NCAA delays UND decsion

[Goon]

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

Any way we could get you to release the information to the rest of us. I really do like the way you explain stuff.

[dagies]

I now change my position to "slightly optimistic".

It does sound like the NCAA was about the quash the 2nd appeal. I'm glad to hear PCM's comments about the rebuttal. Sounds like UND has turned the tables to an extent to cause such a long delay in any further decision making on the part of the NCAA. This leads one to read a bit more into Harmeson's comments at the end of the Herald article.

[BleedGrn]

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

PCM, you great purveyor of knowledge and wisdom, care to summarize this stuff for us SS.com faithful?

[PCM]

PCM, you great purveyor of knowledge and wisdom, care to summarize this stuff for us SS.com faithful?

I'm working on an updated story on this issue for USCHO. I'll post a link to it here when it's done. I hope that will be later tonight.

I will say that this latest response from UND is far more legalistic. The case law is very well researched in the areas of anti-trust law and in defining what legally constitutes "hostile and abusive" behavior. Although I have not seen the memo that the NCAA Staff Committee sent to UND, it appears that the definition for "hostile and abusive" was suddenly switched from one based on case law to the dictionary definition. How convenient.

The NCAA also apparently included some psychological research on the use of American Indian nicknames and logos in its latest rationale for denying UND's appeal. UND's response pretty much rips that research to shreds. It also questions why the NCAA selectively chose to apply that research to UND, but not Florida State, which does far more to perpetuate American Indian stereotypes than UND.

EDIT: I should also add that the latest response spells out in detail how the NCAA Executive Committee is violating the organization's own constitution and attempts to circumvent the constitution by labeling its action as "policy" rather than "legislation." Fortunately, the NCAA's constitution spells out the Executive Committee's narrow responsibilities, which don't include enacting policy.

This is the concluding summary from UND's latest response to the NCAA:

The University is striving to find and maintain conditions that are beneficial to all students, American Indian and non-Indian students alike. It does not subscribe to the NCAA

[dagies]

I'm working on an updated story on this issue for USCHO. I'll post a link to it here when it's done.

No

This is the concluding summary from UND's latest response to the NCAA:

[PCM]

No

I could send you the link via mental telepathy if you prefer.

[ScottM]

arbitrary and capricious

Using buzzwords popular with the federal bench? Check.

federal anti-trust law

Trotting out federal law to get into US District Court? Check your wallet, NC$$.

hostile nor abusive as those terms are defined by the appropriate legal standard found in civil rights cases

Using your opponent's weight against him? Check.

I like the "rebuttal" summary Pat referenced. It looks like a very thinly-veiled "threat". I'd love to know what firm is working on this, and see the rest of the blast.

[Sioux-cia]

'ScottM' date='Jan 5 2006, 03:24 PM' post='133452'

Using buzzwords popular with the federal bench? Check.

Trotting out federal law to get into US District Court? Check your wallet, NC$$.

Using your opponent's weight against him? Check.

I like the "rebuttal" summary Pat referenced. It looks like a very thinly-veiled "threat". I'd love to know what firm is working on this, and see the rest of the blast.

Hang on to that Sioux gear, ScottM. Looks like it's going to get years and years of use! WOO HOO!!!

[SiouxPride0303]

Looking forward to your article PCM. Interesting turn of events, I truly hope this is a good sign, though like others I am cautiously optimistic. Nice to see UND taking an aggressive stance on this with their rebuttals and such.

[dakotadan]

This is the concluding summary from UND's latest response to the NCAA:

[redwing77]

Not to be a pessimist here, don't you feel like the NCAA is only doing this to prevent a lawsuit that they won't win?

If the NCAA denies the second appeal (which they will, trust me) in January or even February it puts UND's hockey team in a precarious position and could put undue hardship (though I may not be able to envision exactly what that would entail, attorneys would) on the University, the University sues and gets a sympathetic ruling.

This way, the NCAA can claim it took extra time in the effort to put good faith into the decision before finally shooting down the appeal.

The delay is just a joke as far as the appeal is concerned. They are just trying to get as much of the major sports tourneys out of the way before hitting us again.

[PCM]

Looking forward to your article PCM.

I wasn't able to get all the information I needed or talk to everyone I wanted to today, so I might not get it done until the weekend. I'll see how things go on Friday.

[PCM]

If the NCAA denies the second appeal (which they will, trust me) in January or even February it puts UND's hockey team in a precarious position and could put undue hardship (though I may not be able to envision exactly what that would entail, attorneys would) on the University, the University sues and gets a sympathetic ruling.

Maybe you should try reading the thread or the news stories related to the the topic before posting.

There will be no decision by the NCAA until April 27. In effect, UND and the other 15 schools are exempt from the nickname policy for the remainder of the school year.

[Diggler]

Maybe you should try reading the thread or the news stories related to the the topic before posting.

And deprive us all of the opportunity to laugh at him? Never!

[petey23]

Capricious. I love that word.

[siouxnami]

A final decision is expected June 14, 2028...

[jimdahl]

Maybe you should try reading the thread or the news stories related to the the topic before posting.

There will be no decision by the NCAA until April 27. In effect, UND and the other 15 schools are exempt from the nickname policy for the remainder of the school year.

The way I read it, the quoted portion provides a hypothetical scenario that the NCAA decided to avoid by pushing back the decision. The following, previously unquoted, portion makes that a little more clear:

This way, the NCAA can claim it took extra time in the effort to put good faith into the decision before finally shooting down the appeal.

The delay is just a joke as far as the appeal is concerned. They are just trying to get as much of the major sports tourneys out of the way before hitting us again.

[jimdahl]

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

Yep, you have exactly the same right to public records as the Grand Forks Herald. Just make an open records request to the University.

[mksioux]

While definitely a positive development, I can't get too excited about it. In reading UND's second appeal, I was VERY impressed with UND's procedural arguments. I thought they were the strongest part of UND's appeal. Essentially, UND is saying that this "policy" passed by the Executive Committee was really "legislation" and the Executive Committee does not have authority to pass legislation. The problem with prevailing on this theory is that a win would only be cause for further delay. If the NCAA agrees that its Executive Committee exceeded its authority, all it has to do is pass the "legislation" the proper way. Does anyone honestly think that the vast majority of the Presidents of NCAA members don't wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of the Executive Committee? Maybe I'm being overly-pessimistic, but I truly believe that Universities are the most politically correct institutions in the country. Even if the Executive Committee exceeded its authority in this instance, I think this legislation will ultimately get passed in the proper procedural manner. Then UND will be in court, which is where this was heading anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing UND for making these procedural arguments -- I think they are essential to the appeal. But I just can't get too excited about the possibility of winning on procedural grounds.

[PCM]

The problem with prevailing on this theory is that a win would only be cause for further delay. If the NCAA agrees that its Executive Committee exceeded its authority, all it has to do is pass the "legislation" the proper way. Does anyone honestly think that the vast majority of the Presidents of NCAA members don't wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of the Executive Committee? Maybe I'm being overly-pessimistic, but I truly believe that Universities are the most politically correct institutions in the country.

I don't disagree with your assessment on the procedural matters or the PC-ness of the universities. But it does beg the question: If Myles Brand and members of the Executive Committee believed that getting legislation passed to establish a policy on American Indian nicknames was a mere formality, why didn't they do that in the first place? They certainly know the process inside out. And I'm sure they realized that it would have greatly strengthened their position politically if the entire membership had voted in support of the policy.

But Brand and the Executive Committee purposely chose not to follow standard operating procedure and do an end-run around the NCAA's members, bylaws and constitution. Why? Could it be that getting the required majority isn't as easy as it appears? Could it be that while many members might agree with Brand on this particular issue, they're uncomfortable with his vision of the NCAA as "a catalyst for social change," not knowing where it might lead? Are they afraid that their ox might be next in line for goring?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions. But there has to be a reason why Brand the the Executive Committee chose the risky path they did.

Remember, too, that back in August when the NCAA issued this policy, it encouraged its members to adopt the "enlightened" policies of Iowa and Wisconsin and not schedule games with schools that have "hostile and abusive" nicknames, mascots and logos. I haven't heard of a single college doing this.

It might be that the nickname issue has a lot of traction with card-carrying ultra-liberals in academia, but very little traction beyond that. If that's the case, the issue once again comes down to the minority of a minority dictating to the majority. Same song. Different verse.

[dagies]

PCM, in reference to a couple of things you pointed out, I was always interested in how the DII Council of Presidents would look at the UND appeal, based on the NCAA "consitutionality" of this this decree. I've shown myself to be way wrong in many things, so I suppose this doesn't mean much, but I always wondered if they would feel so comfortable with what Brand and the Executive Committee did outside of the NCAA constitution. And one can hope that internally those questions are being raised and that may be contributing to this delay.

If the Executive Committee can throw out a policy like this, that doesn't follow the NCAA's constitution, what else might they do, and who might it affect next? Like you said, whose ox, and when?

[mksioux]

Could it be that while many members might agree with Brand on this particular issue, they're uncomfortable with his vision of the NCAA as "a catalyst for social change," not knowing where it might lead? Are they afraid that their ox might be next in line for goring?

You raise very interesting questions and I think they are all valid points. I agree that the transfer of power from each University to the other NCAA members on important social issues may be too much to stomach for some of the presidents, but I believe ideology will win the day and be the driving force. As long as Brand & Co. is pushing to the left, I don't see much resistance.

[govikes27]

If put to a vote there is definately a chance the legislation could pass. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the 18 schools convince the majority that the NCAA shouldn't be messing with things on this level and not have a vote at all. If not, perhaps they could say then ALL ethnic group mascots must be retired. No matter how liberal the presidents are I don't think that will fly. But I too fear that this issue, like politics these days, might just come down to ideology and not reason...

[Sioux-cia]

I'm slightly less than half way through UND's response to the NC$$'s memo (darn work responsibilites!) and there is a lot more than policy/Executive Committee vs Legislative body that is being addressed.

I'm quite confident that should this end up in court, Myles and his cohorts are going to end up with more than just egg on their faces.

I'm not an attorney nor have I played one television but the legal points that are referenced seem right on to me.

Hang in there, the more I read the more confident I am that UND and Sioux fans fans are going to prevail.

[The Sicatoka]

Read the linked thread and think of all of the things the NCAA left unchecked could try.

(PS - PCM owes me a for use of the "ox" line. :lol: )

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?t=52968

There is one thing a liberal college president loves more than their ideology: Their power.

There is no way a college president will do anything that'll cede even more "institutional control" away from themselves (their power). What you have to do is convince them that trying to take power from them is exactly what Myles Brand and his NCAA cohorts are up to.