NoiseInsideMyHead

Fixed your post. Have you not seen UND's 4-year graduation rate?

"Avian ally"? Is that like a bird's friend or something?

For all the crap about amateurism and the long, slow, and agonizing death of college sports, I tend to think that universities should reserve their 'pride' for situations where the system actually works. Loyalty and commitment are best served by seeing students through to a degree and (almost always) exhausting years of eligibility. Athletic departments are strenghtened with each and every such outcome. Early departures cheapen the whole experience and fuel the criticism that college sports has lost its way.

Never said he was a failure in his own right; rather he was a failure for the University. The University took on a student-athlete who didn't fulfill the student-athlete bargain. What is there to be proud of? The University failed its academic mission, and by trumpeting its pride looks more like a professional athlete mill.

I'm okay with fans celebrating these type of achievements, as well as local media. Early departures are a fact of college sports; hell, not even Duke and Coach K can avoid them nowadays (3 freshmen gone within 10 days of winning a title). But does anybody else find it the least bit hypocritical or tacky for the University of North Dakota to tag this tweet #UNDProud? After all, isn't UND supposed to be concerned with academics, graduation rates, student-athletes, and all. Brock (a phenomenal success as a professional athlete) is more of a failure for the University than a success, no?

As you all know, I am outspoken on this subject and will not belabor it here. But is this true? Are schools really playing this card against UND? Any evidence, or is this just speculation? It would truly be a shame if there are recruits being swayed on such dubious grounds, and an even bigger shame that some grown-ups are sinking to that level.

But I thought God loves a Terrier...

Grassy knoll type stuff, right there.

Twilight Zone.

Y'all thinkin' I'm crazy?

WTF. That same security guard yanked that same guy taking a cell phone pic during the on-ice ESPN interview on Thursday.

Well, we have some special programs. Uh, we're doing Shakespeare in the Round again this year, of course. Uh, our political round table, Henry Kissinger will appear. Yasser Arafat is gonna come out, spend a weekend with the kids. Just rap with them. And the kids wanted animals. So this year, we will each stalk and kill our own bear in our private wildlife preserve. But, the real excitement, of course, is gonna come at the end of the summer, during Sexual Awareness Week. We import 200 hookers from around the world, and each of us, armed with only a thermos of coffee and $2,000 cash, tries to visit as many countries as he can and the winner, of course, is named ''King of Sexual Awareness Week'' and is allowed to rape and pillage the neighboring towns until summer ends.

Has there ever been much of a call for a consolation game at the FF?

On the plus side, God I miss the days before "The Bottom Line." That thing has basically ruined watching sports on ESPN.

ESPN3's "Multicam" is tolerable, but it would be infinitely better with clock and scoreboard.

Yet, the enactment of a law by the North Dakota legislature is NOT a defense to breach of contract. Had the NCAA been so inclined, it could have sued UND for failing to adopt a nickname in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The legislatively mandated 'cooling off' period would have explained the breach, but not excused it. I wonder why the NCAA didn't go that route. Hmmm...

"Black and white, clear as crystal."

This is actually a compliment…you're not thinking like a lawyer.

Because the underlying assumption was that no new nickname = Fighting Sioux. This assumption was proven false. It is that simple. The settlement agreement -- like every other contract -- was flawed and in the event of a dispute, will need to be read in accordance with well-established rules of construction. People should not be dazzled by the words on the page; they don't always tell the whole story.

Au contraire. What about UND's monetary damages when it prevails on its claim that the NCAA acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in flagrant disregard of associational rules and bylaws by imposing sanctions on a member for conduct that was not occurring and had not occurred for years?

See above re: damages. Short version -- the NCAA doesn't have any.

The "sanctions list" you describe did not exist in a vacuum. It's not a weapon in the NCAA arsenal that is to be freely wielded. Those sanctions were and are forever tied to specific conduct in violation of NCAA rules. That conduct was utilizing a nickname deemed by the NCAA via its Native American nickname policy to be hostile and abusive. No nickname => no utilization => no list => no sanction. This is simple logic. The contract issue is a red herring; the NCAA's sole remedy would be an action for breach. Punishment for conduct that is not occurring is beneath even the NCAA.

Whether any one of us agrees or not, perceived racism and cultural insensitivity are a real problem and easy to motivate people around (especially those dreaded PC types). That's how and why the NCAA's nickname policy was adopted in the first place. Stand up in opposition and be forever labeled as a knuckle-dragger. Fast forward a few years. Trying to enact a new rule that would require institutions to adopt a nickname is not exactly going to generate much excitement or buzz around the water cooler. There's no race-baiting victimization card to play, and we're getting even further afield from the NCAA's core mission. I don't see it happening.

Fortunately, we have a longstanding tradition in this country of rejecting rules, especially criminal laws and other punitive regulations, that are applied "ex post facto". That's the reason there are grandfather clauses in most every form of regulation, and that's the reason that UND and other schools were given the opportunity to secure tribal approval in order to get a pass on the nickname policy. Associations are interesting creatures. The voting members generally have the power, and the association has to follow its own rules. Could an association adopt a sweeping rule requiring its members to change a specific behavior? Of course, but it would very likely be subject to vigorous debate by the body at large, reflect the will of the majority, and then be implemented over time and with adequate notice for the affected members to act without fear of sanction. The failure of an association to play fair or follow its own rules can expose the association to internal unrest, mass defection, and even civil liability. The NCAA is unique because of the perceived power it wields vis-a-vis college sports. But at the end of the day, its power is limited to the governance that is put forward through its members and elected leadership. Right now I would say the NCAA is the weakest it has been in a long time, mostly due to external pressures and political whims. If the NCAA were to suggest a mandatory nickname rule, I predict that there would be a lot of opposition primarily because it's a poor exercise of the association's awesome responsibilities and it doesn't address a real problem. If passed at all, the final rule would probably even grandfather in existing no-name schools, because it would be fundamentally unfair to apply such a rule retroactively. But that is not where we are right now, and UND need not fret over such a remote possibility.

Because for better or for worse, the NCAA had a rule prohibiting its use by members without tribal approval. It's a status violation. No need to prove harm there, just like the state doesn't need to prove harm when it issues you a speeding ticket. If UND didn't like the rule, it could have quit the association or faced the music. Damages only come in to the picture when you start making legal claims, such as a breach of contract.