NoiseInsideMyHead

At some point, the discussion I hoped to have about quantity inexplicably devolved into one of quality. This isn't about whether Mark is a good singer or whether he should be replaced altogether; this is about variety. Personally, I'd rather hear Dudley Dawson belch the anthem than listen to the same voice every single night. Do you eat the same thing for breakfast every day, too? Some people ascribe a ridiculous level of reverence to the anthem; I bet F.S. Key couldn't sing it for crap.

When it was announced that UND was going with a full-time national anthem singer at REA this year, I didn't think much of it. However, a few weeks in, and with all due respect to the talented Mark J. Lindquist, the lack of variety is starting to grate. Sometimes you just need a bunch of little kids screaming off-key into the mike, or the lead singer of some forgotten 80's-90's metal band, or the Pride of the North, or Roseanne, or a world-renowned kazooist, or a pretty co-ed, or several pretty co-eds. Am I crazy for even caring?

If you're looking for bulletin board material, put a cork in it.

Is it too late to enact a 'No Cowbell' ordinance at REA?

Comedy is but a hobby; debunking widespread paranoia about mythical NCAA sanctions certainly pays the bills.

If the requirement to be on the list is that the institution must be using a hostile and abusive name/logo, and an institution is not using such a name/logo, simple logic dictates that the institution cannot be on said list. Period. End of story. An association has to follow its own rules, or it will get sued and lose. Period. End of story. The only legal remedy for not following through on a contractual promise is an action for breach of contract, in which the aggrieved party must prove the contract, the breach, and the harm. Period. End of story. Love or loathe the NCAA, there is not a phantom punishment or mythical sanction here. The NCAA could sue, sure, but the contract is ambiguous on its face, the facts and timeline are convoluted and murky, and the NCAA would be hard pressed to articulate how it has been harmed. That, and lawyers cost money, and even the big bad NCAA has its hands full at the moment. Now, if you'll excuse me, check-out time at the Holiday Inn Express is 11:30.

In each of the cases you reference, there was (arguably) a violation of NCAA rules. Whether it was eligibility or academic or whatever. I don't recall the basis for PSU - was it some kind of lack of institutional control or FB program oversight? And IIRC, PSU rolled over and took it in the shorts for PR reasons...not so much as a peep in its own defense AND it consented to the ridiculous monetary sanction. At any rate, there was an established rule that was perceived to have been broken. The hammer hath not yet fallen on UNC...that could be devastating. SMU/death penalty kind of stuff, based on what I've read. The missing piece with UND is that - at best (worst?) - there is a perceived slight. No rules violation whatsoever. A garden variety breach of contract (even proving that would be an uphill fight). And don't get me started on my villain-victim analogy. Victims and villains aplenty in some of the listed cases, especially at PSU (* understatement of the century). Hero NCAA will need a new shirt when it's done patting itself on the back.

The top one looks like an obstructed bowel.

You and I are speaking the same language. However, I want to be clear about one thing: if the NCAA is torqued about some aspect of the settlement agreement, its only legal remedy is to sue for a breach of contract. Sanctions on members would only be available for violations of NCAA rules and policies. I have said all along that there is not likely to be a meaningful economic remedy for the NCAA, because they haven't really been damaged. And I don't think a court would order the extraordinary relief compelling UND to select a nickname. If there isn't already a mandatory nickname rule, sanctions are completely off the table. My prediction: NCAA won't sue, and if they do, nominal money damages and maybe a rebuke by the court for wasting its time.

That's what I keep waiting for someone to explain. "Sanctions" for violating what NCAA rule? Is there a "no pissing us off" misdemeanor?

I will give you this: if the NCAA pushes back now, then all the UND people who were mocked for complaining that the NCAA was out to get them will be completely vindicated. Circa 2005, the 'hostile and abusive' nickname policy was directed at how many schools? At least a dozen, right? And the whole thing was spun as good vs evil. There were villains (schools using nicknames) and victims (socioeconomically depressed citizens of color). In come the heroic NCAA knights in shining armor. A crusade that perhaps some moderates could even justify. Fast forward to 2015. How many member institutions would be affected by a mandatory nickname rule? One? And who's the victim now? Nobody, except maybe the NCAA's pride? Not so much a crusade as a campaign of retribution against one small little school in the Northern Plains that dared to fight, and then backed down anyway. Is the NCAA prepared to take on that sore-winner/bully role, especially now, given all that's on its plate?

Like it or not, you've got an ambiguous contract sitting out there, and if one party doesn't like what the other party is doing, you're bound to end up in a lawsuit. I have not once advocated suing the NCAA to establish a right to go nameless; I am merely suggesting that IF UND chooses to go that route, one of the NCAA's few options is to sue. Also, do not forget that under at least one fair interpretation, UND is already technically in breach. The 'deadline' in the settlement agreement has come and gone and we have not yet 'announced a transition to a new name.' UND does not have a contractual right to stretch out the process, any more than it has a contractual right not to pick a name. It's ultimately the NCAA's call whether to push the issue. I don't think they will; they (and their goofy nickname policy) already won.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/crookston-man-gets-13-years-slashing Question: does the penalty carry over from one season to the next?

I'm cheering for UND no matter what; I just hope they do the right thing and that we can all be proud. Not having a name presents marketing challenges, to be sure, and will inhibit licensing revenue, but it is certainly a unique approach that recognizes the Sioux legacy and at the very least shouldn't deepen any wounds. I could get behind it, although I think we need to think outside the box with respect to the "interlocking ND." Selecting a name, while inherently painful and almost guaranteed to result in a period of awkwardness and maybe years of adjustment, can be done right. Frankly, I'm more interested in my kids' reactions to the new name/logo/mascot than my own. This is a forward-looking process and, with apologies to Whitney Houston, the children really are the future. Picking a name because its the PC thing to do, or because some overpaid "consultant" said to, or to stave off retribution from the big, bad NCAA is not, in my opinion, 'the right thing.' Burying the past is also not acceptable. If the new name is not rolled out arm-in-arm with a solid plan for recognizing and celebrating the aforementioned Sioux legacy, I will be disappointed.

With all due respect, you are getting dangerously close to tin foil hat territory here. The name is officially gone. The University has said and done all the right things. (Personally, I'm surprised they retired the pre-game sensitivity video so quickly, but that's another issue.) What one or ten or a thousand people say or yell is beyond anyone's control, and will continue with or without a new name. A new rule mandating nicknames would likely have to go through some sort of Association-wide vetting process, will be subject to some form of legislative scrutiny, and would - it seems - be unlikely to be applied ex post facto. Even the sweeping 'hostile and abusive' policy ended up having a grandfather provision, for crying out loud. The NCAA has tremendous reach, and has proven itself to be irresponsible, arbitrary, and capricious, but there are practical limitations to its power. I would be truly disappointed if 'NCAA phobia' were relied upon by UND as the sole or dominant justification for selecting a new name in the face of a ground swell of support not to. Hell, if anything I hope they cave to the pursuit of licensing revenue. I'd rather bow to capitalism than to the NCAA. Greed > Fear. Principle went out the window a long time ago.

The settlement agreement is an imperfect document, and there is no way that the drafters could have anticipated the way this played out. The timeline for action in the agreement is particularly suspect, as there were significant delays occasioned by legislation, litigation, and God knows what else. Heck, the NCAA already allowed a huge concession with respect to imagery at REA, so who knows where things will ultimately settle? In light of events now passed, it is virtually impossible to interpret and apply the agreement literally. You have to go beyond the four corners to breathe some meaningful life into the document. The quoted clause about returning UND to the infamous "list" is meaningless because we are no longer engaged in conduct that would place us on said list. Loophole city! My take is that the parties just assumed that there would be a new name, but that neither party expected there to be even the slightest possibility that UND would seriously consider going nameless. The total absence (*presumed but not confirmed) of an NCAA rule affirmatively requiring that members have a nickname pretty much forecloses "sanctions." NCAA's only options if UND stalls out would then be to (1) let UND slide, (2) sue for a breach of contract, or (3) enact a new rule, which they might not even be able to enforce retroactively.

"Game Worn Pants." So...this is a thing? Can't we just worship our heroes from the waist up and call it good?

I suppose we could be grandfathered in if we got permission from two nameless people, although I'm not sure how they would sign the consent agreement.

Funny thing about "sanctions" at this point…unless there is an NCAA rule about having a nickname, I think the only recourse for the NCAA would be to sue UND for a breach of contract. It would be awfully hard for the NCAA to demonstrate "damages" in the traditional legal sense, and for some reason I don't see a court ordering relief as extraordinary as forcing a university to adopt a nickname.

Sonic implies planes which implies aerospace which implies arrows which were used by Indians, so no.

"Roomy"? Go on...

Brand new, multi-purpose arena generated some buzz. But if I remember correctly, they made some 11th hour cost-cutting decisions and hockey was significantly de-prioritized. Still a physical possibility for the facility, but D1 hockey seems further off now than before and during construction. There is still a lot of suspicion of AD Trev Alberts and his motivations for killing UNO's football program. If big N were to go forward in hockey and compete directly with UNO, that could get interesting.

Agreed. Are they not worried about burn-in?

Anybody heard whether it was contact or non-contact? I am hoping for the latter, as awful as that sounds. As a youth hockey parent, a cardiac event would obviously be easier to swallow than a blow or a board.

Dem Caucasian thighs...