Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by RichH
Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: RichH (---.lunatechnologies.com)
Date: August 05, 2005 12:40PM
[news.yahoo.com]
[Q]Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed by teams on their uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president.
The NCAA plans to ban schools using Indian nicknames from hosting postseason events. Harrison said schools with such mascots that have already been selected as tournament sites would be asked to cover any offensive logos.
Such logos also would be prohibited at postseason games on cheerleader and band uniforms starting in 2008.[/Q]
Of course, the biggest thing that comes to mind is the 2006 West Regional held at the Ralph at North Dakota. Also, it seems that the Fighting Sioux have a choice of either changing their uniforms, or start sucking.
[Q]Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed by teams on their uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president.
The NCAA plans to ban schools using Indian nicknames from hosting postseason events. Harrison said schools with such mascots that have already been selected as tournament sites would be asked to cover any offensive logos.
Such logos also would be prohibited at postseason games on cheerleader and band uniforms starting in 2008.[/Q]
Of course, the biggest thing that comes to mind is the 2006 West Regional held at the Ralph at North Dakota. Also, it seems that the Fighting Sioux have a choice of either changing their uniforms, or start sucking.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2005 12:43PM by RichH.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Harrier (209.150.239.---)
Date: August 05, 2005 01:17PM
the guy who ponied up the dough for the arena specifically laid out that they cannot for any reason change the "Fighting Sioux" or the logo.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: August 05, 2005 01:31PM
True, but Ralph Engelstad died in 2002. His estate/heirs might still be willing to fight the issue but then again they might not.
An interesting bit from the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Engelstad) on him, relating to the arena:
[q]One of the more interesting developments of this was the placing of The Fighting Sioux logo in all 11,000+ seats and in a large marble display in the front of the building, to make removal of the logo very costly if attempted.[/q]
I've stated elsewhere on this forum what I think of this policy and we don't need to rehash. But this quote from the Yahoo article shows how ridiculous some of this can be:
[q]Not all schools with Indian-related nicknames would be on that list. NCAA officials said some schools using the Warrior nickname do not use Indian symbols and would not be affected.[/q]If a school does not use an Indian mascot/trappings, how can anyone even remotely think that the term "warrior" (not even remotely an Indian term, derived from Old North French according to dictionary.com) is offensive? It's sad that the article or the NCAA feels it necessary to specifically exempt "Warriors".
An interesting bit from the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Engelstad) on him, relating to the arena:
[q]One of the more interesting developments of this was the placing of The Fighting Sioux logo in all 11,000+ seats and in a large marble display in the front of the building, to make removal of the logo very costly if attempted.[/q]
I've stated elsewhere on this forum what I think of this policy and we don't need to rehash. But this quote from the Yahoo article shows how ridiculous some of this can be:
[q]Not all schools with Indian-related nicknames would be on that list. NCAA officials said some schools using the Warrior nickname do not use Indian symbols and would not be affected.[/q]If a school does not use an Indian mascot/trappings, how can anyone even remotely think that the term "warrior" (not even remotely an Indian term, derived from Old North French according to dictionary.com) is offensive? It's sad that the article or the NCAA feels it necessary to specifically exempt "Warriors".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2005 01:32PM by KeithK.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bu.edu)
Date: August 05, 2005 02:04PM
You could think it, but it'd be silly, I agree with ya there, Keith ( 
)
The only thing I have to say is that anything the helps prevent a team having home ice advantage is the postseason is fine by me. Unless of course they just replace it with Minnesota. Hmmm, how to convince the NCAA that Gophers is a racially insensitive term. Has any race in history ever been referred to as gophers by anyone other group in any language?
)
The only thing I have to say is that anything the helps prevent a team having home ice advantage is the postseason is fine by me. Unless of course they just replace it with Minnesota. Hmmm, how to convince the NCAA that Gophers is a racially insensitive term. Has any race in history ever been referred to as gophers by anyone other group in any language?
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ajec1 (---.cpinternet.com)
Date: August 05, 2005 02:26PM
I don't know if this came out in the previous discussion, but the Fighting Sioux logo was designed by a Native American artist...hardly a degrading logo (ie Cleveland Indians).... Although "Sioux" had negative connotations back in the day, I believe that the descendents are members of the Dakota-Sioux Nation. Fighting Sioux is hardly along the offensive lines of Red Raiders, Redskins, etc. Hopefully this doesn't force them to change a thing, I can't imagine NoDak as anything other than the Fighting Sioux.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: August 05, 2005 02:37PM
I find it unlikely that this NCAA action would cause NoDak to change it's nickname, although it certainlywil be cited as further evidence for those on campus who are pushing for a change. More likely if this mandate is enforced the team would simply unveil a new tournament jersey which lacked the logo and simply had North Dakota across the front. Follow the letter of the rule while creating the possibility of new merchandise sales.
If I'm right, we can only pray that these jerseys would be less ugly than Michigan's alternates. Then again, I think that's pretty much guaranteed.
If I'm right, we can only pray that these jerseys would be less ugly than Michigan's alternates. Then again, I think that's pretty much guaranteed.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ugarte (---.nycmny.east.verizon.net)
Date: August 05, 2005 03:51PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
If a school does not use an Indian mascot/trappings, how can anyone even remotely think that the term "warrior" (not even remotely an Indian term, derived from Old North French according to dictionary.com) is offensive? It's sad that the article or the NCAA feels it necessary to specifically exempt "Warriors". [/q]Probably because of schools that used to use Native American symbols in conjunction with the name (not that I can think of any offhand). That said, I agree with you about the use of the word "Warriors".
If a school does not use an Indian mascot/trappings, how can anyone even remotely think that the term "warrior" (not even remotely an Indian term, derived from Old North French according to dictionary.com) is offensive? It's sad that the article or the NCAA feels it necessary to specifically exempt "Warriors". [/q]Probably because of schools that used to use Native American symbols in conjunction with the name (not that I can think of any offhand). That said, I agree with you about the use of the word "Warriors".
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: August 05, 2005 04:49PM
I remember reading somewhere that several members of UNDs athletic teams who are of Sioux descent when asked were extremely proud of the name.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bu.edu)
Date: August 06, 2005 08:39PM
[Q]ajec1 Wrote:
Fighting Sioux is hardly along the offensive lines of Red Raiders, Redskins, etc. Hopefully this doesn't force them to change a thing, I can't imagine NoDak as anything other than the Fighting Sioux. [/q]
To be fair, the term Red Raiders had nothing to do historically with native americans, although apparently it was assumed so by some people in the middle because a logo was made with an indian head. Among theories advanced is that Red Raiders referred to their ability to defeat the Big Red ( first, yeah right, second, talk about an inferiority complex), however:
[Q]In 2001, a group of students approached the administration with the concern that the name "Red Raiders" still implied a Native American mascot. The school agreed to drop the word "Red" from the team name starting in the 2001-02 school year; however, its has been revealed that the "Red" moniker was a reference to the Vikings, yet it has not been reattached to the nickname.[/Q]
Fighting Sioux is hardly along the offensive lines of Red Raiders, Redskins, etc. Hopefully this doesn't force them to change a thing, I can't imagine NoDak as anything other than the Fighting Sioux. [/q]
To be fair, the term Red Raiders had nothing to do historically with native americans, although apparently it was assumed so by some people in the middle because a logo was made with an indian head. Among theories advanced is that Red Raiders referred to their ability to defeat the Big Red ( first, yeah right, second, talk about an inferiority complex), however:
[Q]In 2001, a group of students approached the administration with the concern that the name "Red Raiders" still implied a Native American mascot. The school agreed to drop the word "Red" from the team name starting in the 2001-02 school year; however, its has been revealed that the "Red" moniker was a reference to the Vikings, yet it has not been reattached to the nickname.[/Q]
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: RichH (---.chvlva.adelphia.net)
Date: August 07, 2005 01:37AM
My high school team's nickname was the Red Raiders. The mascot was some sort of fox-like creature.
No wonder I associate the average Colgate fan's maturity level to be a wee bit low.
No wonder I associate the average Colgate fan's maturity level to be a wee bit low.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: August 07, 2005 02:34AM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Among theories advanced is that Red Raiders referred to their ability to defeat the Big Red ( first, yeah right, second, talk about an inferiority complex), however:
Among theories advanced is that Red Raiders referred to their ability to defeat the Big Red ( first, yeah right, second, talk about an inferiority complex), however:
In 2001, a group of students approached the administration with the concern that the name "Red Raiders" still implied a Native American mascot. The school agreed to drop the word "Red" from the team name starting in the 2001-02 school year; however, its has been revealed that the "Red" moniker was a reference to the Vikings, yet it has not been reattached to the nickname.[/Q]
[/q]
So, instead of insulting Native Americans, they instead were insulting Scandinavians? (And perhaps Minnesotans?)
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ajec1 (---.cpinternet.com)
Date: August 07, 2005 12:04PM
[Q]Will Wrote:
DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Among theories advanced is that Red Raiders referred to their ability to defeat the Big Red ( first, yeah right, second, talk about an inferiority complex), however:
In 2001, a group of students approached the administration with the concern that the name "Red Raiders" still implied a Native American mascot. The school agreed to drop the word "Red" from the team name starting in the 2001-02 school year; however, its has been revealed that the "Red" moniker was a reference to the Vikings, yet it has not been reattached to the nickname.[/Q]
[/Q]
So, instead of insulting Native Americans, they instead were insulting Scandinavians? (And perhaps Minnesotans?)[/q]
I guess that I will have to add that to the list "Why Colgate Sucks"
1. They play hockey in a dignified pole barn (how dignified is up for debate)
2. They had the worst poser-punk cover band I have ever heard playing before last years game ( "OMG I love Good Charlotte!"
3. In my experience, Colgate Plus Whitening toothpaste made no discernable difference in the whiteness of my teeth.
4. "Red Raiders" insults the heritage of 2/3 of my home state, which while I am not of Scandinavian descent, is insulting because you don't see Minnesotans mocking their heritage (although the St. Cloud State Fightin' Tartar does have a ring to it...)
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ftyuv (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: August 08, 2005 02:09AM
Are we still allowed to sing "Far above Cayuga's waters," or do we have to change the words to "Far above the Non-Offensively-Named Lake" now? And is Big Red offensive because it implies that Native Americans (or Vikings) are fat?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2005 02:17AM by ftyuv.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: August 08, 2005 09:03AM
[Q]RichH Wrote:
No wonder I associate the average Colgate fan's maturity level to be a wee bit low.[/q]
Sure it doesn't have more to do with the flying dildo?
No wonder I associate the average Colgate fan's maturity level to be a wee bit low.[/q]
Sure it doesn't have more to do with the flying dildo?
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ninian '72 (---.ed.gov)
Date: August 08, 2005 11:53AM
The Michigan alternates look as if someone associated with a diner or Formica designed them. What were they thinking?
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: August 08, 2005 01:25PM
I think the extent of their thinking was alternate jersey = $$$.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Josh '99 (160.79.182.---)
Date: August 08, 2005 02:55PM
[Q]ftyuv Wrote:
Are we still allowed to sing "Far above Cayuga's waters," or do we have to change the words to "Far above the Non-Offensively-Named Lake" now? And is Big Red offensive because it implies that Native Americans (or Vikings) are fat?[/q]No, it's offensive because of the godless commie bastards.
Are we still allowed to sing "Far above Cayuga's waters," or do we have to change the words to "Far above the Non-Offensively-Named Lake" now? And is Big Red offensive because it implies that Native Americans (or Vikings) are fat?[/q]No, it's offensive because of the godless commie bastards.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Scott Kominkiewicz (---.nwrk.east.verizon.net)
Date: August 11, 2005 12:26AM
> Not all schools with Indian-related nicknames would be on that list. NCAA officials said some schools using the Warrior nickname do not use Indian symbols and would not be affected. <
What about that first post about "hostile or abusive" nicknames or mascots? Warriors isn't a hostile word? Isn't the root word "war"? (Maybe I'm just too tired and punchy to get it.)
What about that first post about "hostile or abusive" nicknames or mascots? Warriors isn't a hostile word? Isn't the root word "war"? (Maybe I'm just too tired and punchy to get it.)
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: August 11, 2005 02:10AM
Florida State (Seminoles) is protesting this decision and may take the NCAA to court. The Seminoes tribe specifically endorses the name, so it's not hostile to those that the FSU teams are specifically named after.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ajec1 (---.cpinternet.com)
Date: August 11, 2005 11:49AM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Florida State (Seminoles) is protesting this decision and may take the NCAA to court. The Seminoes tribe specifically endorses the name, so it's not hostile to those that the FSU teams are specifically named after.[/q]
According to ESPN, the Seminoles of Florida have signed off on it, but the Seminoles of Oklahoma have not....
Florida State (Seminoles) is protesting this decision and may take the NCAA to court. The Seminoes tribe specifically endorses the name, so it's not hostile to those that the FSU teams are specifically named after.[/q]
According to ESPN, the Seminoles of Florida have signed off on it, but the Seminoles of Oklahoma have not....
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: August 11, 2005 12:35PM
Here's what I'd like to see as a response to this policy. Let's say NoDak makes the tournament. They wear jerseys that just say North Dakota, with no logo as they win their first two games. Then they show up at the Frozen Four and take the ice wearing their usual jersey, making sure that the logoless jerseys are safely back in Grand Forks. Then make the NCAA put up or shut up. Either they let the Sioux play or they piss off all of the folks in the arena who have paid good money to see game and more importantly ESPN.
I doubt it would happen, but I'd pay money to be in the arena to see that confrontation.
I doubt it would happen, but I'd pay money to be in the arena to see that confrontation.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: August 11, 2005 04:45PM
You're right. No administrator has the balls to do that. But I'd love to see it, and I'd love to hear the ESPN announcers tripping over their tongues when it happened.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: jkahn (216.146.73.---)
Date: August 12, 2005 01:56PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Here's what I'd like to see as a response to this policy. Let's say NoDak makes the tournament. They wear jerseys that just say North Dakota, with no logo as they win their first two games. Then they show up at the Frozen Four and take the ice wearing their usual jersey, making sure that the logoless jerseys are safely back in Grand Forks. Then make the NCAA put up or shut up. Either they let the Sioux play or they piss off all of the folks in the arena who have paid good money to see game and more importantly ESPN.
I doubt it would happen, but I'd pay money to be in the arena to see that confrontation.[/q]
What would probably happen is that the game would go on and the team would be hit with a ban on future postseason play and possibly a loss of future scholarships (if it's a school that gives them). No AD would risk that.
Here's what I'd like to see as a response to this policy. Let's say NoDak makes the tournament. They wear jerseys that just say North Dakota, with no logo as they win their first two games. Then they show up at the Frozen Four and take the ice wearing their usual jersey, making sure that the logoless jerseys are safely back in Grand Forks. Then make the NCAA put up or shut up. Either they let the Sioux play or they piss off all of the folks in the arena who have paid good money to see game and more importantly ESPN.
I doubt it would happen, but I'd pay money to be in the arena to see that confrontation.[/q]
What would probably happen is that the game would go on and the team would be hit with a ban on future postseason play and possibly a loss of future scholarships (if it's a school that gives them). No AD would risk that.
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: schoaff (---.dsl.atl.megapath.net)
Date: August 13, 2005 11:08AM
[Q]ajec1 Wrote:
KeithK Wrote:
Florida State (Seminoles) is protesting this decision and may take the NCAA to court. The Seminoes tribe specifically endorses the name, so it's not hostile to those that the FSU teams are specifically named after.[/Q]
According to ESPN, the Seminoles of Florida have signed off on it, but the Seminoles of Oklahoma have not....[/q]
The Oklahoma Seminoles are now saying that was a false allegation and they have affirmed they support the Florida's tribe's decision to endorse the mascot.
Down here in Florida this is getting all tied up with the next Gubernatorial election. The attorney general who is one of the leading candidates for Governor in the next election is being pressured by the state legislature and some Congressmen to launch an anti-trust investigation against the NCAA. He'll probably have to figure out some pretext to get the NCAA into court if he doesn't want to hurt his candidacy.
All the other leading candidates are scrambling to be seen as the one who supports the Seminoles the most and it's likely a law will be passed at a special session of the legislature requiring the use of the Seminole name and mascot (if not the immediate arrest of any and all NCAA officials who set foot in the state.) The leading attorneys from both the Bush and Gore camps in the 2000 election kerfluffle are representing different groups against the NCAA (I think the Gore guy is the lead attorney for FSU).
To make things even more fun it's getting tied up in a recent ballot initiative which set up an independent board of governors to oversee the state universities. The state government opposed it and has since said "Go ahead, oversee whatever you like, but you don't have any power to do anything." So this board of political castrati is making noises that this may be just the high profile case they will use to challenge the state in court over who gets to make the rules for the universities. This may be the one group in Florida who has nothing to lose by supporting the NCAA's decision.
Meanwhile the NCAA while publically thumping it's chest is privately saying that they may back down and make a special exception for the Seminoles and a few other schools which have similar backing from the right politicians. I suspect even if they think they are in the right they'll decide it's not worth spending the next decade in court.
It may be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but accepting the NCAA decision would be political suicide in this state so they'll fight it at least until after the election, even if in the end it's all tilting at windmills.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: JimHyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: August 13, 2005 12:19PM
[Q]schoaff wrote:
It may be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but accepting the NCAA decision would be political suicide in this state so they'll fight it at least until after the election, even if in the end it's all tilting at windmills.[/Q]Sort of like gay marriage. What's happened to all those strong political feelings before the last election. Don't tell me it was just an issue to campaign on
.Sorry if I turned this thread into a political discussion. I'll stop now.
It may be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but accepting the NCAA decision would be political suicide in this state so they'll fight it at least until after the election, even if in the end it's all tilting at windmills.[/Q]Sort of like gay marriage. What's happened to all those strong political feelings before the last election. Don't tell me it was just an issue to campaign on
.Sorry if I turned this thread into a political discussion. I'll stop now.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: August 17, 2005 12:58PM
North Dakota will be fighting this policy as well. The UND president posted an open ltter to the NCAA defending their nickname and school policies: [www.und.edu]
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: August 17, 2005 10:05PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
North Dakota will be fighting this policy as well. The UND president posted an open ltter to the NCAA defending their nickname and school policies: [/q]Well, if that's the writing of their university president, heaven forbid their English Department.
North Dakota will be fighting this policy as well. The UND president posted an open ltter to the NCAA defending their nickname and school policies: [/q]Well, if that's the writing of their university president, heaven forbid their English Department.
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Beeeej (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: August 23, 2005 10:03AM
Today's "You Are Dumb" column has some interesting thoughts on the new policy:
[www.youaredumb.net]
Beeeej
[www.youaredumb.net]
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Ben Rocky '04 (---.hyatsv01.md.comcast.net)
Date: August 23, 2005 11:40PM
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: June 13, 2006 01:37PM
North Dakota is considering litigation against the NCAA over it's enforcement of the nickname policy. The univeristy president has posted a long open letter to the NCAA about it: [www.universityrelations.und.edu]
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: June 13, 2006 04:04PM
I have to admit, he's right.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: June 13, 2006 04:32PM
Many's the time I wished I could write such a letter.
Go get 'em Pres. Kupchella!
Go get 'em Pres. Kupchella!
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: June 13, 2006 05:29PM
Really? What makes you wish that? The part where he gives his better arguments short shrift in favor of the stir-up-the-mob ones? Or the part where he makes leaps in logic interlaced with his accusations that the NCAA is being irrational? Or maybe it was the part where he betrays his misunderstanding of the word "capricious?" I know I hope to write a letter full of tacky similes like "as solid as room-temperature Jell-O" someday....Jeff Hopkins '82
Many's the time I wished I could write such a letter.
I'd cut him slack because there are a few good arguments to be made on his side and because of the constraints involved in an open letter to the University and public, but this letter's writing is certainly nothing to which one should should aspire.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2006 11:43PM by Jacob 03.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: June 14, 2006 08:14AM
Jacob 03Really? What makes you wish that? The part where he gives his better arguments short shrift in favor of the stir-up-the-mob ones? Or the part where he makes leaps in logic interlaced with his accusations that the NCAA is being irrational? Or maybe it was the part where he betrays his misunderstanding of the word "capricious?" I know I hope to write a letter full of tacky similes like "as solid as room-temperature Jell-O" someday....Jeff Hopkins '82
Many's the time I wished I could write such a letter.
I'd cut him slack because there are a few good arguments to be made on his side and because of the constraints involved in an open letter to the University and public, but this letter's writing is certainly nothing to which one should should aspire.
Because I have a problem with authority and I like to take self-righteous politically correct assholes down a peg or two. And the NCAA certainly qualifies as a "good target." Nothing more.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: June 14, 2006 09:13AM
Jeff Hopkins '82
Because I have a problem with authority and I like to take self-righteous politically correct assholes down a peg or two. And the NCAA certainly qualifies as a "good target." Nothing more.
The problem is Kupchella himself is sanctimonious and disingenuous.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2006 09:16AM by jtwcornell91.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: June 14, 2006 09:25AM
DeltaOne81
I have to admit, he's right.
Except that he's not mentioning several important facts. The NCAA has made it clear that what really matters in nickname disputes is what the tribes involved said. The situation as I understand it is that there are three tribes entitled to call themselves Sioux. Two of them have officially opposed the nickname, and the third, upon which Kupchella and assorted UND supporters hang their hats, passed a generic resolution in favor of it years ago before the present context ever came up, and has repeatedly refused to comment. There was this recent claim that one of the other two tribes had changed its position, but it turned out to be based on a statement made by a rogue official on the council who'd gone off and conducted his own poll and doesn't really have the authority to speak on behalf of the tribe.
Also, he's very fond of pointing to the substantial American Indian fraction of UND's student body, but doesn't mention the fact that those very students overwhelmingly oppose the nickname.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: billhoward (---.thenetworkfactory.nl)
Date: June 14, 2006 09:31AM
You're not alone in wishing to point out the foibles of the NCAA. Rick Reilly did a great job in Sports Illyustrated recapping the plight of Nick End, a distance runner for Carnegie Mellon with a good shot at winning the NCAA title in the 10,000, except his coach clicked the wrong button and entered him in the 5,000. The coach caught the error right away, before entries had closed out, but the NCAA wouldn't budge, and the field actually ran with a less than full complement. As Reilly points out, the NCAA seems unable or unwilling to handle big time problems so it cracks down on the little things in, oh by the way, insignificant DIII sports that generate no TV revenue.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: June 14, 2006 12:53PM
jtwcornell91DeltaOne81
I have to admit, he's right.
Except that he's not mentioning several important facts. The NCAA has made it clear that what really matters in nickname disputes is what the tribes involved said. The situation as I understand it is that there are three tribes entitled to call themselves Sioux. Two of them have officially opposed the nickname, and the third, upon which Kupchella and assorted UND supporters hang their hats, passed a generic resolution in favor of it years ago before the present context ever came up, and has repeatedly refused to comment. There was this recent claim that one of the other two tribes had changed its position, but it turned out to be based on a statement made by a rogue official on the council who'd gone off and conducted his own poll and doesn't really have the authority to speak on behalf of the tribe.
Also, he's very fond of pointing to the substantial American Indian fraction of UND's student body, but doesn't mention the fact that those very students overwhelmingly oppose the nickname.
Well, I'll add the disclaimer that assuming the facts are accurate. I don't have the inclination to research it.
It seems to me that the two Sioux tribes who oppose the name, actually oppose using any native american names or imagery in any context. Is that correct?
Now, I happen to agree with them there... I would rather that no one every use any of it. But its completely bass-ackwards logic of them to only apply their objection only to the name Sioux and not to any other name.
Again, assuming this was accurate, the standard the NCAA applied was 'hostile or abusive'. I find native american nicknames to be inappropriate, but hostile and/or abusive is a bit far. Even if it was, I don't see how you could say that ND is more in violation of that than any of numerous other institutions.
It seems the problem is that the NCAA came up with the standards, and then didn't have the balls to actually apply it. The Florida Seminole traditions are blatantly more 'hostile and abusive' than the ND ones, but the NCAA didn't want to stare down the Florida state government, so they came up with an excuse.
If they wish to redefine their standards to be 'not supported by tribes of that name', then they should do so. Rather than picking and chosing who to punish based on who would have the most political sway to throw a fit, which basically seems to be what happened.
Only problem is, if they require a group to approve of the name before its use, then they would rightly have to apply the same standards to the Fighting Irish for all Irish-based groups (chances are that would pass), the Quakers, etc.
I don't agree with ND's decision to use the Sioux name, but I do agree, based on what I know, that the enforcement of this 'standard' seems to be entirely arbitrary. Being a institution and not a person, I don't know what kind of 'rights' UND has, so I don't know if there's a legal case there. But I do know the NCAA showed that they have no standards and will only enforce 'morality' where its politically and financially convenient.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Trotsky (---.raytheon.com)
Date: June 14, 2006 01:22PM
DeltaOne81
the NCAA showed that they have no standards and will only enforce 'morality' where its politically and financially convenient.
Which makes it the same as every other institution in human history.
The entertaining game of moral scruples is always played with pin money. Whenever anything important is on the line, exceptions and counter-issues just seem to mysteriously arise.
The NC$$ is hypocritical and cynical. That's at the very essence of being an effective entity, because active entities compromise between conflicting interests. If the NC$$ took sincerely moral stances, it would cease to have any influence the minute a coalition of members which didn't like its rulings ignored it. How many divisions does Myles Brand have?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2006 01:23PM by Trotsky.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: June 14, 2006 05:16PM
Trotsky
How many divisions does Myles Brand have?
Love it. One of my favorite quotations of all time. Despite the source.
Especially as "cited" by Hunter S. Thompson.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Trotsky (---.raytheon.com)
Date: June 14, 2006 06:20PM
Res ipsa loquitur...
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)
Date: June 15, 2006 11:31AM
Boondoggle? I have doubts about the NCAA being able to tell colleges what to do about school mascots, but this is a bit overboard in other direction in case the NCAA prevails:
>>> Freshman Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) signed on to the measure but then quickly pulled his support, citing confusion between the Speaker-sanctioned mascot measure and a competing bill that would enable the Education Department to reimburse colleges for the high cost of replacing racially incendiary mascots.
High cost? Like replacing one ratty Indian uniform and a new set of bumper stickers.
>>> Freshman Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) signed on to the measure but then quickly pulled his support, citing confusion between the Speaker-sanctioned mascot measure and a competing bill that would enable the Education Department to reimburse colleges for the high cost of replacing racially incendiary mascots.
High cost? Like replacing one ratty Indian uniform and a new set of bumper stickers.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: June 15, 2006 11:40AM
I completely agree that the federal government has no business paying for mascot changes, whether the goal is to be "sensitive" or not. But there would be some significant cost at some schools. UND would among other things need to remove thousands of logos from their arena, which wouldn't be trivial. (Not to mention paying the Englestadt estate back for the arena, since the logos were part of the donation deal.)
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Red Neophyte (216.130.236.---)
Date: June 15, 2006 11:44AM
You have to remember that this would impact all the sports programs at these universities and would force them to purchase new uniforms for each program...would probably include such things as cheerleader uniforms as well.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: Beeeej (38.136.58.---)
Date: June 15, 2006 01:35PM
The cheerleaders could go without uniforms for a while.
Beeeej
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)
Date: June 15, 2006 03:40PM
KeithK
I completely agree that the federal government has no business paying for mascot changes, whether the goal is to be "sensitive" or not. But there would be some significant cost at some schools. UND would among other things need to remove thousands of logos from their arena, which wouldn't be trivial. (Not to mention paying the Englestadt estate back for the arena, since the logos were part of the donation deal.)
And this is why UND gets no sympathy with me for the "oh it would cost so much to cover these logos" argument. They put them there on purpose, they can deal with the consequences.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: June 15, 2006 04:38PM
Oh sure, the cost issue is purely an excuse. UND does get sympathy from me because of the "Why the f--- is the NCAA wasting it's time legislating mascots" argument. Excuse me - this wasn't even legislation, it was executive fiat.jtwcornell91
And this is why UND gets no sympathy with me for the "oh it would cost so much to cover these logos" argument. They put them there on purpose, they can deal with the consequences.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ninian '72 (---.ed.gov)
Date: June 16, 2006 10:54AM
The authors of this piece are not entirely up to speed on the NCAA's byzantine decision-making. The NCAA has informed athletic power William & Mary that they may continue to refer to themselves as "The Tribe," which ties in with one of their initial missions as a school for Indians. However, they are required to lose their logo, which is a couple of small white feathers. The school is appealing. Stay tuned.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: June 17, 2006 07:57AM
Beeeej
The cheerleaders could go without uniforms for a while.
Beeeej
Only if they were not American Indian cheerleaders!
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.patmedia.net)
Date: June 17, 2006 04:00PM
KeithKOh sure, the cost issue is purely an excuse. UND does get sympathy from me because of the "Why the f--- is the NCAA wasting it's time legislating mascots" argument. Excuse me - this wasn't even legislation, it was executive fiat.jtwcornell91
And this is why UND gets no sympathy with me for the "oh it would cost so much to cover these logos" argument. They put them there on purpose, they can deal with the consequences.
To be accurate, the NCAA is not telling any schools that they need to change anything. They're just telling them that at their national tournaments they don't want any racially related logos or mascots, so that they can't host those tournaments or wear those things at those tournaments. In no way is the NCAA forcing them to actually change.
Not saying that'll change anyone's mind, but it is true.
Unless of course you have the backing of a bunch of whiney Florida state legislators. Then your racially stereotypical logos and mascots are welcome.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: June 19, 2006 02:17PM
This is same kind of freedom-to-act the feds allowed when states were asked to set speed limits and drinking ages from 1975 onward. No U.S. restrictions unless you want to get federal highway money (the same money your state's residents were forced to pay in gasoline taxes). So North Dakota can wear any jersey it wants to long as it's not at an NCAA tournament. Some freedom.DeltaOne81KeithKOh sure, the cost issue is purely an excuse. UND does get sympathy from me because of the "Why the f--- is the NCAA wasting it's time legislating mascots" argument. Excuse me - this wasn't even legislation, it was executive fiat.jtwcornell91
And this is why UND gets no sympathy with me for the "oh it would cost so much to cover these logos" argument. They put them there on purpose, they can deal with the consequences.
To be accurate, the NCAA is not telling any schools that they need to change anything. They're just telling them that at their national tournaments they don't want any racially related logos or mascots, so that they can't host those tournaments or wear those things at those tournaments. In no way is the NCAA forcing them to actually change.
Not saying that'll change anyone's mind, but it is true.
Unless of course you have the backing of a bunch of whiney Florida state legislators. Then your racially stereotypical logos and mascots are welcome.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: June 19, 2006 03:04PM
Maybe the NCAA also has concerns that by its name, the college sends a hostile message to those living beyond the constraints of heterosexual relationships.ninian '72
The authors of this piece are not entirely up to speed on the NCAA's byzantine decision-making. The NCAA has informed athletic power William & Mary that they may continue to refer to themselves as "The Tribe," which ties in with one of their initial missions as a school for Indians. However, they are required to lose their logo, which is a couple of small white feathers. The school is appealing. Stay tuned.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ninian '72 (---.ed.gov)
Date: June 21, 2006 02:05PM
billhowardMaybe the NCAA also has concerns that by its name, the college sends a hostile message to those living beyond the constraints of heterosexual relationships.ninian '72
The authors of this piece are not entirely up to speed on the NCAA's byzantine decision-making. The NCAA has informed athletic power William & Mary that they may continue to refer to themselves as "The Tribe," which ties in with one of their initial missions as a school for Indians. However, they are required to lose their logo, which is a couple of small white feathers. The school is appealing. Stay tuned.
If so, they haven't done their homework. William III apparently more than dabbled in alternative lifestyles.
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: ugarte (---.isp.broadviewnet.net)
Date: June 22, 2006 10:06AM
Well, yes, which is why the school should be "William and Mary and Van Zuylen, Hans and Arnold."ninian '72billhowardMaybe the NCAA also has concerns that by its name, the college sends a hostile message to those living beyond the constraints of heterosexual relationships.ninian '72
The authors of this piece are not entirely up to speed on the NCAA's byzantine decision-making. The NCAA has informed athletic power William & Mary that they may continue to refer to themselves as "The Tribe," which ties in with one of their initial missions as a school for Indians. However, they are required to lose their logo, which is a couple of small white feathers. The school is appealing. Stay tuned.
If so, they haven't done their homework. William III apparently more than dabbled in alternative lifestyles.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Interesting NCAA mascot policy
Posted by: profudge (---.ct.us.ibm.com)
Date: June 23, 2006 04:39PM
Interesting interview with University of North Dakota president Charles Kupchella at:
[www.uscho.com]
[www.uscho.com]
Feathers Offensive
Posted by: ninian '72 (---.ed.gov)
Date: August 04, 2006 09:43AM
And the NCAA's final word on the William & Mary feather dispute:
[Q]The College of William and Mary received notice Aug. 3, 2006 that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Executive Committee has denied the College’s appeal regarding use of the institution’s athletic logo.
“We strongly disagree with the decision by the Executive Committee and find it absurd that the NCAA continues to target William and Mary—a College that sets the standard for the scholar athlete—because of two feathers on our athletic logo,” said William and Mary Athletics Director Terry Driscoll. “We do know that William and Mary will forever be the ‘Tribe’ and that was the most important victory in this entire process. We’ll review the decision about our athletic logo over the next few weeks as we evaluate what’s in the best interest of our student athletes.”
In May, the NCAA ruled that William and Mary’s “Tribe” nickname was neither hostile nor abusive but determined that the athletic logo—which contains two green and gold feathers—could create an environment that is offensive. William and Mary appealed that decision in June to the NCAA Executive Committee. [/Q]
Ornithologists across the country cheered the ruling.
[Q]The College of William and Mary received notice Aug. 3, 2006 that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Executive Committee has denied the College’s appeal regarding use of the institution’s athletic logo.
“We strongly disagree with the decision by the Executive Committee and find it absurd that the NCAA continues to target William and Mary—a College that sets the standard for the scholar athlete—because of two feathers on our athletic logo,” said William and Mary Athletics Director Terry Driscoll. “We do know that William and Mary will forever be the ‘Tribe’ and that was the most important victory in this entire process. We’ll review the decision about our athletic logo over the next few weeks as we evaluate what’s in the best interest of our student athletes.”
In May, the NCAA ruled that William and Mary’s “Tribe” nickname was neither hostile nor abusive but determined that the athletic logo—which contains two green and gold feathers—could create an environment that is offensive. William and Mary appealed that decision in June to the NCAA Executive Committee. [/Q]
Ornithologists across the country cheered the ruling.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.