PCM

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Brand and Harrison constantly go back to this above point. And yet, I have not seen one shred of evidence provided by anyone from UND, the tribes or at the NCAA that the presence of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo have ever caused a hostile and abusive atmosphere at an NCAA championship event. I've read the entire minority report to the NCAA written by the name-change advocates. Nowhere in that report are any incidents of racism, hostility or abuse cited as being present at an NCAA event as a result of UND's participation. Has anyone ever claimed to have witnessed or been subjected to hostility and abuse at an NCAA event sponsored by the NCAA? Because unless that is the case, the NCAA's policy is clearly not aimed at correcting or preventing any documented problem associated with NCAA events. It's aimed at forcing UND others to make changes based on events alleged to occur on the university campus and at athletic events over which the NCAA readily admits that it has no control or authority. You'd think that if the NCAA was going to constantly claim that it is controling only what's within its realm to control, it could easily cite some evidence of the problem occurring at the events it runs. But it never has. The NCAA has made no attempt whatsoever to do this, and neither have any of the tribes or groups advocating that UND change its name. How difficult would it have been to gather such evidence during the many NCAA playoff games in which UND's teams have participated the past couple of years? How is it that the NCAA claims that it is correcting a problem that supposedly occurs at its events, but cannot provide once shred of evidence that the problem even exists? If the NCAA was truly being respectful of the institutional autonomy of its members, it wouldn't even consider evidence of "hostility and abuse" that occur outside of the events it controls. The only way the NCAA can get to where it wants to go is by considering evidence that occurs outside the events it controls and outside its scope of authority.

According to this NCAA news release, we won't be hearing anything official until Friday.

Certainly. But the recent Fargo Forum poll showed that the number of people in the state who favor UND maintaining the Fighting Sioux nickname far outnumber those who don't. I believe polls conducted by UND among students and alumni show the same thing. And that's the problem with a story such as this: no context. 200 UND alumni out of how many? Out of the UND faculty who signed a recent letter to Chancellor Potts, how many didn't sign it? Out of the dozen or so UND Native American students who protested the nickname during the NCAA West Regional at Engelstad Arena, how many didn't protest? Context is everything in this debate, and too often, it's totally lacking. Every time some group of people or some influential individual comes out against sports teams using American Indian nicknames, it's treated as if it represents some important new shift in the debate. But after more than 30 years of debate, the polls among American Indians show that only a minority of them believes that this is an important issue. If, after all this time, you can't convince the majority of the alleged victims that they're actually being harmed, what's that say about your issue?

Here's the story from ESPN.com: Nickname debate gains steam before NCAA appeal Morrison's statement falls within the "anyone can say anything" realm of credibility.

Mutrie and no comment.

In Goren's first season (97-98) as a sophomore, he played in 29 games in which he had 3 goals and 13 assists. That was disappointing, but as I recall, he had problems with his health that season. As a junior, Goren scored 26 goals and had 19 assists. As a senior, he had 34 goals and 29 assists. I think there was only one season where it's fair to say Goren didn't live up to expectations, but there were also extenuating circumstances.

It was Leopold. For that faux pas, you're out of the clique.

Someone should check into the cost of making ice with holy water.

Thanks to you, the Sioux have a winning record at the new Ralph. Maybe I should donate my ice to the cause and break the Gopher curse.

I still have some ice from the old Ralph in my freezer at home.

When you're right, you're right.

Gosh, I wish someone would post a video so I'd know if your account of what happened was anywhere near accurate.

Stop cheering us up.

I can't agree with the "lacks vision" aspect of that criticism. I saw Kessel make quite a few nice plays throughout the season because of his vision.

Or maybe it was Perky Sparko. No more beeg moneez in EHN-AYCH-EL.

I saw this streaming video posted on the NCAA Web site: End of Season Ice Hockey Officiating Video for AHCA Discussion The three topics covered are checking from behind, the crease rule and directing the puck in with a skate. However, when I watch the video with RealPlayer, I get no audio. Anyone else have this problem? Or is this a video without sound? Two examples shown of the crease rule are from UND games. One is from the Mankato game in which the goal was disallowed on replay and the other was from the Minnesota game in which Kessel scored while Stoa was standing in the crease. EDIT: I tried playing the video with Windows Media Player and also get no audio.

That is a key part of UND's strategy. I can't agree with that. Yes, the lawyers will get rich. But if UND walks away with the legally established right to use the Fighting Sioux logo and nickname, then it wins and the NCAA loses. In some ways, I'd find that outcome preferable to an NCAA policy waiver.

I can. What if some high-priced attorney with expertise in anti-trust law reviewed UND's last appeal and told Brand, "You don't want this to go to court." What if lawyers told the presidents sitting on the DII Presidents Council the same thing? Go back and listen to what Brand and Walter Harrison were saying on Aug. 5, 2005. Look at the appeals that have been granted since then. Look at how many times the NCAA has retreated from enforcing its policy every time that UND has challenged it. At one time, the NCAA said that even having tribal permission to use a nickname wasn't good enough to get a school removed from its "hostile and abusive" list. At one time, the NCAA said that effective on Aug. 5, 2006, no school would be allowed to wear uniforms with American Indian references or imagery. At one time, the NCAA said that all Sioux references in Engelstad Arena would have to be covered up for the West Regional. At one time, the NCAA said that after Feb. 1, no school with an American Indian nickname would be allowed to host an NCAA tournament or plalyoff event. At one time, the NCAA said all appeals would be decided by Feb. 1, 2006. At one time, the NCAA said that all appeals would be decided by April 27, 2006. And now, we have Brand saying that the appeals process could go on another several months. I can see how we could win it.

Matt Greene will be pleased to learn that.

The NCAA process was outlined here. It will be interesting to see what recommendation the DII Presidents Council makes to the Executive Committee. Will the presidents oppose the executive committee's policy? If so, will we be told about it? Heading into April 27, I thought this would be the final step in the appeals process because that's what the NCAA had said. However, on the April 10 "Monday with Myles" program in which NCAA Double-A Zone blogger Josh Centor interviews NCAA President Myles Brand, the following exchange occurred: It now sounds as if Brand doesn't expect all appeals to be decided on April 27 which, if true, represents yet another NCAA retreat from its policy. Could it be that the last thing the NCAA wants to have happen is for this issue to go to court? UND has given every indication that this is what will happen once its final appeal is denied.

Can you elaborate on this problem? How is it that at least some Hockey East schools allow photographers to sell photos of their teams but UND won't? What's the issue?

I understand your's and Tony's conspiracy theories. They make no sense. The governor appoints the State Board of Higher Education, not the legislature. The legislature has quite a bit of control over higher education through the funding process. So it's not as if the legislators have no say in what happens in higher ed. Just ask Kendall Baker. I don't doubt that the media is being used by someone in an attempt to gain a political advantage. That is quite clear. Unfortunately, based on what's been published, I don't think any of us knows enough about who's doing this for what reason to say with any certainty why it's happening now. So speculate all you want and throw out all the conspiracies you want. Until you can provide some evidence to back up your theories, I'll continue to ask: How do you know?

And you know this how?

For anyone interested in UND game-worn jerseys, there will be an on-line men's hockey jersey auction beginning Monday (April 27) on fightingsioux.com. Proceeds will go back into the men's hockey budget.

What the are you talking about?