Benny Baker

I'm not sure what you mean or what your statement has to do with the Supreme Court's decision. For your reference, by status quo, I meant continuing use of the "Fighting Sioux" moniker which has been in place since the 1930s.

Reasonable minds may certainly disagree. But I'm not convinced that that the Court will view the legislature's mere requirement of maintaining 70 years of the status quo as micromanaging when, all the while, the legislature has passed laws that cap the SBHE's yearly student fee increases down to a percentage point. I'd agree with you that the latter is micromanaging, but not the former. In other words, if the nickname legislation is unconstitutional because of it's alleged encroachment of the SBHE's powers, then so is most of the statutory scheme upon which the SBHE is based. In the past, the Supreme Court has found laws unconstitutional because the legislature was giving too much authority by way of lawmaking power to the SBHE. The SBHE better come up with a better argument than a separation of powers or "who controls the nickname" battle, because the Court has already answered this direct question. The legislature writes the laws and the SBHE administers the laws.

No disrespect either, but if the SBHE wins this lawsuit it may mean drastic consequences for the State above and beyond athletic-related issues. The SBHE is an arm of the executive branch. They do not get to make laws; they get to administer and enforce them.

At the end of the day, the State of North Dakota chose not to adopt a new nickname and are consequently facing the terms of the settlement. The NCAA will just have to live with it.

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1885&context=facpubs Here's a link to one of the first two. It may be of more interest. Not sure if its substance has been discussed on here, however.

Yup, applying the policy inconsistenly. I'm glad we're in agreement about the important stuff.

Oh of course, silly me for thinking that the NCAA would apply their policy consistently. Seven years later, I'm sure its stance respecting the UNC-Pembroke Braves, University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux, and Florida State Seminoles are going to further its overrall goal of prohibiting such nicknames. Too bad UND didn’t pick a name similar to the University of Louisiana-Lafeyette Ragin’ Cajuns, University of Pennsylvania Quakers, University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish, or Union Dutchmen. It’ll be ironic in those Big Sky matchups against Northern Arizona knowing that one of the Lumberjacks’ logos is of a human person.

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.