The Sicatoka Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Censorship is fun, isn't it. Aren't Leigh Jeanotte and his crew the experts on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 If memory serves, there was some question back in August 2005 (when this policy came out) as to the NCAA Executive Committee having authority to make this moniker policy. Only later did the full NCAA legislative assembly (meaning all members) vote to actually give the power the Executive Committee claimed to it. Seems folks overstepping what is in constitutions (be it the NCAA or State of ND) is an ongoing theme in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Censorship is fun, isn't it. You break the rules, you get punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 You break the rules, you get punished. Sometimes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota fairways Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 from a GF Herald article on removing Fighting Sioux logos from REA Former Gov. Olson, participating via telephone from his home in Arizona, suggested that many North Dakotans are wondering why the university feels compelled to move as fast as it has, especially given the revival of the nickname issue at the Legislature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Ya but the question is how can the NCAA punish a public institution for following state law? I don't know how they possibly could because UND has followed the rulings handed down to them but if a law is passed saying they have to be the sioux then the school has no choice but to abide by the law. That would mean that the NCAA would be forcing UND to break the law to avoid their sanctions which I'm sure is illegal. As far as another poster saying they could kick UND out of the NCAA, I think that would be a PR nightmare for the NCAA. Could you imagine the fallback against the NCAA for kicking a school out because they didn't like their mascot? I think you and some others need to check who the actual Plaintiff is in the lawsuit against the NCAA. The State of North Dakota by and through the SBoHE and UND is the plaintiff. You can't differentiate between UND and the State of North Dakota as far as the settlement agreement goes. They are one and the same. The State of North Dakota agreed with the NCAA on how to handle the nickname situation and they entered into a binding settlement agreement. The State of North Dakota will not be able to renege on its agreement just because it decides to pass a new law requiring its subdivision to retain the nickname. Assuming this bill passes and is deemed constitutional, the State of North Dakota will force its subdivision (UND) to retain the nickname and will subject its subdivision to all of the NCAA previously agreed-upon consequences that comes with that decision. And those consequences are what needs to be weighed and debated when legislators decide whether to vote yes or no on this bill. Some people believe keeping the Sioux nickname is worth the NCAA sanctions, others do not. That is where the debate should lie. There is no readily apparent "cake and eat it too" scenario where UND keeps the nickname and is not subject to sanctions. The only way such a scenario could arise is if Standing Rock decides to get involved or the NCAA changes its position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Assuming this bill passes and is deemed constitutional, the State of North Dakota will force its subdivision (UND) to retain the nickname and will subject its subdivision to all of the NCAA previously agreed-upon consequences that comes with that decision. And those consequences are what needs to be weighed and debated when legislators decide whether to vote yes or no on this bill. Right there in bold is the crux of this conversation. And right there is why I'm suspicious of a Fargo representative bringing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 And right there is why I'm suspicious of a Fargo representative bringing it. With all due respect to you, I think you give the Fargo legislator far too much credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxfan512 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 PASSED!!!! On to the Senate!!! GO SIOUX!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think you and some others need to check who the actual Plaintiff is in the lawsuit against the NCAA. The State of North Dakota by and through the SBoHE and UND is the plaintiff. You can't differentiate between UND and the State of North Dakota as far as the settlement agreement goes. They are one and the same. The State of North Dakota agreed with the NCAA on how to handle the nickname situation and they entered into a binding settlement agreement. The State of North Dakota will not be able to renege on its agreement just because it decides to pass a new law requiring its subdivision to retain the nickname. Assuming this bill passes and is deemed constitutional, the State of North Dakota will force its subdivision (UND) to retain the nickname and will subject its subdivision to all of the NCAA previously agreed-upon consequences that comes with that decision. And those consequences are what needs to be weighed and debated when legislators decide whether to vote yes or no on this bill. Some people believe keeping the Sioux nickname is worth the NCAA sanctions, others do not. That is where the debate should lie. There is no readily apparent "cake and eat it too" scenario where UND keeps the nickname and is not subject to sanctions. The only way such a scenario could arise is if Standing Rock decides to get involved or the NCAA changes its position. If you keep giving legal counsel on this matter, you'd better start billing your time to the appropriate parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.