association politics. I've seen this kind of thing happen before. I think it's a case of the most powerful members of the NCAA believing that they can reign in the Executive Committee when the need arises. They run the association, not the executive committee.

I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure I know. Exhibit A is the University of Wisconsin. At one point, it was hailed as an NCAA "model institution" for its policy against scheduling games with schools that have American Indian nicknames. More recently, UW received an F grade from the Black Coaches Assocation for refusing to participate in a survey about its recruitment of minority coaches. We know from the Confederate flag controversy that the BCA has the NCAA's ear. It's quite obvious that even the status of an NCAA "model institution" can change nearly overnight. That's why I think NCAA members are willing to turn a blind eye to an Executive Committee decree with which they mostly agree. However, they're smart enough to know that voting on legislation to skewer other members is an invitation to open the floodgates. There's Stanford's misbehaving tree and band, Iowa's sexist pink vistor's locker room, Wisconsin's band of hazers, anti-Semitism at SCSU, age discrimination at NDSU and Miami's gangsta football team. All NCAA members know that they have skeletons in their closet and potential "social justice" problems on the horizon. The membership is willing to give the Executive Committee just enough freedom to do what they're not foolish enough to do themselves because of the boomerang effect. If they lose in court, so what? Look at how many schools they've forced to change their names. And they can tell the tribes, "Hey. We tried and we accomplished something."

Here it is.

Enjoy it while you can.

It's a novel journalistic concept called presenting differing American Indian opinions.

I never thought I'd read anything like that in the Star-Tribune.

Yes. About five years ago.

I guess I don't understand why the injunction would apply to UND only and not to every school affected by it. If the judge says that the NCAA violated its own rules to implement the policy, then the policy is illegitimate. If the policy is legally void, then nobody is covered by it.

The story made the San Jose Mercury-News.

Not exactly. This is what North Dakota's brief responding to the NCAA brief says:

Hic! Ummm...why do you ask?

I heard Woog talking about the SCSU students in the "Dog Pond." Is that where they take baths?