Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[GeauxSioux]

Certainly, they should have done exactly that. But that does not mean that Myles Brand and the NCAA leadership are evil people, bent on imposing some sort of dictatorship over college sports.

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

[Shawn-O]

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

How about the banning of bottled water at it's events? Plastic bottles are very hostile and abusive to the enviornment, you know....wait, Coca-Cola and Pepsi are multi-billion dollar enterprises, so scratch that.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

...but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

Coaches? Don't give them any ideas. We've already taken Title IX to quite illogical conclusions.

[Gothmog]

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it? They had nothing better to do one day? Maybe next week they will do another PC thing like not allowing schools to keep score, because someone's feeling may get hurt. Okay, so that one is kind of out there, but use your imagination on what other dictatorial thing they can come up with. Requirements on the numbers of women and/or minority coaches...

Obviously, it was much cheaper and easier not to get that approval, and they may have believed that they didn't need it. The fact that they didn't seek the approval of the membership does not necessarily mean that they would not have gotten it had they done so.

[Shawn-O]

Obviously, it was much cheaper and easier not to get that approval, and they may have believed that they didn't need it. The fact that they didn't seek the approval of the membership does not necessarily mean that they would not have gotten it had they done so.

Sometimes cheap is expensive...as the NCAA is finding out.

[mksioux]

Okay, we agree that they should have gotten membership approval, so why do you think they did it?

I've stated this before, but since the topic has come up again, I'll state it again. I believe the reason the Executive Committee didn't get membership approval has less to do with whether they would have been able to get it, and more to do with the role they see the Executive Committee playing in the future. More to the point, the Executive Committee wants more power. Not just for this issue, but for future issues. I believe that many within the organization, including the current President, want the NCAA to be a catalyst for social change. If the NCAA needs the entire membership's approval on every policy it wants to enact in furtherance of this goal, it can not become what it wants to be.

The Executive Committee started its power grab against an easy target - the Confederate flag. Next it moved on to Indian nicknames. And by and large, the committee has been pretty successful. Next, they'll probably move on to something more controversial...maybe race/gender coaching requirements .

[GeauxSioux]

Obviously, it was much cheaper and easier not to get that approval, and they may have believed that they didn't need it. The fact that they didn't seek the approval of the membership does not necessarily mean that they would not have gotten it had they done so.

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote? What kind of expenses are involved in getting a membership vote? Right now they have likely spent over $1M on the UND case.

You don't think, if they felt they had the membership votes they would have gone that route. How about since the edict came down? They could have gone to the members after they declared some schools "hostile and abusive" and tried to shore up support with a vote after the fact. It didn't happen.

[Shawn-O]

I've stated this before, but since the topic has come up again, I'll state it again. I believe the reason the Executive Committee didn't get membership approval has less to do with whether they would have been able to get it, and more to do with the role they see the Executive Committee playing in the future. More to the point, the Executive Committee wants more power. Not just for this issue, but for future issues. I believe that many within the organization, including the current President, want the NCAA to be a catalyst for social change. If the NCAA needs the entire membership's approval on every policy it wants to enact in furtherance of this goal, it can not become what it wants to be.

The Executive Committee started its power grab against an easy target - the Confederate flag. Next it moved on to Indian nicknames. And by and large, the committee has been pretty successful. Next, they'll probably move on to something more controversial...maybe race/gender coaching requirements .

Agree 100% here. Ironically, I also think that the nickname ban would have breezed through a membership vote with about a three-quarters majority.

[PCM]

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote?

Exactly. The NCAA routinely has its members vote on policies of far less importance. The idea that trashing the organization's constitution and bylaws was necessary to save time and money is laughable.

[PCM]

So you're saying that I should be banished because I disagree with the majority opinion, or because I responded to a smart aleck question with a smart aleck answer?

Relax. Nobody's going to ban you for disagreeing. I would have been banned years ago if that happened.

[Gothmog]

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote? What kind of expenses are involved in getting a membership vote? Right now they have likely spent over $1M on the UND case.

You don't think, if they felt they had the membership votes they would have gone that route. How about since the edict came down? They could have gone to the members after they declared some schools "hostile and abusive" and tried to shore up support with a vote after the fact. It didn't happen.

You're right, foregoing the vote certainly will turn out to be much more expensive.

[Gothmog]

Relax. Nobody's going to ban you for disagreeing. I would have been banned years ago if that happened.

Thanks, I wasn't really worried.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

How is it cheaper not to get a membership vote? What kind of expenses are involved in getting a membership vote? Right now they have likely spent over $1M on the UND case.

I can't believe that there would be virtually ANY additional expenses with a full membership vote. Issue the Executive committee report to all members (internet or piggyback on other regularly scheduled mailings), add an item to the annual convention agenda and there you have it.

Ironically, I also think that the nickname ban would have breezed through a membership vote with about a three-quarters majority.

Interesting. I have to think that there would be a lot of lobbying going on, and hard line, scorched-earth schools like FSU would have been out in front of that effort. Furthermore, I don't think all of our Big Ten bretheren would have been as PC as Wisconsin and Iowa.

And I really think that a few well-written ammendments to the original resolution would have shot down its "this group, but not that group" effect.

[Gothmog]

Exactly. The NCAA routinely has its members vote on policies of far less importance. The idea that trashing the organization's constitution and bylaws was necessary to save time and money is laughable.

It seems to have been a serious mistake.

I suspect that they would have gotten approval had they just asked for it.

[PCM]

I suspect that they would have gotten approval had they just asked for it.

It would seem to be a no-brainer. So why didn't they?

[Gothmog]

I can't believe that there would be virtually ANY additional expenses with a full membership vote. Issue the Executive committee report to all members (internet or piggyback on other regularly scheduled mailings), add an item to the annual convention agenda and there you have it.

Oh, I don't know there may have been some additional expense associated with a vote.

[GeauxSioux]

Thanks, I wasn't really worried.

[Gothmog]

It would seem to be a no-brainer. So why didn't they?

Pride, arrogance, stupidity, poor judgment...perhaps. An evil intent...no.

[puck]

Pride, arrogance, stupidity, poor judgment...perhaps. An evil intent...no.

Bingo..... I think we have a winner.

[Chewey]

Pride, arrogance, stupidity, poor judgment...perhaps. An evil intent...no.

An intent to placate certain minority political groups with which the Executive Committee agrees irrespective of the majority? At best it's a highly cynical, depraved and twisted abuse of power and position. At worst, it's evil. Certainly, the former attributes are components of the latter aren't they? There is nothing benevolent about the NC00 in this regard or with much of anything else. It needs to be stripped to its core and broken up. Any resulting regional organizations should be comprised of alumni rather than a bunch of administrators or professors who know virtually nothing outside of their ivory towers. Alumni actually have a reality-based grasp on how things work.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Bingo..... I think we have a winner.

Oh, I think any of those four could describe the typical college prof/adminstrator, politician; or officer of a large corporation for that matter...

Anyone see the recent Ward Churchill stories??

[Sioux-cia]

Isn't it possible that the jury might see the NCAA as a sympathetic figure? After all, UND could have resolved this issue years ago if they had simply done as many other schools have done. Don't juries usually get upset if they believe their time is being wasted on an issue that could have easily been resolved by one of the parties?

Also, would you admit any possibility that the NCAA really is acting in what it sees, however misguided, as the best interests of college sports?

NC$$ a sympathetic figure!!! Not a snowball's chance in Phoenix in July would ANYONE ever view a multi-billion dollar business (I don't care what any one says, the NC$$ is a business) as sympathetic.

Why would a jury decide that the NC$$ dictating 'moral views' onto a state institution is not worth taking to court? This case has already been decided to have enough merit to present to a jury. Why would a jury decide that the judge who made the decision to proceed is wrong?

The NC$$ should never have tried to force the opinion of an Executive Committee onto a state institution. If every member of the NC$$ truly believes that Native American names and logos for sports teams are 'hostile or abusive', why didn't Myles, et al, follow their own rules and put it to a membership vote? Could it be because the policy would not pass? I believe that is exactly why they didn't. And that's why we're going to win and the NC$$ isn't going to change any policy to override the court's decision.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

If every member of the NC$$ truly believes that Native American names and logos for sports teams are 'hostile or abusive', why didn't Myles, et al, follow their own rules and put it to a membership vote? Could it be because the policy would not pass? I believe that is exactly why they didn't. And that's why we're going to win and the NC$$ isn't going to change any policy to override the court's decision.

In general, I agree. I mean, if North Dakota, Illinois, FSU, etc. are so horrible, why wouldn't Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Florida want to see go down in smoke by chasing student athletes away from "hostile and abusive" schools like us (and towards them)? Why not let us continue to use the rope to hang ourselves??

Now that would describe a perfect, rational world and academia rarely is either perfect or rational. But that's the way it should work-and especially as the NCAA does function as a business.

[Shawn-O]

Now that would describe a perfect, rational world and academia rarely is either perfect or rational. But that's the way it should work-and especially as the NCAA does function as a business.

Exactly. Common sense says that the policy wouldn't stand a chance. But these are college presidents we're talking about here.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Exactly. Common sense says that the policy wouldn't stand a chance. But these are college presidents we're talking about here.

On that subject, here's a story about someone who makes over $250k and gets a house (and an expense account) to supervise a small campus of 7,000 commuter students. Yet she can't seem to organize her own purse.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...2&cset=true

BTW, a personal and political benefactor of this school (and its president) is the state of Illinois politician who made it his personal mission to torpedo Chief Illiniwek.