Hockey-L,

I tried to keep my mouth shut, but, well, ....sorry. But there is some
hockey content.

There is some serious misunderstanding over the banning of mascots,
nicknames, etc. when it is called an exercise of civil society.

For example:
> If something does offend you, then you have the right (and some might argue
> even the responsibility) to say that it offends you and to prohibit is in your
> own house.  That¹s what¹s happening here.  The NCAA as an institution is
> saying that the use of certain images as mascots offends it, and it¹s not
> going to allow the use of those images in their tournament.

This is BeerSuds. You do NOT have the right to ban something that offends
you in your own house if the banning activity is costly (offensive?) to
others. Just because you are offended does not mean didly. In a civil
society everyone is offended by something (congestion, delay, opposition) so
what matters is rather or not it is (1) UNREASONABLE offensive or (2) your
damage from the offending behavior is greater than the damage caused by
eliminating the offending behavior. It is the measure of one measurable
damage versus another that matters, not the simple existence of what you
claim offends you.

I may be offended by BU fans celebrating a win (in my home), or opponents
throwing dead fish or dead gophers on the ice during a game. But so what.
The NCAA's decision is not made by comparing relative damages (will the NCAA
compensate North Dakota for removing their Sioux logo?) nor determining the
reasonableness or seriousness of the offending activity. Rather it is a pure
political move, one to appease (or to shut up) those who are persistent
enough to complain, and one designed to receive benefits (kudos, money,
etc.) from those not involved in the decision. Furthermore it is a political
move because it is one using force, threats, and coercion.

So why do these things happen? It is explained by James Buchanan and Gordon
Tullock's Public Choice Theory for which the former won a Nobel Prize.
Governmental bodies such as the NCAA do stupid things when  facing
rent-seeking behavior by special interest groups in an environment of
rational ignorance. The result will be an attempt to make everyone the same
(eliminate diversity and differences of opinion), and to adhere to rules
that benefit no one but the rulers.

Granted, a coach like Herb Brooks was able to force individual players to
adopt his rules and to become team players because the gain at the end was
far superior to what they gave up. This is not the situation here. North
Dakota will still win National Championships like they did before -- there
is no further gain from the required sacrifice (except by the equipment
company who designs the Flickertail for their jerseys).

Nathan Hampton