mksioux

Interesting. I was fully expecting a Minnesota-type nickname ban out of St. Cloud. But maybe things will be better with Saigo gone.

Rather than conclusory disparaging comments, please tell us the viable causes of actions that UND's attorneys didn't plead in the complaint that would have resulted in a complete and total victory against the NCAA instead of on technical grounds. Keep in mind that in the TRO, the Judge ruled that UND was NOT likely to succeed on the merits on the anti-trust count.

In theory, REA could certainly refuse to abide by the terms of the settlement without penalty since REA is not a party to the agreement. But if UND continues to use a non-compliant REA, UND will be penalized. I highly doubt REA would choose not to comply, leaving UND with the decision of either being sanctioned by the NCAA or playing in Purpur Arena.

Not forever, but maybe for a few years. I don't like the idea of a time-forced and contrived nickname.

If you read the settlement agreement literally, it appears UND has to adopt a new nickname, not simply drop the Fighting Sioux. This is the only part of the settlement that really makes me mad.

From the Herald editorial For those that want to work with the tribes and keep the nickname, keep this in mind. You can bet that anti-nickname activists will start a list copying some of these posts on this website and will bring them to the reservation to "show" the tribe what "we" all think of "them".

This is by far the most troubling aspect of the settlement to me. I am dead set against a contrived nickname and logo, even if voted on by the UND stakeholders. That may be fine for other schools, but it is not fine for a state flagship. State flagships nicknames should have meaning to the State and should develop over time. I wish the settlement would have only required we drop the nickname and logo. Then UND would have gone without a nickname for a few years until one developed naturally. I'm going to have a real hard time getting behind some new-age contrived generic nickname like Fury or <color> Hawks. Yuck.

I agree. It was incorrect to think that UND winning this lawsuit would be an outright victory for UND. UND could have won the battle, but it still would have lost the war. There is no way that the NCAA would have simply given up. This policy was going to be legislatively enacted in the bylaws if the court case succeeded. In fact, it turns out that the NCAA wasn't even going to wait until they lost in court. The wheels were already in motion to amend the bylaws (no doubt adding leverage in settlement negotiations). Anyone who thought that the NCAA members would have sided with UND and voted down the amended bylaws was mistaken.

Minnesota committee likely won't change stance I doubt the policy will change. Florida State and Central Michigan both have namesake tribal approval and UND does not (nobody recognizes the lukewarm 'no objection' resolution from Spirit Lake). Also, FSU and CMU have NCAA exemptions, while UND only has a reprieve. And I've not seen anywhere where FSU and Central Michigan are approved teams for the UofM. These games may only be holdovers from when they weren't enforcing their policy. And isn't the FSU basketball gmae scheduled by the Big Ten-ACC and not Minnesota? That's another distinction.

How much can you afford? The court file has probably already been unsealed. Anyone thinking there's going to be some smoking gun in the court file will be disappointed. Any "dirt" on the NCAA would have been obtained through discovery, most likely through depositions. Parties do not file discovery responses or deposition transcripts with the court. Perhaps you could get them through an open records request (I'm not faimilar with that law), but I'll doubt you'll find anything interesting in the court file.

No. It's still in effect.

The biggest question mark I have with this settlement agreement is that if UND does not get namesake approval, it contemplates a new nickname. What happens if UND chooses not to have a nickname, at least for a period of time? Do we have to adopt a new nickname to get off the NCAA list? After my initial review of the agreement, it appears UND has to adopt a new nickname to get off the list. I certainly don't like that aspect of the settlement. I would have much rather it read that UND simply has to drop the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo if it can't get namesake approval.

There's a lot of bashing of the lawyers, particuarly the A.G.. Just remember that the lawyers make recommendations, but the clients make the final decision. If you absolutely hate this settlement, then blame the State Board of Higher Education because they were the ones that made the decision. You can bet that the AG was given settlement parameters in a previous closed door session. He negotiated the best deal he could, and the Board approved the settlement this morning. If the Board wanted to fight this to the end, this settlement would have never happened. Just keep that in mind when bashing the A.G.

UND would have won this lawsuit. And then what? I've been saying for months, that the NCAA would simply enact the legislation the proper way. We have a politically incorrect nickname in the cultural marxist world of "higher learning". Putting our faith in the collective "wisdom" of college Presidents would not have gotten us anywhere. This lawsuit, while it was necessary due to the immediate time constraints, was not going to get us permanently off the NCAA's list, and it certainly wasn't going to decide the fate of the Fighting Sioux nickname. Politically speaking, the Fighting Sioux nickname can not be sustained without tribal support. We may disagree with that and claim that the tribes do not own the name, which is true, but it is hard to deny that is the political reality in the times in which we live. I've been saying for a few months now that I hate the fact that the Fighting Sioux nickname empowers people that do not deserve to be empowered. And while the historical Sioux people may be deserving of honor, the current Sioux leadership certainly is not. If I never have to care about the opinions of Ron His Horse is Thunder or David Gipp or Myra Pearson, etc. ever again, I'll be a happier person. The tribal leadership has made it abundantly clear that they do not want to partner with UND and turn the nickname into a positive like other tribes have done. Fine. Let's grant them their wish and let them live with their decision.

Who is the one being racist?

Your're right. Petty arguments over sports should never happen on a sports message board. Sorry.

The way I see it is that Sioux hockey is still the biggest North Dakota sport in the region, the state, and the country. But NDSU football (and even basketball) is closing the gap much faster than any of us would like to acknowledge. I would not concede that UND hockey has peaked, but I agree that NDSU football and basketball has more room to get bigger. UND can not afford to rest on its laurels and needs the same kind of vision and leadership that NDSU currently enjoys. NDSU's ambitions are nowhere near over. UND can sit around and complain about it (like Kupchella seems to often do), or it can get dirty and compete. The status quo is unacceptable in my opinion. UND hockey is in the top division of hockey and competes for a national championship pretty much every year, has been in the last three Frozen Fours, is routinely second in the nation in attendance, etc. It's not readily easy to get "bigger" at this point. I guess finally winning #8 would help, but the point is that UND is pretty much at the top of the college hockey world with only a couple equals. How does UND hockey continue to grow despite being on top of the college hockey world? The way I see it, there is only two ways for UND hockey to get "bigger". One would be for college hockey in general to get bigger. But in recent years, college hockey has been losing teams, not growing. And thanks to Title IX, I don't see college hockey growing anytime soon. The other way to grow UND hockey, and UND sports in general, would be to improve upon FSSN. This is actually attainable and goals for growth should be set. FSSN televising road hockey games and all home football games should be a short-term goal. It may not profitable to do so (yet), so this is where leadership and long-term vision come in to play. Televising away football games should be a medium-range goal. Adding more markets and exposure should be a continual goal. Long term goals should be filling dead-air with past games and features, obtaining access to the Twin Cities cable market (obviously on an expanded pay-for sports-tier, but available nonetheless), and becoming available for purchase through satellite (DirecTV and Dish Network).

That's true, but it works both ways. IIRC, the NCAA originally announced this policy on a Friday. And I think they announced the initial namesake exemption backpedal on a Friday as well.

I suspect the State's lawyers would not have called this meeting unless they thought the Board would be receptive to it. I assume the Board has given the lawyers specific settlement parameters in a previous closed-door session. We'll see I guess...

This is the type of information the nickname opponents crave so they can claim the court ruling is not legitimate when it comes out in UND's favor. You can expect a motion by the NCAA to remove Judge Jahnke coming soon. The Judge won't remove himself, but it will be one more issue for the NCAA to appeal.

From a historical standpoint, there is no way to minimize this win. UND has played Minnesota in football 20 times from 1898 through 1974 and lost all 20 games. UND is 0-4 against other Big Ten schools. After briefly checking the history books (someone correct me if I'm wrong) this is only the fourth time in history a current or former NCC team has beaten a Big Ten team in football and the first since South Dakota State beat Wisconsin in 1935. I don't care how down Minnesota is this year, this was a huge win. UND will not automatically enjoy the same success in its transition just because UND is better than NDSU was in its last year of DII. I expect UND to have a relatively successful transition, but does anyone honestly think it's reasonable to assume that UND will be the best team in FCS and beating BCS conference teams in its fourth year? Let's face it, NDSU's transition has been nothing short of remarkable. I think this quote from Bohl from the Strib sums it up nicely:

Whether a breach of contract case is a jury question depends on the nature of the dispute. If the facts are in dispute, then of course it's a jury case (assuming a jury trial was requested). But if all that is in dispute is the interpretation of the contract, then it is not a question for a jury and is ripe for summary judgment. At least in Minnesota, contract interpretation is a question of law to be decided by the Judge. I can't imagine it's any different in North Dakota. Other than damages, what are the factual disputes in this case? Either the NCAA's interpretation of the by-laws is correct and the Executive Committee had the authority to enact this policy or UND's interpretation of the by-laws are correct and the Executive Committee did not have the authority to enact this policy. To me, that seems like a decision for the Judge, not the jury. Having said that, when making predictions, it's always easier to predict that a judge will deny a summary judgment motion rather than grant it, because a denial is not appealable.