Eric J. Burton wrote:
> Its more about Myles Brand wanting to build a legacy on taking a stand. In fact from a lot of UND fans perspective it would appear that Brand has not addressed the policy with any consistancey. Here is the funny part you don't hear about UND has just as many name sake tribes supporting their team's name as CMU did in fact many Chippewa tribe of Michigan only had one name sake tribe supporting them. In fact many members of the Chipewa tribe from Michigan asked
> CMU to drop the name. If someone wants a link to it, its in here. http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/2006/11/looking-at-mound-of-paper-work-in.html
> --------------
> For the reason set forth in its opening memorandum, the Spirit Lake Tribe Resolution No. A05-01-041, which is still in effect, satisfies the Executive Committee’s equirement that only on '"name sake' tribe consent to UND's use of the Sioux name and imagery. The NCAA attempts to distinguish UND's situation from CMU's by stating that it "received no Resolutions or other official statements in opposition from Chippewa Tribes in connection with use of the name by CMU" (emphasis added) while not denying that it has been on actual notice that in fact five other Chippewa Tribes in Michigan actually do oppose CMU's use of the name, which UND pointed out to the NCAA in its Nov. 4th 2005 memo. (Def. NACD's Mem. Opp"n to Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 41-42). The NCAA's disparate treatment of CMU and UND constitutes bad faith.
>   
There are two things in play that are different than the Central 
Michigan situation, and UND really has itself to blame for both of them.

The first is that UND has been full bore confrontational from the word 
go.  I have never gotten the sense that they were willing to sit down 
and talk to the NCAA with any sort of flexibility, as other schools have 
done.  One can argue that the NCAA should ignore UND's attitude and 
judge just on the merits of the case, but we all know the NCAA.  Still, 
I have little sympathy for people who were so obviously spoiling for a 
fight when they then start complaining that they're in a fight.

The second thing, which is intricately related to the first, is that 
when a university allows a mobbed-up, fascist-loving crook to become the 
de facto spokesman for its athletic department, it shouldn't be 
surprised when there is some downside to go with the hundred million 
upsides.  My guess is that the NCAA is as much opposed to UND's 
connection to Englestad, even after his death, as it is the Sioux 
nickname.  You ought to acknowledge the extent to which it built up some 
ill will.  On this matter, UND really is failing to live up to the 
wisdom and ethical standards set by the NCAA, and that's a pretty 
amazing accomplishment.


-- 
J. Michael Neal

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!