Benny Baker

The NCAA is absolutely under the jurisdiction of North Dakota's laws and courts. The state's lawsuit against the NCAA was based upon a state antitrust claim. Surely the NCAA would have filed a motion to dismiss if not subject to North Dakota law, but rather it agreed to a settlement under our state courts. But, you are right about Spirit Lake's chances of winning its lawsuit against the NCAA. It'll be dismissed; appealed to the Circuit Court; dismissal upheld; writ denied by the Supreme Court . . . keeping the nickname issue alive for at least two more years.

It'll be a few weeks before the decision, but before the ballot printing date, i'm sure. Parties can petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing for 14 days after any decision. But for all practical purposes, it is a process that never comes into play.

This is the credited response. Beyond that, Soderstrom diminishes his own argument by claiming that any conflict between constitutional provisions should be decided in favor of the last enacted provision (paragraph 37). So then Mr. Soderstrom, wouldn't Art. VIII, Section 6(6) trump your religious argument under Art. I, Section 3? Moreover, if the Court follows any line of federal jurisprudence, then this is clearly not religious discrimination. Nice try, but strike 1 for the nickname proponents.

What else has the board been doing that Carlson disagrees with, or is this just a nickname thing?

This is way off the mark. The name and logo do not have to be on the jerseys. UND's men's hockey will be, in my opinion, the least affected program by the NCAA sanctions. "Literally no shot at a national title?" Give me a break.

UND can comply with both state law and the settlement agreement. The settlement simply provides that if UND continues using the nickname then the school will be sanctioned and cannot, among other things, host playoff games, rather than entirely forfeit the game, itself. Even the NCAA has stated that "the Settlement Agreement did not compel the SBHE to retain or retire the nickname. Rather, the Agreement simply set forth possible scenarios in relation to UND’s nickname and outlined the impact of each scenario under the NCAA championships Policy."

Wait, this conversation needs to end before the Constitution is further tarnished. We have natural rights that the federal government and, for the most part, state governments cannot infringe. I don't agree with what the NCAA is doing, but they simply are not a state actor. Even if we assumed that the NCAA was the government, what section of the Constitution protects anyone's "right" to feel honored by an athletic nickname? Honor is not a protected right under the constitution. Neither is what the overall population wants, otherwise Al Gore would have been our President. Please stop abusing the meaning of our nation's Constitution.

Correct, I know there were three committees and I am not sure what their specific names were. I believe it was Bruce Smith, Aerospace Dean, who said they couldn't even consider a nickname that is representative of a person. It's dissapointing, but quite frankly I agree. It'll only open the door to comments of "how come it's fine to use Teddy Roosevelt", for example, "as a mascot, but not a sioux warrior?" I'm hoping it's just "University of North Dakota" . . . nothing else is necesary.

I think Roughriders or some derivative of Norsemen would be highly appropriate. It won't happen though. The standards that the nickname transition committee were following, I believe, stated that UND could not adopt a new personified nickname or logo. No Fighting Sioux. . . no people . . . so no Roughriders or Norsemen. It'll be something real original like the Bobcats or Tigers!

Of course! Just like the SBHE is accusing the legislature and the people (16,000 of them) of a power grab. Remember, it's the SBHE that filed the lawsuit over the "power grab"---not the legislature.

I think you've made the point that if this law is ruled unconstitutional then so is the repeal law. I think you've read the briefs, or at least know of the SBHE's argument, which is that control of the nickname belongs to the State Board rather than the legislature. Whether you like Al or not, he is absolutely correct in this position---a ruling in favor of the SBHE constricts the legislature's power over North Dakota's universities. It ain't just about the nickname legislation; it's about how the precedent of this case will affect the constitutionality of future legislature. That is why the legislature has an interest in this case, whether or not they voted to repeal the nickname law.

So long as it's not filled with rhetoric, I say "the more the better."

You, my friend, should change your name to "82SiouxEncyclopedia"

Or at the least the three other Chippewa tribes in Michigan. I've also wondered why UND didn't need approval of the Lake Traverse Sioux Reservation, which like Standing Rock, is mostly within the state of South Dakota.

Because one of, if not, the best hockey facility in world is 80 miles north of Fargo.

Good to know, thanks.

But the State's prayer for relief, among other things, was that the NCAA could do nothing to punish UND or prevent the nickname use, hosting playoff games, etc. The litigation wasn't exclusive to the policy at the time, it was clearly regarding whether the NCAA could actually take steps to sanction and/or punish UND. Thus, if UND won, any action taken by the NCAA to sanction UND would have been in violation of the court order and judgment. . . . Similar to how many people believe the State's actions have violated the settlement agreement. If the State sued the case out and won (not saying that they would have), then the athletic teams play as the "Fighting Sioux" without facing any sanctions. But I guess it's all academic at this point.

Doesn't winning a lawsuit necessarily imply that the Court afforded the requested relief to the Plaintiff? If the State won then UND wouldn't have been placed on sanctions. That's why litigation was commenced in the first place.

No, you were right the first time. It is a fact that the NCAA is full of !@$!.

We can make distinctions all we went and frame the issue is different ways. But, Florida State only needed approval of the nearest Seminole tribe. Central Michigan only needed the approval of one Chippewa tribe, the closest to the school, despite the presence of three other Chippewa tribes in Michigan. UND is also received approval from the tribe closest to the school, but it is the only institution that the NCAA had required approval from multiple tribes. Everyone is aware that this result is, in part, due to UND commencing litigation and that the others schools did not. Everyone is aware that the NCAA is arbitrary, capricious, and that the organization can do what it wants.

I understand the change in policy but it truly is a distinction without a difference. They wouldn't compete against UND in 2005; they won't compete against UND now. Nothing has changed . . . other than the schools' choice to weaken their respective policies. I don't think im being disingenuous about recruiting, especially now that UND will be in the Big Sky. Whether it be during the transition period or in the Big Sky, UND gave up numerous regional games for ones out in California, Texas, Montana, etc. You have a sound argument in that schools simply won't be arsed to consider scheduling UND. I'll leave it at that. As for Duluth, it seems like it's more of an issue with the student body rather than with the nickname. I'm sure you read about the Mankota incident.

If you've been looking for an answer to this, I can give you my personal take. It doesn't even need to be ten. It just needs to be something beyond the three schools that have had this policy well before UND went back to the "Fighting Sioux." Since 2005, and even before that, we have known where these three schools stand regarding Native American mascots. Iowa wouldn't even have played UND before the NCAA started its sanctions, because Iowa's policy, like Wisconsin's, pre-dates the NCAA's actions. Simply put, Iowa not playing UND because of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname is something I could have told you back in 2005, or 2000 for that matter. There is nothing new with this, move along already. But don't try to cloak Iowa's decision not to compete against UND as something new. it's disingenuous and you know it. All I have ever wanted to know is what new schools have said that they wouldn't participate against UND? If Nebraska, Texas, and Colorado take similar positions then I will definitely change my stance regarding this particular issue. If there have been schools that declined participating against UND, why hasn't UND sent out a press release like they did yesterday with Iowa? As for recruiting, I get where you are going. But remember, when UND transitioned to D-1 it said goodbye to games against St. Cloud St., Mankato, Winona St., Duluth, etc. So again, it's quite disingenuous to now say that not competing against UofM or Wisco puts us at a recruiting disadvantage when UND has already picked up and left Minnesota for New Jersey Tech, Southern Utah, Houston Baptist, Texas Pan-American, etc. Did you have these same recruiting concerns when UND, itself, chose to leave its Minnesota recruiting base for the Great West . . . and Big Sky?

Haha, well at least we can find common ground somewhere.

Sorry for sounding like a complete tool. But you just linked to the noun definition of harangue after using it as a verb. Nonethless, saying that something is "kind of funny" does not amount to a lengthy, aggresive, or critical speech. But keep on stretching the truth if you feel that it's necessary.

No,Ipointed out that the NCAA wouldn't have an issue with it when I said that "I don't think that anyone has said that Iowa should be sanctioned." You chose, for one reason or another, to bring up corporate sponsorships. I also said that "the school's policy is kind of funny" . . . so you need to look up the definition of "harrangue." I think that most of the things that you say are logical and valid, but you're really starting to stretch the truth with some of these statements.