Benny Baker

UNC-Pembroke is doing fine with their "Braves" nickname!

Steve McNair, whoop whoop!

dakota, I believe the article I’m thinking of is entitled “Sioux Unhappy: Challenging the NCAA’s Ban on Native American Imagery, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 171 (2006-2007)” by Kelly P. O’Neill. I can’t find a link to the full article unfortunately. I’ll try again and see if I can find anything. There is also a William and Mary Law Review article entitled “Playing Cowboys and Indians” that is pretty interesting. I believe this also discusses the inconsistent application of the NCAA policy and the fact that the policy violated the NCAA’s own constitution, which provides that “it is the responsibility of each member institution to determine independently its own policy regarding nondiscrimination.” Piece by piece, these articles highlight a lot of interesting points. For example, before the policy was even put in place, the NCAA exempted the UNC-Pembroke Braves, which boasts an Indian head logo similar to North Dakota’s, because of its historical ties to the Native American community and that 20% of its students were Native American. Some universities received approval to continue using a Native American based moniker because they amended their logo to remove Native American references. Bradley Braves, William and Mary Tribe, etc. Illinois, which has no native American tribe that the university could even seek approval, was allowed to keep the name because “Illini” is closely associated with the state’s name. Their mascot was retired, however. No school has been required to gain approval of more than one local tribe---obviously UND is the exception. Florida State only needed approval of the local Florida Seminole tribe despite the fact that most Seminoles both live in Oklahoma and are opposed to the Florida state nickname. I’m guessing a lot of it stems from the animosity of being kicked out of Florida altogether. Here are some other links: http://www.law.uconn.edu/system/files/private/Native%20American%20Team%20Names%20and%20Mascots.pdf http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/journals/sportslaw/documents/Fall%202008%20-%202.pdf http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/107/8/Mezey.pdf http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/journals/rrgc/issues/RRGC_9_135_cummings_Harper.pdf To be honest, there is a lot more out on the internet than I thought. If interested, just runs some google searches that quote law review; ncaa; hostile and abusive; fighting Sioux. Or any other combinations that you might find relevant.

I'll definitely try to find it. I'll be able to get the name and title, but not sure about any online links as it's a published article.

Alcorn State kept their hostile and abusive name, are facing sanctions, and did not lose conference affiliation. Just saying that these sorts of anecdotal evidence go both ways. But above all else, conference membership is what concerns me about the nickname controversy, although Terry Wanless eased those concerns somewhat.

They can't. Even SCOTUS had made it very clear that the NCAA must apply its policies in a consistent manner and NOT in an arbitrary or capricious manner. There's even published literature, a law review article, which discusses how arbitrary and unfair the NCAA's settlement with UND was relative to other institutions.

I don't think it's UND's choice to do so, not would it be if given the choice. I think it's the Legislature's. But then again, why the hell won't the NCAA give up on their arbitrarily-enforced policy. The benefit thereof which will never be accomplished when the NCAA continues to allow half of the original schools to keep what originally was deemed a "hostile and abusive" nickname. I hope they are well aware of the complete mess that they have created thousands of miles away in North Dakota.

You know how I can tell when someone realizes that their argument has failed but is unwilling to concede? When “they” begin to pick at one’s grammar on an internet message “bored”, instead of sticking to the main point. You referenced it first, not me. But anyone with logic skills would have realized if this was about "competition", Herbie would have told Zach to say close to home at Mankota. That way, Zach would have had the benefit of playing the tough competition from the Big Ten as well as North Dakota. This sticking point is UND's program, facilities, and coaches, which are UNIQUE from all other schools. That is why. It's not because UND plays two Big Ten schools every year. If you keep it up, I'm not giving you a ladder and you can stay in you're whole.

Brooks said he had told Parise to go to the University of North Dakota because of its outstanding program and coaching staff. Later, in a radio interview, Brooks would add that if a player’s future goal was playing in the NHL, he’d recommend North Dakota because of its program, facilities, and coaching. In recent years, North Dakota has proved Brooks to be prophetic, by turning recruits into high draft picks and NHL players. Where did Herb mention competition, Minnesota, and Wisconsin? Or was he simply too busy discusisng NORTH DAKOTA's program, facilities, and coaching? Let me know when you're done digging that whole and I'll toss you a ladder.

Brooks said he had told Parise to go to the University of North Dakota because of its outstanding program and coaching staff. Later, in a radio interview, Brooks would add that if a player’s future goal was playing in the NHL, he’d recommend North Dakota because of its program, facilities, and coaching. In recent years, North Dakota has proved Brooks to be prophetic, by turning recruits into high draft picks and NHL players. http://www.uscho.com/2004/06/21/quick-picks/

I agree that Carlson headed this notion. But Grant Shaft did as well when he claimed that one of the possible outcomes of the meeting in Indianapolis was that the NCAA would modify their position based upon the new legislation." But the point of me referencing this is that I'm not going to simply believe what's told to me without some hard evidence. I'm told hockey recruiting will be hurt . . . and then today UND lands a huge hockey recruit. But I digress as this is completely collateral to any meaningful discussions.

Wow, some of you guys are real thick. This whole discussion had to do with Hakstol not publically supporting the nickname retirement. If you read the passage you quoted it says "I am focusing on hockey." In other words, I've made it very clear that the sanctions will hurt other programs, such as football, a lot more than hockey. But like I said, "I am focusing on hockey" while some people are focusing on words and phrases and ignoring the entire substance of what I've been saying. Again, like I've also said, not playing Wisconsin because of the nickname issue is a loss. Yup, for anyone who doesn't believe me. Go back and check the posts. "So yes, Wisconsin is a loss for sure." However, if you think the success of North Dakota's hockey program depends on a couple of big ten schools (well, I won't use the tree allegory) you need to reconsider what you're saying. It's dissapointing to hear sioux fans, and athletic supportes in general, think that UND can't over come the fact that two schools won't be coming to the Ralph every year. And nor will they come to the Ralph every year even after UND finally retires the Sioux moniker. MINNESOTA WOULD NOT COMMIT TO PLAYING UND IN HOCKEY WHEN THE NICKNAME WAS RETIRED. Everyone say it one more time under their breath. Minnesota would not commit to playing UND in hockey when the nickname was retired. Games against Minnesota have to do as much, if not more, with conference realignment than nicknames.

Grant Shaft. My bad, he's not an UND administrator. Possible that Kelley and Faison echoed his sentiments, but don't know.

You're barking up the wrong tree. It was the state and university administration, who said the NCAA would change their tune if the law was passed. Hakstol said he's left the schedule open for Minnesota games. When pressed about it, Lucia was noncommital. Remember, they've aleady signed up for nonconference games against Notre Dame and the Minnesota tournament they're doing. Beyond that, we know Minnesota hardly ever travels outside of Mariucci for nonconference games. The schedule is still open. It's Minnesota's choice whether they play UND or not. Indeed, I am focusing on hockey. You're observations are correct.

Oh come one, have you bothered to consider that what you said was entirely speculation and, therefore, not grounded in truth nor fact? So recruits won't come to UND because of the lack of games against Minnesota and Wisconsin? Seems to be more of a conference realignment issue than a nickname one. Like I said, Minnesota wouldn't even committ to playing UND, whether the team's name was "Fighting Sioux" or not. I can't believe you're suggesting that no longer having Minnesota and Wisconsin on UND's schedules for 4-6 games a year would destroy UND's competition to such a degree despite games against Denver, Colorado College, Miami, last year's national champion and all those other teams they've been playing every year in college hockey's premiere conference. Besides, competition ebbs and flows. Wisconsin is second to last in the WCHA right now. Go see how many of the UofM hockey players have enjoyed playing and winning in the national tournament like UND. You may have to wait until the end of March though, because the tough competition down there in the cities hasn't made the national tournament since 2008.

You don't seem to understand that I was simply responding to questions about why Hakstol hasn't finally come out and said that retirement is necessary. When the nickname was retired, Minnesota wouldn't committ to playing UND. So yes, Wisconsin is a loss for sure. But beyond that, I haven't seen any significant detriments to the hockey program. Now on a personal note. I don't believe North Dakota hockey recruiting will suffer AT ALL. Hockey recruits will come to UND because it's the University of North Dakota hockey, not because of a nickname. The great Gopher himself, Herb Brooks, told Zach Parise to go to UND because it was the best program to prepare him for the NHL, not because of a nickname. Yes, other programs will be hurt far more than hockey. But, I was once told by UND's administration that the nickname law will encourage the NCAA to change their position. I'm not going to take them at their word that hockey recruiting will be harmed, no one will play us, etc. until there is more proof beyond their own words. Thus far, the evidence that hockey recruiting will be harmed is based upon statements that hockey recruiting will be harmed.

Fair enough. But given the long-standing principal that courts will adopt every presumption in favor of law's constitutionality, I see the Supreme Court reading the settlement agreement as a choice and, therefore, the legislation was not in breach thereof. Moreover, I'm still not convinced that this even falls under the contracts clause, because the Court in Davidson said that the settlement merged into the final jugment so that the settlement will be interpreted and enforced as a final judgment and not as a separate contract.

Agreed that this is the more pragmatic approach to take, but like I suggested, perhaps Hakstol doesn't care. He knows that hockey is king at UND. If so, I would be inclined to agree with him that as it stands now, NCAA sanctions will have very little effect on the hockey program.

Agreed. The concern I see the Court raising is to what extent is the the Court now going to have to act as the arbiter for every law that may lessen the economic interests of a university. I just see this argument as opening up an unnecessary can of worms and future litigation. To make matters worse, what happens if the Court says power over the nickname belongs to the legislature, but the Sioux nickname controvery (and therefore the legislation, itself) constitutionally infringes on the SBHE's authority to ensure efficient and economic administration of UND. What do we do about a nickname then? I trust our Justices won't put us in this situation, however.

You raise a good point. If the SBHE argues that the nickname controversy infringes on their constitutional power to ensure "efficient and economic administration of UND", then wouldn't the absence of a nickname and its corresponding financial disadvantages through the loss of merchandise sales, no local businesses adverstising a logo or nickname, etc. make the repeal bill unconstitutional as well.

Good point. But doesn't this go back to the question of who had authority over the nickname? The way the SBHE is appearing to now posture their argument is that while they didn't control the nickname issue, the legislation will infringe on their constitutional duty to ensure "effective and economic administration" of UND. This is just speculation, but the SBHE may go a head and say that the legislature "chose the path and had the power to make the choice"; however, the issue is that the legislation infringed upon an unrelated source of the SBHE's constitutional authority.

I agree with everything you say. But as it stands now, Hak doesn't coach the women's team, he doesn't coach the football team, not does the NCAA allow for home playoff games hockey.

Or maybe he hasn't bought into the sky is falling mentality yet. From a hockey standpoint, let's he honest. UND is secure in their conference. UND will never host home NCAA playoff games. The decision to discontinue the rivalry with Minnesota and Wisconsin are Minnesota and Wisconsin's alone. UND wants to continue the rivalry; the Big Ten schools apparently do not. Please spare me from the "but it is UND's decision! Only if the bowed down to the demands of the NCAA then the games would be back one" comments.

I will continue to agree that this legislation went against the intent and purpose of the settlement agreement. But due to the language of the settlement agreement, I can't say that there is an irreconcilable conflict. "If UND does not adopt a new nickname or logo . . . then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the policy." I think the argument can go both ways in some respects. Had UND adopted a new nickname, wouldn't we see nickname proponents arguing that UND violated the terms of the settlement, which provided that the school could choose to keep the nickname and face the sanctions? http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/SettlementAgreement.pdf

Yup, I hear this is the new angle the SBHE is taking, which is a lot better than their old argument that they actually control the nickname. I'm still of the opinion that this could go either way. But is the court really going to start reviewing legislation after legislation because some feel it may have a negative economic impact on a university? Is the SBHE going to challenge the constitutionality of legislative appropriations if the board feels that they aren't receiving enough money for effective and economic administration of universities? IMHO, this isn't a slippery slope I want the Supreme Court to go down. I'm all but sure Justice Kapsner would say the law is constitutional. Nickname proponents only need to find one more.