Tuesday, October 10, 2006

New poll: "Siouxing" the NCAA

Time for a new poll.

Closing the old poll...
In keeping with Grand Forks Life's one year anniversary this month, the old poll question was "In what month would you estimate you first visited this blog?". There were a total of 57 votes. Take a look at the results...

October '05 (4 votes, 7%)
November '05 (11 votes, 19%)
December '05 (0 votes, 0%)
January '06 (5 votes, 9%)
February '06 (6 votes, 11%)
March '06 (4 votes, 7%)
April '06 (2 votes, 4%)
May '06 (7 votes, 12%)
June '06 (3 votes, 5%)
July '06 (2 votes, 4%)
August '06 (4 votes, 7%)
September '06 (9 votes, 16%)

It looks like, of the 57 voters, 30 first visited this blog in the initial six months of its existence and 27 first visited this blog within the last six months.

Opening the new poll...
Here's the new poll question: "Do you support UND's decision to sue the NCAA?". I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about this issue.


Anonymous said...

Yes, I support the lawsuit. Not for necessarily for keeping the Sioux logo, but because the NCAA went too far beyond their powers in demanding that schools change. The only way the NCAA will be reigned in from abusing their power is by a lawsuit.


PS. Really enjoyed coming up to GF this past weekend and going to the Sioux Hockey games. And it was nice enough on Saturday to get my Dad's Cadillac convertible out and drive it around...

ec99 said...

Wast of time, waste of money. It'll start out in the stae courts, the NCAA will appeal. In the end, who really cares? Is a nickname that important, aside from what it will cost to remove all the logos from the Ralph?

GrandForksGuy said...

I find it so hypocritical that the NCAA is headquartered in INDIANapolis, INDIANa...where's the outcry over that? Why would the NCAA want to be headquartered in a hostile and abusive city???

WeatherGal said...

Let's see... wasn't UND ready to change it's name about 6 years ago? Along came Engelstad and his multi-million dollar castle... voila, UND will do anything it can to remain "Fighting Sioux" and be able to host hockey tournaments.

On the other hand, if we do actually move to D1, there won't be anymore football playoff games. So, if UND football ends up being Number 1 seed this year, they won't get to host the football game unless they redesign the Alerus and wear blank jerseys, etc. So it's okay to HAVE the nickname, just not on the decorations.

The NCAA is full of hypocrisy, no doubt. Hockey players get drafted, baseball players get drafted, but God forbid a basketball player or football player get drafted.

Anonymous said...

I oppose the decision to sue the NCAA for the following reason. I oppose the use of the North Dakota Attorney General as the lawyer for this action.
Although the lawsuit is being funded by private monies, not general revenues of the State and this ameloriates the cost of the lawsuit to State taxpayers, it does not ameloriate the loss of our Attorney General, in terms of resources such as time and staffing that the office will spend litigating for the university. Even if the University was to offer additional money to compensate for his time and staffing, it is the loss of our Attorney General's focus on other issues that concerns me.

I would rather see our Attorney General's Office concern themselves with areas like insurance, consumer protection, federalism issues, taxation, and water rights, than spending time on the litigation of a school nickname.

Anonymous said...

As far as I know, state law requires the Attorney General to represent UND in this case. He can't just 'not' do it because someone doesn't like it.

If you don't want things like this to happen, get a hold of your state Representative or Senator and get them to change the law.


ec99 said...

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. The NCAA? Sure. And then there's UND hockey, giving scholarships to "students" whose only purpose in coming here is to play a year or so and go to the pros. Which hypocrisy is worse?

GrandForksGuy said...

Am I the only one getting sick of seeing UND instructor after instructor adding their two cents in the Herald's mail bag?

Every once in a while I'm really surprised to see one of my professors suddenly ranting in the pages of the Herald. Many of those same professors don't seem to ever be able to find the time to grade papers quickly, put enough work into their lectures, respond to important emails, etc. Many of them also seem to be almost pitifully unaware of local and campus news, yet they feel so informed to make decisions about one particular news story. How come they have so much time to speak out against their employer when they so often can't find the time to adequately fulfill the job that same employer hired them for? How come they feel so informed about one news story when, in most cases, they are painfully out of touch with the rest of the community and what is going on in it? I'm sick of it.

ec99 said...

People with PhDs sometimes think they're God.

Brooks said...

I'm only in my third semester at UND, but I can tell you GFG is right. There's so many times teachers are unprepared or don't know what there doing during their lectures, but yet they have plenty of time to take a stance on everything they don't like.

Also, I know the money for this law suit could be used for better things, but I don't think we should give into extreme political correctness without a fight.

Anonymous said...

GJB, I did not mean he could not do it because "someone doesn't like it." My concern is with the University using the time and resources of the Attorney General as opposed to hiring a private legal team. It seems to me, that if if UND is paying for the AG from private funds, then UND has essentially "hired out" our state official for their own use.

However, I think GJB is right that the AG is the person who should represent UND.

ND statute 54-12-01 says---
The attorney general shall:
1. Appear for and represent the state before the supreme court in all cases in which
the state is interested as a party.
2. Institute and prosecute all actions and proceedings in favor or for the use of
the state which may be necessary in the execution of the duties of any state of-

It goes on to list a number of other duties, and its likely that representing UND in this action falls under one of those duties.

My contention becomes not whether the AG "can" represent UND" but whether the AG "should" represent UND. I still think UND could hire private counsel for this action rather than use a state official.

Finally, I think GJB is correct that as far as political accountability goes, if I don't like the AG representing UND, then I should attempt to vote him out of office ( since the AG is an elected official). Even with that being true, I can still voice my displeasure with the AG's actions, indeed that is one way to begin to enact change.

Anonymous said...

There's a pretty simple explanation to the Herald issue above. The paper's Editor/Publisher is a big-ol' liberal elitist who thinks that, by and large, the readers are just fat, stupid, norskis that need him to clarify all issues because, we're too stupid to figure it out ourselves. Any raging liberal professor that helps his cause gets their letters published.

No mystery there.