mksioux

The lawsuit was dismissed. The court action is closed, even if the resulting settlement is not totally fulfilled. The resulting settlement agreement is like a contract, but the underlying lawsuit is gone, replaced by that "contract." The parties may have future disputes over the interpretation or application of that "contract," but the "contract" now and will forever control the dispute, not the underlying claims that were made in the lawsuit. As to your argument that a new law would be a "game changer" and your comparisons to prohibition, the fatal flaw in your argument is that, in this case, the State of North Dakota itself is a party to the lawsuit. The State cannot unilaterally resurect a claim it made against a private party that it previously settled and stipulated to dismiss with prejudice just because it passes a new law. If that were the case, nobody would ever settle a lawsuit with the State. If the State could renege by simply passing a new law, the settlement wouldn't be worth the piece of paper it was printed on. Also, this new proposed law changes nothing in the overall litigation and resulting settlement agreement. Ultimately, with UND being a public institution, the State of North Dakota has always had the ability to decide whether to retain the Fighting Sioux nickname. The NCAA has never disputed that. This new proposed law, if deemed constitutional, would simply change how that decision is made (written into law by the legislature, as opposed to a decision by the SBoHE). The end result would be that the State is choosing to keep its nickname and it would still have to live with the repercussions under the settlement agreement. North Dakota's anti-trust claim against the NCAA was dismissed with prejudice, North Dakota released the NCAA from that claim. North Dakota cannot bring that same claim against the NCAA again. All the rest is just noise.

The committee chose the Al Carlson drafted bill, which was not the best of the three IMO. The stuff about initiating anti-trust litigation against the NCAA is a non-starter. The anti-trust lawsuit was already brought and dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement. It would be a sanctionable offense if the State re-brought that lawsuit. One of the other bills would have been better, but I suppose we're early on in the process and these details can still be ironed-out.

Not quite as bitter of a pill as a $25,000 buy-out by Idaho State.

Cripes. RB just went from a strength to a question mark. With the huge question mark at QB, I was really hoping for a solid running game. Let's hope Sutton doesn't get injured.

You can't blame this one on the nickname. Wisconsin and Iowa came out shortly after the settlement agreement and said they would go with the NCAA sanctions list on whether to schedule a school with an Indian nickname. So as soon as UND entered into the settlement agreement, they've been eligible to play Wisconsin and Iowa. I don't know if Faison isn't trying to get Wisconsin on the schedule or it just hasn't worked out, but given UND's longstanding rivalry with Wisconsin in hockey, it seems a football matchup would be a good fit for both schools.

That's too bad. Montana was the big prize. By my math, UND will be seeing Montana 3 out of every 5 years. That will mean we will see Montana in Grand Forks 3 times per decade. Certainly not ideal.

Perhaps we need to focus on the word "publicly." I think it's entirely possible Douple told Kelley and Faison privately why he was not acting on UND's application, and perhaps Kelley and Faison suggested that it might help them if Douple came out and said it publicly. I don't know...maybe I'm missing something. What's strange about this is that Peter Johnson's denial for the AD and President is emphatic and unequivocal. However, Kelley's response is much for wishy-washy complete with "I don't recall." (A code word in my profession, especially for something that you would have and should have remembered one way or another) If Kelley and Faison suggested that Douple go public with his already-made decision, I think that is okay. But if the very idea of the holding up UND's application was Kelley's or Faison's idea, that would grounds for termination. I'll grab my popcorn and wait for the story to develop...

Exceptions are obviosuly built in for conference and post-season play. I think they have exceptions for other tournaments as well (i.e. Great Lakes Invitational, etc.)

I think the bill was drafted by Representative Buzz Killington.

I don't have time to back and find the links, but mooncountry is right as to Wisconsin and Iowa. After the settlment agreement where the NCAA was required to not discourage their members from playing UND, both universities came out and said they would abide by the NCAA sanctions list in determining whether or not to blackball a team with an Indian nickname. Minnesota, on the other hand, as far as I can recall, is not definitive on their policy and whether they follow the guidance of the NCAA. Either way, if UND retains the Sioux nickname and is placed on the NCAA sanctions list, there is a strong possibility (I'd say it is likely) that Minnesota and Wisconsin will discontinue playing UND once they leave for the Big Ten Hockey Conference. It will become a very high-profile and sensitive issue and the PC forces at both institutions will insist that UND not be scheduled. I don't see anyone at either institutions standing up to those forces.

This is a logical take and I can see UND making this argument if push comes to shove. But I don't think it's correct. I agree the settlement agreement does not specifically say what will happen in the event UND does not obtain tribal approval within the Approval Period, chooses to retain the nickname, and then later obtains tribal approval. But, in my opinion, that does not mean the NCAA must place UND on the namesake exemption list in that event. Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement says that UND will announce within 30 days of the agreement that it will transition to a new nickname if it is unable to obtain tribal approval prior to the expiration of the Approval Period. And, in fact, UND did issue a statement on October 26, 2007 stating exactly that. Section 2(d) goes on to say that if UND does not transition to a new nickname, UND will be placed on the sanctions list. Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement could easily be construed as, in exchange for a three-year reprieval, UND pledged to put up or shut up by November 30, 2010, and waived any perceived right for the NCAA to hold open admittance on to the namesake exemption list indefinitely. The NCAA has no legal obligation to hold open admittance on to its namesake exemption list in perpetuity. I don't trust the NCAA to do anything for UND that it is not legally obligated to do. It matters immediately for football recruiting. If UND is under NCAA sanctions, other schools will bludgeon UND on the recruiting trail.

What exactly would give? You would need all of the following to happen: (1) A Constitutional amendment, (2) Standing Rock allowing a referendum, even though they've shown utter contempt for the process up to this point and making matters more difficult is the fact that their vote would be meaingless because the NCAA no longer has to abide by it, (3) The results of the referendum in support of the nickname, and (4) The NCAA voluntarily agreeing out of the goodness of their hearts to take UND off the sanctions list even though they have no legal obligation to do so. That's a lot of "ifs" to just throw caution to the wind and say "WTF, let's do it." And Sanctions wouldn't last just a few years, they would be indefinite. Existing under NCAA sanctions and having no chance to ever host a playoff game would ultimately destroy UND's football program.

Actually, under the terms of the settlement, even if UND were to get Standing Rock's permission at this point, the NCAA would be under no obligation to allow UND to use the Sioux nickname without sanctions. UND had to gain both tribes' support by November 30, 2010. UND did not, so UND must begin the transition toward retirement or it will be placed back on the sanctions list regardless of what happens at Standing Rock going forward. Unless the NCAA agrees to retroactively extend the deadline, this legislation is reckless. At a minimum, legislators should at least acknowledge that this legislation would cause NCAA sanctions against UND. Most of the legislators in the newspaper don't even seem to understand what is going on or practical effect of the legislation. And any talk of suing the NCAA for anti-trust violations (again) just highlights their ignorance because that cannot happen. I love the nickname as much as anyone, but this legislation is grounded in utter ignorance by uninformed people, and would cause UND more harm than good.

The story mentions the Constitutional hurdle, but doesn't even reference the NCAA sanctions that UND would face if the legislature forced it to retain the nickname. Any news article that doesn't at least raise that critical issue cannot be taken seriously. And I thoroughly disagree with Harmeson. None of these bills will ever become law.

The Herald editorial about sums it up. At least somebody pointed out the negative implications for UND of such legislation, even if the ND Constitution were amended to make the bills constitutional. You simply cannot retain the Sioux nickname without the NCAA's blessing. Herald editorial

I'm not familiar with the North Dakota Constitution so I'll take the AG at his word. But it does seem odd that the State Constitution includes a provision allowing an unelected Board to override the will of the people. It was probably designed to avoid micro-managing, but it seems to me the will of the people through their duly elected representatives should trump rule by fiat. But if it's in the Constitution, then it controls. Maybe that's why these legislators feel so free to introduce symbolic legislation that, in reality, will hurt UND, Maybe they know that if it ever passes, it will be struck down by the courts. Regardless of the Constitutional concerns, it's disappointing that no reporter has asked about the practical consequences with the NCAA of retaining the nickname. Do the legislators actually know they would be voting to place NCAA sanctions on UND? Do they not realize that because the deadline has passed, the NCAA would not have to remove UND from the sanctions list even if Standing Rock eventually votes to uphold the nickname?

The short answer is no. The settlement is very clear. The settlement is legally binding. The settlement gave UND until November 30, 2010 to get the approval of both tribes, and if they didn't, to being the process of retiring the name. There is no provision in the settlement that allows UND to reinstate plans to retain the nickname if it receives tribal approval after November 30, 2010. UND would need to beg the NCAA to allow that and I can't see any way the NCAA will give an inch more than they legally have to under the settlement agreement. This latest news is very unfortunate. If these people that are being quoted in these stories had done something in the last legislative session, it may have been the difference. Applying real pressure to Standing Rock to force referendum might have worked. The nickname could have been saved if anyone in a position of power had stepped up and shown real leadership. It's too late now and the nickname is going to be gone. There is no way this bill passes because the consequences would be very detrimental to UND. Edit: I will say this, for anyone in state government that is serious about this last-ditch effort to save the name, the best thing they could do right now would be to reach out tothe NCAA immediately. Drop the language from the House bill that would direct the AG to consider re-bringing the anti-trust lawsuit (since there is no legal right to do so). The language in the Monson bill is a little better (but still needs work). Be up front about the pending bills and see if the NCAA would be willing to put UND on the namesake exception list if they were to get tribal approval after the deadline in the settlement agreement. I highly doubt the NCAA would be receptive, but if someone in a position of high authority (i.e. the Governor) reached out the NCAA, there is a slight chance it could work. But I highly doubt anyone is thinking that strategically. My guess is this bill is just for show.

It was not dismissed by the order on the motion for an injunction, it was dismissed as part of the settlement. See below link. http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/OrderofJudgmentforDismissal.pdf

Now the story has hit the Star Tribue, with some more information: Star Tribune An antitrust lawsuit has already been brought and settled. The anti-trust claim was dismissed with prejudice (meaning it cannot be brought again). Bringing such a suit now would get thrown out of court immediately and would probably result in sanctions by the court. Under the settlement agreement, the only way UND can bring another suit would be if the NCAA changed the policy after the settlement was entered into. This bill is a sham. It is designed to make people think they are trying to do something, when in reality they are not doing anything. If the legislature wanted to do something, it needed to happen in the last legislative session. They knew that then and chose not to act. This is just a dog and pony show.

Well, I'm glad they hoped. We see that worked out real well. To the point, it doesn't change the fact that it's too late to do anything about it now. The reality is that, when it actually mattered, the politicians did not want to touch this issue.

Too little too late. Where was the Governor and the legislature a year ago when UND desperately needed Standing Rock to schedule a referendum to get tribal approval prior to the November 30, 2010 deadline? The State could have applied pressure to Standing Rock to hold a referendum. The Governor or Legislative leaders could have participated in government-to-government negotiations back when it mattered. This is all too late now. The deadline in the settlement agreement has passed. The NCAA has no obligation to exempt UND from its sanctions even if Standing Rock were to approve of the nickname (which it has given no indication it will). If UND retains the nickname, it will go back on the NCAA's sanctions list and will not be able to host any post-season events. The football program in particular would be devastated under those sanctions. I note that an NDSU graduate is pushing this. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and will assume he doesn't understand the consequences of such a law. But I won't be surprised if many NDSU backers in the legislature will back this bill because it would mean NDSU would gain a big advantage over UND in football. Once the legislators are educated as to the consequences of such a statute, it will have no chance of passing.

While it would be nice if Montana and Montana State came to Grand Forks in alternating years, unless I missed something, I haven't seen anywhere where that has been decided. While I'm hopeful UND will play both Montana and Montana State every year, I don't think even that has been decided yet.

According to this press release, September 7, 2013.

My point in saying never schedule a DII team assumes that an FBS game every year is a given. If UND gets to the point where it can skip an FBS game once in a while, then I suppose a DII team home game would be acceptable those years (like Montana does). But the big difference between Montana and UND is that Montana consistently sells 25,000 tickets to its home games, where UND averages around 8,000, with a 12,000 cap. Montana can replace the FBS guaranty game with an extra home game some years and still do okay financially. I'm not sure UND will be able to get away with that. So I think UND will probably have an FBS game on the schedule every year. I agree with you that the FBS game might as well be against BCS schools for a larger pay day. But you're right, either way, 10 FCS games is the key. That way, you can go 7-3 in those games and still make the playoffs. If you play an FBS game (likely loss) and a DII (non-counter) in the same 11-game season, you only have 9 FCS games and will have to go 7-2 in those games. Not impossible, but you're needlessly leaving yourself less room for error.

I agree with your sentiments, but not your conclusion. I think a DII team should be scheduled only as a last resort. I know a lot of people liked to make fun of NDSU scheduling low-scholarship or non-scholarship FCS schools to their schedule, but that's the right way to do it if you want to have an "easy" game on your schedule. Schedule a Wagner or a Valpo if you're looking for an easy win. Scheduling a DII school does nothing to advance UND's chances of making it to the playoffs. Wanting to play FCS teams is not just about labels or being "macho" as some have suggested. Playing FCS teams is rewarded come playoff selection time, playing DII schools is not. I realize it's probably more expensive to bring in a Wagner or a Valpo than a St. Cloud or a Sioux Falls, but saving a few bucks to bring in a DII schools is short sighted. UND consistently in the playoff hunt is the best way long term way to make sure the program is financially sound, and the best way to do that is to play as many FCS schools as possible. I think there should be 10 FCS teams on the schedule every year. Then with the 11th, you go with the FBS game. Maybe a DII team is acceptable on years where you get a 12th game, but that's it. This is not mission impossible. All we're talking about is two non-conference FCS games to schedule per year. Schedule an annual game with USD, and then we're talking about only one game per year. With that one game per year, schedule a guaranty game with a low- or non-scholarship FCS team, or schedule home-and-homes with NDSU, SDSU, or UNI. If Faison can't get that done, then I don't know what to say. Hopefully this St. Cloud rumor has no truth to it and we're getting worked about nothing.