Interesting NCAA mascot policy

[DeltaOne81]

I have to admit, he's right.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Many's the time I wished I could write such a letter.

Go get 'em Pres. Kupchella!

[Jacob 03]

[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Many's the time I wished I could write such a letter.

[/quote]
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....

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.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

[quote Jacob 03][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Many's the time I wished I could write such a letter.

[/quote]
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....

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.[/quote]

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.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote 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.[/quote]

The problem is Kupchella himself is sanctimonious and disingenuous.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote DeltaOne81]I have to admit, he's right.[/quote]

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.

[billhoward]

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.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote jtwcornell91][quote DeltaOne81]I have to admit, he's right.[/quote]

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.[/quote]


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.

[Trotsky]

[quote DeltaOne81]the NCAA showed that they have no standards and will only enforce 'morality' where its politically and financially convenient.[/quote]

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?

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

[quote Trotsky] How many divisions does Myles Brand have?[/quote]

Love it.  One of my favorite quotations of all time.  Despite the source.

Especially as "cited" by Hunter S. Thompson.  :-P

[Trotsky]

Res ipsa loquitur... ;-)

[rstott]

Now Congress is getting in the act.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/052306_mascots.html

[billhoward]

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.

[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.)

[Red Neophyte]

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.