mksioux

"adequate" is a very subjective term.

Maybe. Or maybe the SBoHE might think this is not the issue they want to use to make a stand against the legislature. They may wait for another issue to make their stand where the public wouldn't be overwhelmingly against them.

I didn't agree with everything he said, but he makes a good point about the Governor personally going to Fort Yates and negotiating the issue. To me, that was the biggest disappointment of the post-settlement agreement era. Hoeven showed no leadership whatsoever by leaving Goetz to deal with the issue. If the Governor had personally gotten involved, we might not be in this situation. Hopefully Dalrymple will show better leadership.

I too am very interested in that. The fact that the Governor said that, and is now going to sign the bill into law is one reason I have hope there might be a path toward successful resolution.

Please don't perpetuate the idea of UND getting kicked out of the NCAA. That simply is not going to happen.

No offense, but these are the issues we've been debating the past several weeks. Yes, there is a constitutional question with this new law. And yes, there are problems with a new lawsuit against the NCAA. But for today, screw it. I'm happy with the vote.

I know next to nothing about IP Law. If someone knows something about it and sees a path toward successful litigation, please share.

1. You are right. The bill only requires the AG to consider suing the NCAA. He does not have to sue the NCAA. The AG has hinted that beacuse of his role in the previous lawsuit on behalf of the SBoHE and because of the constitutional questions this bill raises, he may have a conflict of interest and recuse himself from making that consideration. I'm not exactly srue how that works, but I think outside counsel would be retained to act as a Deputy AG . But I could be wrong on this. 2. The AG did not lose the previous lawsuit. It was settled. If the NCAA places UND back on the sanctions list and the State sues the NCAA and loses, presumably UND would simply stay on the sanctions list (i.e. wouldn't be able to host playoff games). As to your final point, it's possible but not certain. Lots of variables left to be sorted out.

I highly doubt a new nickname will be chosen by August 15, 2011, and the NCAA is not going to require a new nickname to be chosen by then. I've heard Faison say that at least for the 11-12 season, UND will not have a nickname. However, UND will eventually choose a new nickname. I suppose there are lots of reasons for that. Having a branding identity and so the Sioux nickname doesn't linger are two of the obvious ones. It is disconcerting that Kelley, with no connections to North Dakota, is going to unilaterally choose the new nickname for the State's flagship institution. For me, installing a new nickname is going to be almost as painful as dropping the current one. I don't even want to imagine the generic ineffectual nickname that a man like Kelley is going to come up with. Of course, this is all depending on the result of the pending legislation and the ensuing litigation.

Interesting. In his formal press release, Kelley said he respects the legislative process. So which is it? Does he respect it, or is it just a speed bump?

The Century Code is a codification of the laws passed by the legislature. If this bill becomes law, it will end up in the Century Code. Assuming there is no law to the contrary, I don't think anyone questions that the SBoHE has the authority to retire the nickname. However, the questions arises if the legislature passes a law contrary to a decision of the SBoHE. There appears to be two possible conclusions based on the plain language of the Constitutional provision in question. Wayne Stenehjem stated that it appeared to him that the SBoHE would prevail in that power struggle. I haven't read any other North Dakota lawyer opine on the subject. I'd like to ready any caselaw interpeting that provision of the Constitution, if any exists. Another issue is who would have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of this law? What if the SBoHE doesn't challenge the legislature on this issue? I don't think it's beyond possiblity that the SBoHE stays neutral and washes their hands of this messy issue. Who else would have standing to challenge the law?

Logic is apparently not Leigh Jeanotte's strong suit. Does anyone seriously doubt the results of a state-wide referendum on this issue? It would be a landslide like today's vote in the House. Nobody on our side is afraid of a state-wide referendum. Heck, nobody on our side is afraid of a Standing Rock referendum. It is only the nickname opponents that oppose of any kind of referendum because they are scared of the results. When I read a quote like that from people like Leigh Jeanotte, it starts to get my blood flowing again. It doesn't matter that his credibility was completely destroyed by the Spirit Lake referendum. The man has no shame.

That could be part of the reason. GOP had a 58-36 in the House and 26-21 in the Senate in 2009. I think this year it's 69-25 and 35-12.

There is already precedent by the NCAA on this issue. The lawsuit was started right before UND was scheduled to play Winona State in a first-round football playoff game. UND had earned the right to host that game, but UND was forced to go to court and get a temporary restraining order to allow that game to go forward in Grand Forks.

Did any of those that responded state that their opinion on what the law would mean in terms of NCAA sanctions?

As much as I'm deeply concerned about the consequences of this bill on the football program, I admit I smiled when I read the results of this vote. I'm really torn on this. Man, I really wish the legislature had done this two years ago.

If UND were DI-FBS, then I personally would be in favor of retaining the nickname despite the NCAA sanctions. If that were the case, the sanctions would not have enough teeth to justify dropping the nickname. But UND would still need to find a conference. Unlike a huge program like Notre Dame, UND would not have the ability of putting together a full out-of-conference FBS schedule. (not to mention, all the other sports would still need a conference as well)

I'm not buying into the nickname/car comparison. A new nickname and logo could not possibly stand up to the existing nickname and logo. There simply is no other option out there that could equal what we have right now. And I think a lot of alumni (including me) would rather have no nickname than a new nickname and Kelley is just moving slowly for that reason. He is probably thinking to let the cut heal a bit before pouring on the salt.

You are simply wrong. Under NCAA sanctions, UND would not be able to host any NCAA post-season game or match regardless of which venue it would be held at. Football would not be able to host any playoff games under NCAA sanctions regardless of whether any Sioux references exist in the Alerus Center. I'm not an expert in non-revenue sports, but I think you are right. I don't think the post-season ban on the Sioux name and logo on uniforms is worth dropping the nickname. So really, what it all boils down to is football playoffs. Is the Sioux nickname worth the football program operating under a scneario where it can never host playoff games? Obviously if UND could get a "football waiver" or modify the settlement agreement, I'd be fully with you. I just don't see the NCAA doing that. But those discussions should be going on right now. I love your passion. The only thing I disagree with you on is the practical consequences of going forward with the Sioux nickname. I believe not having the chance of hosting a playoff game would really harm the football program. I fully expect the UND football program to be making deep playoff runs in a few years. That is extremely difficult without being able to host playoff games. And that fact will be used against UND in recruiting. If there was a way to ensure that the football team could retain the eligibility to host playoff games, I'd be all for keeping the nickname. I am not against working with the NCAA or applying political pressure against the NCAA. Unfortuantely, as I've said in other threads, I don't believe a legal challenge will get anywhere due to the settlement agreement.

I think you and some others need to check who the actual Plaintiff is in the lawsuit against the NCAA. The State of North Dakota by and through the SBoHE and UND is the plaintiff. You can't differentiate between UND and the State of North Dakota as far as the settlement agreement goes. They are one and the same. The State of North Dakota agreed with the NCAA on how to handle the nickname situation and they entered into a binding settlement agreement. The State of North Dakota will not be able to renege on its agreement just because it decides to pass a new law requiring its subdivision to retain the nickname. Assuming this bill passes and is deemed constitutional, the State of North Dakota will force its subdivision (UND) to retain the nickname and will subject its subdivision to all of the NCAA previously agreed-upon consequences that comes with that decision. And those consequences are what needs to be weighed and debated when legislators decide whether to vote yes or no on this bill. Some people believe keeping the Sioux nickname is worth the NCAA sanctions, others do not. That is where the debate should lie. There is no readily apparent "cake and eat it too" scenario where UND keeps the nickname and is not subject to sanctions. The only way such a scenario could arise is if Standing Rock decides to get involved or the NCAA changes its position.

Please explain to me how the law would make the settlement agreement illegal. The settlement agreement does not require UND to drop the nickname. The NCAA has always acknowledged the State of North Dakota has the right to determine whether to retain the nickname. The proposed legislation (if constitutional) would simply take the choice away from the SBoHE and give it to the legislature by codifying the decision into state law. So UND will remain the Fighting Sioux and the settlement agreement would still bind the parties as to the agreed-upon consequences of that decision.

Again, the settlement agreement would not become "illegal" if this proposed law passes. There's no use getting bogged down on the part of the bill that urges the AG to consider bringing an anti-trust suit against the NCAA. Either that part of the bill will be stripped before ultimate passage or the AG will choose not to do it because he knows that such a suit would get promptly dismissed. I can't say I know exactly how this whole thing is going to end, but I can say that you will not be seeing the State of North Dakota bring another anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA. What should be happening right now as this bill is making its way forward is that the powers that be ought to be reaching out to the NCAA to see if they will work with us in a productive way, and if not, threatening political consequences. Really, only Conrad and Hoeven on the federal level have the power to get the NCAA's attention in that regard. Unfortunately, neither has shown any real interest in this issue.

There is nothing illegal about the settlment agreement. And passing this proposed law would not make the settlement agreement illegal.

Res judicata would preclude the anti-trust claim, even if it were brought in federal court this time.