On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Eric J. Burton wrote:

> I don't know whether the NCAA has handled it the "best" possible way,
> but I think they've handled it reasonably. They suggested that schools
> take the lead and left it to them for a couple years to take the step.
> Now they're saying some schools' failures reflect unfavorably on the
> whole academic world and college sports and the NCAA is stepping up to
> apply pressure. I think the best outcome would be if that forces a
> process in which Seminoles and Sioux supporters are allowed to present
> their case to the NCAA, argue for why their use is a bona fide
> exception, and have the NCAA give valid credit if that's due. I'm
> disappointed to read that FSU's initial action will be to head to the
> courts. They could save that as a later resort.

So I read this, and thought "Wow, Eric said something level-headed and
reasonable.  How surprising."  Then I realized he'd just screwed up
quoting someone else and my worldview returned to normal.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Eric J. Burton wrote:

> It means the P.C. Nazis at the NCAA expect UND to wear uniforms that don't
> have the Sioux logo on it. Maybe we still have the jerseys with North Dakota
> on them still. Those sucked by the way. Apparently also, they expect the
> University to cover up 6000-10,000 logos. We will see what happens expect
> this ruling to get water down as the NCAA gets push back from the larger
> schools. I personally think that big time college sports should opt out of
> the NCAA and develop its own governing body. The NCAA has over stepped its
> bounds again.

See?  :-P

I don't know why I'm bothering (anybody who uses "PC" or "nazis" in
their argument doesn't really deserve a response, but Godwin's Law
being what it is, I shouldn't be surprised), but to get into the
content of this blather a little bit:

-- UND plastered those thousands of logos there knowing full well that
a controversy existed, so they're hardly in a position to complain
about how hard it is to cover them up.

-- Regulation of its own playoffs is the NCAA overstepping its bounds?
Okay...

To get back to the reasonable comments (which are Bob Griebel's, BTW;
perhaps Eric will learn how to attribute properly someday), I think
the NCAA was intemperate in declaring nearly every Indian-themed
nickname to be offensive.  They would have been better off setting up
a process where anyone with standing could challenge a nickname.
Personally, as I see it, not all such nicknames are created equal:

-- Redskins, Savages, etc are just plain slurs and should be gotten
rid of.

-- Braves, Chiefs, Warriors are names for occupations rather than a
whole race of people, so they should be okay unless the logo or mascot
is offensive.

-- "Indians" is on thin ice, and eligible to be challenged by any
American Indian group.  The same process could be used if an
Irish-American group took offense to Fighting Irish, for example.

-- Individual tribe names like Sioux, Utes, Seminoles, etc., should be
acceptable with permission from the tribe in question.

Yes, that does mean that I consider the NCAA's action against Eric's
school inappropriate.  He's still a blowhard.  And as Bob points out,
this may end up being the outcome anyway.  UND seems on the way to
appeal to the NCAA on the grounds that their nickname is neither
hostile nor abusive because of their good relationship with the tribe.

                                           John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                                  [log in to unmask]
                                      http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/

Enjoy the latest Hockey Geek tools at slack.net/hockey