Judge Rules in UND Favor

[UND92,96]

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

My mistake.

[Goon]

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?

So the U of Ill Chief is hostile but Florida State University mascot can ride the horse out on the field and throw the flaming spear into the ground. Nope thats not stereotypical.

[HockeyMom]

So the U of Ill Chief is hostile but Florida State University mascot can ride the horse out on the field and throw the flaming spear into the ground. Nope thats not stereotypical.

I'm giving my friend from FSU a hard time about this right now.

Florida State has a pretty decent women's soccer team under Krickorian. (sp) Good luck!

[ScottM]

[Florida State has a pretty decent women's soccer team under Krickorian. (sp) Good luck!

I would agree.

[fightingsioux4life]

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.

Once member institutions start to become threatened by the NCAA Politburo, they will begin to respond. I agree with you; they should speak up now and not later. But large, bureaucratic institutions like colleges and universities often move slow even on important matters such as this. They almost always think short-term first and long-term later. And in the short-term, this blatant power-grab does not impact them at all. But I would bet that they are watching these events in their offices and probably are very concerned about them. My guess is that the Politburo will start getting more and more media attention the further they push this long-range plan of theirs. I predict that Secretary-General Myles Brand will never see his dream of absolute power and "social change" come to pass because he will either a) get fired or b) tick off too many member schools or c) both.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I guess I am a little more optimistic about defeating any member votes on this or any other micromanaging policy from the NCAA Politburo. GO SIOUX!!!