Judge Rules in UND Favor

[fightingsioux4life]

The reason that the NCAA Politburo hasn't put this to a vote is because they do not have and never will have the votes to pass something like this. A lot of people on here focus on the political and social leanings of college presidents. What people are not focusing on enough is the dislike most college presidents have of the NCAA micromanaging their institutions. There is no way that 2/3rds of the membership would vote yes on legislation that would give the NCAA Politburo almost unlimited authority to do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted. As The Sicatoka has pointed out in this and other internet forums, if they win this battle, what are they going to pull next? I could come up with a list, but I don't have the time or patience.

The bottom line is, the NCAA would cease being "Democracy in Action" and would become a dictatorship where member votes are advisory and non-binding instead of the law and members speak against the Politburo at their own risk and peril. This is what Secretary-General Myles Brand wants. If our legal team has anything to say about it, he won't get it because the membership is not going to give it to him. That would be as much fun as a national championship in hockey!

[mksioux]

Forgive my legalese ignorance..

When we win, if the win is based only on Counts I and II, and there has been no NC$$ membership vote to change policy, do we get to keep the name and logo?

Yes, but my point was that the victory may be short-lived.

[PCM]

Yes, but my point was that the victory may be short-lived.

And you could be right. For all I know, the NCAA could put the policy to a member vote before the trial ever happens. Time will tell.

[mksioux]

The reason that the NCAA Politburo hasn't put this to a vote is because they do not have and never will have the votes to pass something like this. A lot of people on here focus on the political and social leanings of college presidents. What people are not focusing on enough is the dislike most college presidents have of the NCAA micromanaging their institutions.

If the NCAA presidents were so against the NCAA micromanaging their institutions, where is the outcry over what the NCAA is doing to UND? What the Executive Committee is doing right now is "micromanaging institutions" and exercising "unlimited authority" and the membership as a whole doesn't seem to care one bit. I've heard no public comments from any school that has not been directly affected by the policy.

There is no way that 2/3rds of the membership would vote yes on legislation that would give the NCAA Politburo almost unlimited authority to do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted.

The hypothetical proposed legislation before the entire membership that might follow a UND court victory on procedural grounds would not give the NCAA "unlimited authority" to do whatever it wanted. In fact, a membership vote would do the exact opposite, which is to keep the NCAA a "bottom-up" member-controlled association. So even if the college presidents cared about the Executive Committee micromanaging their institutions, they wouldn't have a big problem voting for legislation specifically relating to some sort of Indian nickname ban.

[fightingsioux4life]

If the NCAA presidents were so against the NCAA micromanaging their institutions, where is the outcry over what the NCAA is doing to UND? What the Executive Committee is doing right now is "micromanaging institutions" and exercising "unlimited authority" and the membership as a whole doesn't seem to care one bit. I've heard no public comments from any school that has not been directly affected by the policy.

I have bolded the main reason they haven't commented on this: It doesn't affect them, so they are silent on it. The safe thing for them right now is to wait and see how this thing plays out. And these schools are probably afraid of retaliation from the NCAA for speaking out against this policy. But if we had a membership vote on it, the matter would be debated and then voted on. And I think that the more each member thought about it, the more frightening it would become to them. We would have a chance to lobby other schools to join our side on the premise that this legislation would set a dangerous precedent that the NCAA Politburo can dictate policy from the top-down and woe to any school that complains about it. So far, we haven't been given a chance to do this.

The hypothetical proposed legislation before the entire membership that might follow a UND court victory on procedural grounds would not give the NCAA "unlimited authority" to do whatever it wanted. In fact, a membership vote would do the exact opposite, which is to keep the NCAA a "bottom-up" member-controlled association. So even if the college presidents cared about the Executive Committee micromanaging their institutions, they wouldn't have a big problem voting for legislation specifically relating to some sort of Indian nickname ban.

That is the other main reason why they don't want to put it to a vote. The idea of having the Executive Committee impose the rule from the top-down is to set a precedent of NCAA dictatorial rule over the membership. So once they get what they want on this issue, they'll pull out the "Executive Fiat" doctrine for whatever other nonesense they might come up with (i.e., not enough female student enrollment on campus). Look at the court case they are presenting to the court. They are arguing that the Executive Committee can rule by fiat on "core issues" of the NCAA. What is to stop them from declaring all issues "core" issues? They are cherry-picking their own rules and regulations. If they can establish in a court of law that this is legitimate, no school will be safe from anything. The NCAA sanctions on schools in states with the Confederate battle flag is another example of what they really want out of all of this. And if they keep it up, they will make enough enemies in the membership to trigger a revolt.

If UND wins this case (which I think they will), other schools will copycat this formula and the NCAA Politburo will have a legal mess on their hands of their own making. The NCAA has stepped over it's boundaries and now they will have to answer for it in court. And I am going to enjoy watching them go down in flames.

[larsensa]

During the news segment on Fox News the Fighting Sioux logo was on the screen and the reporter mentioned the case and said that the NCAA would not appeal the injunction against the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux!!! It was cool to see our logo on Fox News and to hear about our first win in the case!

[farce poobah]

Nice analysis, gang. If I ever get to be half as smart as you are, I'll become twice as smart as I am now.

What is going on inside the NCAA? I think their "social engineers" ("bullies" in my grade school) looked around for the easiest target (Native American nicknames), and picked the one they thought had no possible defense. They thought the schools using Native American nicknames would simply cave.

Along the way, they are getting some education.

Now that's what you'd call ironic.

[Chewey]

Nice analysis, gang. If I ever get to be half as smart as you are, I'll become twice as smart as I am now.

What is going on inside the NCAA? I think their "social engineers" ("bullies" in my grade school) looked around for the easiest target (Native American nicknames), and picked the one they thought had no possible defense. They thought the schools using Native American nicknames would simply cave.

Along the way, they are getting some education.

Now that's what you'd call ironic.

It's very sad that so many have caved; it's disgusting, in fact. Decades of tradition compromised and countless alumni jaded because several schools have not had the stomach to fight. Perhaps the presidents of such universities were just patsies. Does anyone think there is a chance of the NC00 being broken up like "Ma Bell" in 1984? The NCAA is obviously a monopoly like "Ma Bell" was. It seems to me that the NC00 could be broken up very nicely into regional associations. This would probably stimulate competition as television rights, etc would have to negotiate with multiple parties as opposed to the one stop shop. Many regional economies would likely be infused with a lot of money and resources. Plus, the NC00 bully and its economic abuse is stopped. Sounds like a good deal to me. Heck, we may even be able to get a football playoff arrangement out of it.

[HockeyMom]

I believe that the NCAA thought the little school from North Dakota would cave.......just like the other small schools that have so far.

They were wrong, and hopefully it's the little school from North Dakota that sets the precedence in this case.

[LB#11]

I believe that the NCAA thought the little school from North Dakota would cave.......just like the other small schools that have so far.

They were wrong, and hopefully it's the little school from North Dakota that sets the precedence in this case.

Whatever happens with the final decision...I'm very proud of the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux for the fight they have put up in defending what is right. We(Fighting Sioux fans) have a tremendous university in a very proud state...keep up the good fight.

[The Sicatoka]

From Judge Jahnke's decision:

As the court stated at the outset of the November 9, 2006 hearing, this litigation will not determine whether UND

[Chewey]

I was disappointed with Ryan Bakken's story in that he was saying that UND should just cave to the NC00 mandates or risk being perennially discriminated against by the NC00. Is he a name change advocate? I guess I did not think so. One would think that the more the NC00 does this, the more evidence accumulates against it for possible legal action in the future. One of my old partners used to have a saying, "just another arrow in the quiver," which is very appropriate in more ways than one for this situation. Personally, I do think that the nickname had something to do with the fall in seeding. Such passive-agressiveness on the part of the NC00 can only hurt its cause in the long run but the PC mindset is either numbed or indifferent to this. In any case, there is no reason to simply bend over for the NC00 as Bakken seems to suggest. I don't see how fighting an injustice constitutes "defiant" behavior. Is it defiant to demand that the NC00 follow its own charter and bylaws? Is it defiant to demand that the NC00 treat all its members equally under the "policy"?

[sultan]

For people to even think that the NCAA didn't lower our seeding because of the lawsuit is laughable. To even think that you must of been born yesterday. Take off your rose colored glasses and buy some swamp land in Florida. The whole situation is extremely obvious and will continue to happen in the future. Unfortunately it might continue to happen in the future no matter how the lawsuit comes out. The NCAA will proably hold it against us for quite some time. I am for keeping the nickname but there will definitely be a price to pay.

[LeftyZL]

I was disappointed with Ryan Bakken's story in that he was saying that UND should just cave to the NC00 mandates or risk being perennially discriminated against by the NC00. Is he a name change advocate? I guess I did not think so. One would think that the more the NC00 does this, the more evidence accumulates against it for possible legal action in the future. One of my old partners used to have a saying, "just another arrow in the quiver," which is very appropriate in more ways than one for this situation. Personally, I do think that the nickname had something to do with the fall in seeding. Such passive-agressiveness on the part of the NC00 can only hurt its cause in the long run but the PC mindset is either numbed or indifferent to this. In any case, there is no reason to simply bend over for the NC00 as Bakken seems to suggest. I don't see how fighting an injustice constitutes "defiant" behavior. Is it defiant to demand that the NC00 follow its own charter and bylaws? Is it defiant to demand that the NC00 treat all its members equally under the "policy"?

I personally didn't get the same vibe from the article that you did. I think it was more of just a "heads-up" to the general public that might not understand how the NCAA will make this whole process(Playoff Seeding) a disadvantage for UND in the future whether we win this case or not. Nothing more, Nothing less. I can see what Ryan says happening too. And you know what, all it's gonna do is add more fuel to our fire. This will just bring our athletic teams more together I believe. Hell, after we beat Winona State on Saturday, I will be making the trip to watch the Sioux take out some of their "agression" on Omaha that the NCAA gave us. True, it may be a disadvantage to go on the road, but I believe this kind of action from the NCAA will drive this team through the play-offs this year. Nothing like pissing off 18-22 year old football players. UND will be focused, determined, and poised on Saturday. I'd recommend Winona State strap their chin straps a little tighter for Saturday's game.

[Goon]

For people to even think that the NCAA didn't lower our seeding because of the lawsuit is laughable. To even think that you must of been born yesterday. Take off your rose colored glasses and buy some swamp land in Florida. The whole situation is extremely obvious and will continue to happen in the future. Unfortunately it might continue to happen in the future no matter how the lawsuit comes out. The NCAA will proably hold it against us for quite some time. I am for keeping the nickname but there will definitely be a price to pay.

Or how about maybe Myles Brand steps down after it has been revealed he has over stepped his authority.

If he keeps losing in this battle maybe he will be asked to step aside.

[mksioux]

I have bolded the main reason they haven't commented on this: It doesn't affect them, so they are silent on it. The safe thing for them right now is to wait and see how this thing plays out.

I'm not going to dwell on this much more, but my point was that if the college presidents are so concerned about the NCAA exercising unlimited power and micromanaging institutions (as you claim they are), then this policy enacted by the Executive Committee does affect them because it will embolden a precedent that the Executive Committee has the authority to enact social legislation without a membership vote. Despite this, I've heard no outcry by unaffected institutions.

That, in part, is what's leading me to the conclusion that the college presidents care more about the substance of the policies (ideology) than any precedent these policies may establish that diminishes their institutional autonomy. Or, at a minimum, they simply don't care what policies the Executive Committee enacts as long as it doesn't affect their institution. Either way, I don't think they care a great deal about institutional autonomy.

Remember, this is the second "social justice" policy enacted unilaterally by the Executive Committee. The first was the post-season ban on the entire state of South Carolina because the state government flies the Confederate flag at the state capitol. They started with a VERY easy target that nobody questioned, and then moved on to Indian nicknames, which was a little more controversial, but still not controversial enough to get the unaffected members riled up. This is the trend the Executive Committee will continue until they feel they have enough power to tackel the controversial "social justice" issues. And that is why I believe the Executive Committee did not simply take this issue to the members for a vote (not because they didn't feel they could get the requisite votes). They have a long-term plan that will ultimately afford their committee A LOT of power. They can't acquire that power by simply taking all of their ideas to the membership for a vote.

[Diggler]

Despite this, I've heard no outcry by unaffected institutions.

Martin Niem

[Chewey]

I'm not going to dwell on this much more, but my point was that if the college presidents are so concerned about the NCAA exercising unlimited power and micromanaging institutions (as you claim they are), then this policy enacted by the Executive Committee does affect them because it will embolden a precedent that the Executive Committee has the authority to enact social legislation without a membership vote. Despite this, I've heard no outcry by unaffected institutions.

That, in part, is what's leading me to the conclusion that the college presidents care more about the substance of the policies (ideology) than any precedent these policies may establish that diminishes their institutional autonomy. Or, at a minimum, they simply don't care what policies the Executive Committee enacts as long as it doesn't affect their institution. Either way, I don't think they care a great deal about institutional autonomy.

Remember, this is the second "social justice" policy enacted unilaterally by the Executive Committee. The first was the post-season ban on the entire state of South Carolina because the state government flies the Confederate flag at the state capitol. They started with a VERY easy target that nobody questioned, and then moved on to Indian nicknames, which was a little more controversial, but still not controversial enough to get the unaffected members riled up. This is the trend the Executive Committee will continue until they feel they have enough power to tackel the controversial "social justice" issues. And that is why I believe the Executive Committee did not simply take this issue to the members for a vote (not because they didn't feel they could get the requisite votes). They have a long-term plan that will ultimately afford their committee A LOT of power. They can't acquire that power by simply taking all of their ideas to the membership for a vote.

Agree. That's exactly what's happening.

[GeauxSioux]

UND AD says court ruling was issued close to deadline

"We were probably down to the 48 minute time limit when I got it," Buning said. "I got the message to the North Region coordinator, and he was able to play that voice message back to the entire committee who was on the phone."

[UND92,96]

It's kind of interesting that UND receiver Brady Trenbeath's dad could become involved in the litigation, as he was just named chief deputy assistant a.g. link.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Best of luck with the lawsuit, hope you take them for all they're worth! I'm ashamed that my school isn't being as proactive as North Dakota is.

The University of Illinois women's soccer team lost the opportunity to host NCAA tourney games last weekend because of this policy. However, we managed to win the games on the field, and therefore we're continuing on in the tourney. This week we are playing at......

Florida State.

[SiouxMD]

Best of luck with the lawsuit, hope you take them for all they're worth! I'm ashamed that my school isn't being as proactive as North Dakota is.

The University of Illinois women's soccer team lost the opportunity to host NCAA tourney games last weekend because of this policy. However, we managed to win the games on the field, and therefore we're continuing on in the tourney. This week we are playing at......

Florida State.

How fitting...

[The Sicatoka]

Bracket for proof:

http://www.ncaasports.com/soccer/womens/br...t64_dyn/2006/DI

Will we get the "flaming spear show" by FSU in pre-game?

[4siouxnow]

I hope Chief Illiniwek is able to make the trip also.

[SOONERbeaSIOUXfan]

It's kind of interesting that UND receiver Brady Trenbeath's dad could become involved in the litigation, as he was just named chief deputy assistant a.g. link.

Not Brady's Dad; probably an Uncle. Brady's Dad is Jerry.