NCAA delays UND decsion

[PCM]

A most interesting development as reported on ESPN.com:

The NCAA's executive committee said it will review the case on April 27. It had originally been scheduled for a hearing next week.

The new policy is scheduled to go into effect Feb. 1. However, UND officials said the school is exempt from the rule until the NCAA hears its second appeal.

[crosby_87]

So basically put it off until next season?

[Sioux-cia]

It's well known that UND fully expected to lose this second appeal. The wheels to take this to court are set to go. NC$$ is stalling. The big question is why?!

[PCM]

So basically put it off until next season?

That's the way I read it. Or you could say that Myles Brand blinked.

[PCM]

Here's what I posted on USCHO's Cafe Forum:

First, the NCAA said that no school with "hostile and abusive" Indian-related nicknames, mascots or logos would be allowed to use them during tournament events sponsored by the organization -- even if they had the support of a namesake tribe.

Oops. We know how long that high and mighty position lasted lasted. A loophole was created out of thin air for Florida State, Central Michigan and Utah.

Next, the University of North Dakota was told that it would have to cover up all Fighting Sioux references and logos to host the 2006 NCAA West Regionals at Ralph Engelstad Arena.

Oops. UND won that on appeal.

Next, when UND's cross country, soccer and football teams made the NCAA playoffs in the fall, the university challenged the organization's policy that would have prevented Sioux teams from wearing their normal uniforms during the playoffs.

Oops. The NCAA backed off and said that policy wouldn't go into effect until Feb. 1, 2006.

Next, the NCAA scrapped its three-step appeals process and decided that its Executive Committee, which meets next week, would rule on UND's second appeal. (This is like appealing your speeding ticket to the cop who issued you the ticket.)

Oops. The NCAA now says that it won't rule on UND's second appeal until April 27. According to the AP story posted on ESPN.com, "...UND officials said the school is exempt from the rule until the NCAA hears its second appeal."

This means that UND's athletic teams are free to retain and use the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo through the hockey and basketball seasons.

Every time UND pushes, the NCAA backs off. I wonder why.

[Air Force One]

From the Heraldo

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/13550107.htm

NCAA temporarily lifts nickname restrictions for appealing schools

Needs more time to review new information from UND before it considers next appeal

[bincitysioux]

This could be good.

[bincitysioux]

Next, when UND's cross country, soccer and football teams made the NCAA playoffs in the fall, the university challenged the organization's policy that would have prevented Sioux teams from wearing their normal uniforms during the playoffs.

Oops. The NCAA backed off and said that policy wouldn't go into effect until Feb. 1, 2006.

I thought we knew from the start that our fall sports teams would be o.k. for this year?

[PCM]

I thought we knew from the start that our fall sports teams would be o.k. for this year?

The ban on athletic team uniforms bearing logos and nicknames deemed "hostile and abusive" by the NCAA went into effect immediately on Aug. 5, 2005.

[PCM]

Quote from the Herald's story:

Tuesday's fax to UND from Bernard Franklin, NCAA senior vice president for governance and membership, said the association wants to thoroughly review the new information.

The NCAA has had UND's second appeal since early November. Why is the information in it suddenly characterized as "new"?

This quote from Phil Harmeson is also interesting:

"You never know what the NCAA is going to do in the longer run, but clearly, they need some time to work through the issues that were raised, especially by North Dakota," Harmeson said.

So for those who thought (UND's appeal) would be rejected out of hand, it clearly did not happen."

[dagies]

The gloom side of me says that this is the NCAA's way of not having to allow the Sioux a further "exemption" for their uni's and arena for the regionals this season. Then the hammer will fall after school is out for the year, hopefully further deflating any uproar.

The optimistic side of me hopes that this is a sign of a crack in the NCAA's stamina.

Personally, I think it is the former, but will hope for the latter.

On the question of whether the NCAA ruling went into effect immediately or not, I thought their initial ruling was somewhat contradictory. My memory may be mistaken, but I thought it said the policy was effective immediately but that the restrictions didn't go into effect until Feb 1 or something like that. I know that seems strange, so maybe I just remember it wrong.

[PCM]

On the question of whether the NCAA ruling went into effect immediately or not, I thought their initial ruling was somewhat contradictory. My memory may be mistaken, but I thought it said the policy was effective immediately but that the restrictions didn't go into effect until Feb 1 or something like that. I know that seems strange, so maybe I just remember it wrong.

The restrictions on uniforms at NCAA-sponsored events went into effect immediately last Aug. 5. The restrictions on hosting those events didn't go into effect until Feb. 1.

[PCM]

The gloom side of me says that this is the NCAA's way of not having to allow the Sioux a further "exemption" for their uni's and arena for the regionals this season.

In effect, the NCAA has exempted UND for the remainder of the school year. That's quite a change from "effective at the beginning of the school year" to "effective at the middle of the school year" to "not effective this school year."

Then the hammer will fall after school is out for the year, hopefully further deflating any uproar.

It might serve to deflate the public uproar, but I doubt that it will change UND's plans which, at the point the NCAA denies the appeal, will leave the realm of public opinion and move into the legal phase.

The optimistic side of me hopes that this is a sign of a crack in the NCAA's stamina.

It wasn't long ago that this was being portrayed as a "slam dunk" for the NCAA. Remember all those "legal experts" who said UND had no chance in challenging the NCAA? If the all-mighty NCAA is on such solid legal ground, why doesn't it just go ahead and bring the hammer down now? I think there's more going on here than meets the eye.

[Sioux-cia]

The gloom side of me says that this is the NCAA's way of not having to allow the Sioux a further "exemption" for their uni's and arena for the regionals this season. Then the hammer will fall after school is out for the year, hopefully further deflating any uproar.

The optimistic side of me hopes that this is a sign of a crack in the NCAA's stamina.

Personally, I think it is the former, but will hope for the latter.

On the question of whether the NCAA ruling went into effect immediately or not, I thought their initial ruling was somewhat contradictory. My memory may be mistaken, but I thought it said the policy was effective immediately but that the restrictions didn't go into effect until Feb 1 or something like that. I know that seems strange, so maybe I just remember it wrong.

Positive thoughts, dagies. . I think that someone at the NC$$ FINALLY actually read the appeal. Something they clearly have not done with past appeals. Lots of red flags there which, IMHO, would bode well for UND in a court trial.

[PCM]

Positive thoughts, dagies. . I think that someone at the NC$$ FINALLY actually read the appeal. Something they clearly have not done with past appeals. Lots of red flags there which, IMHO, would bode well for UND in a court trial.

I agree. I think someone with solid legal credentials who was more objective than the NCAA's in-house experts read UND's appeal and told Myles Brand and the Executive Committee that they better think very carefully about what they're doing.

[The Sicatoka]

Or you could say that Myles Brand blinked.

.... again.

Come on Myles "catalyst for social change" Brand. I thought this was great social and moral issue. If it is stick to your position and deny UND's second appeal (and stand by to get yours handed to you in court on legal grounds).

[dagies]

The restrictions on uniforms at NCAA-sponsored events went into effect immediately last Aug. 5. The restrictions on hosting those events didn't go into effect until Feb. 1.

THAT was my confusion...thanks.

[The Sicatoka]

From the Herald:

"Clearly, we have raised significant questions of materiality that they need to deal with," Harmeson said.

Don't ya love it when Phil talks the lawyer talk.

[mksioux]

Quote from the Herald's story:

The NCAA has had UND's second appeal since early November. Why is the information in it suddenly characterized as "new"?

Also in the fax from Franklin:

"However, given the extremely short timeframe between receipt of the North Dakota reply and the upcoming hearing, the staff committee recommended postponement of the hearing procedure."

What is he talking about? UND has been very diligent in filing its appeals. The NCAA is the party that's stalling. They've had over two months to look at the second appeal. That's not an "extremely short timeframe."

[dagies]

The letter follows a 35-page "rebuttal" issued by UND officials to the NCAA on Dec. 23.

This also in the Herald article. I don't know if they got the date wrong, or if this "rebuttal" is different than the actual appeal. Haven't stayed that close to the process.

[PCM]

What is he talking about? UND has been very diligent in filing its appeals. The NCAA is the party that's stalling. They've had over two months to look at the second appeal. That's not an "extremely short timeframe."

For some reason, I didn't notice this quote in the Herald's story last night:

The letter follows a 35-page "rebuttal" issued by UND officials to the NCAA on Dec. 23 in response to an NCAA staff committee review that had picked apart the school's second appeal. The committee, in a 15-page memo dated Dec. 9, had recommended that UND be kept on the restrictions list.

That must be what Franklin is referring to. From the sounds of it, the NCAA was ready to deny UND's second appeal.

[Teeder11]

I talked to the Herald reporter. He said that the newspaper did an open records request from UND recently and discovered a letter from the NCAA staff review committee dated Dec. 9 that recommended the NCAA uphold the restrictions on UND. Then, the Heraldo found the 35-page rebuttal from UND dated Dec. 23. All of these actions and letters were completed after UND submitted its second appeal to the NCAA. It's all info that had never been reported before.

The rebuttal from UND is the new information Harmeson and Franklin are referring to, I guess.

[Sioux-cia]

I talked to the Herald reporter. He said that the newspaper did an open records request from UND recently and discovered a letter from the NCAA staff review committee dated Dec. 9 that recommended the NCAA uphold the restrictions on UND. Then, the Heraldo found the 35-page rebuttal from UND dated Dec. 23. All of these actions and letters were completed after UND submitted its second appeal to the NCAA. It's all info that had never been reported before.

The rebuttal from UND is the new information Harmeson and Franklin are referring to, I guess.

Anyway the general public can have access to these two documents?

[mksioux]

The letter follows a 35-page "rebuttal" issued by UND officials to the NCAA on Dec. 23 in response to an NCAA staff committee review that had picked apart the school's second appeal. The committee, in a 15-page memo dated Dec. 9, had recommended that UND be kept on the restrictions list.

I don't like the "picked apart" comment by the reporter. It makes it sound like the NCAA did a thorough job. That would be uncharacteristic of the NCAA.

[PCM]

I don't like the "picked apart" comment by the reporter. It makes it sound like the NCAA did a thorough job. That would be uncharacteristic of the NCAA.

I've now read UND's response to the NCAA staff committee memo. While the NCAA was pickin', UND was kickin'.