mksioux

The NCAA could risk being held in contempt of court if they do that. I agree on more subjective things like hockey regionals, though, the NCAA will find a way to make sure Engelstad Arena doesn't host, even if there is an injunction.

There must have been a telephone scheduling conference prior to the scheduling of the hearing -- and I'm sure the A.G. made the Judge well aware of the exigency of the circumstances. I'm sure the Judge and his law clerk have been doing the research in advance and will be well prepared for the hearing. I'd be surprised if there isn't at least a verbal order (or an abbreviated written order) before the football selection committee meets, which would be followed up by a detailed written order at a later date. Having said that, if UND wins against USD on Saturday, they'd stay #2 in the regional ranking and get the first-round bye despite the current NCAA policy (the policy doesn't change rankings or byes -- it only applies to hosting games). That would give the Judge another week to get the injunction ordered before the 2nd round hosts are determined.

I don't believe there is anything in N.D.'s pro hac vice rules that would prohibit full representation for the duration of the case (even though the appeal -- where only an updated affidavit is required at that point).

It looks like UND has retained co-counsel from Salt Lake City. One has experience in anti-trust litigation. Peter W. Billings Martindale listing

UND's reply brief is now available. http://www.ag.state.nd.us/NCAA/UNDReplyMem...lInjunction.pdf

They may have eventually given it back because of the Abramoff involvement, but I think the point is that they took money from various Indian groups and probably intend to do so again in the future (without Abramoff's involvement obviously). They probably don't want to step on any donors' toes with this nickname issue. This is all a moot point anwyay. This bill doesn't stand a chance in the new Democratic controlled House.

This question has also been bugging me for a while now. I suspect the simple answer is "Because they probably would have done it already." A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after after receipt of the pleadings by the defendant. I believe the NCAA should have received the pleadings on October 6 and the 30 day deadline has passed. And the more I think about it, the NCAA may not have had grounds to remove to federal court. North Dakota drafted the complaint to avoid federal subject matter jurisdiction. While I thought diversity jurisdiction was a no-brainer, it may be that an association like the NCAA is treated like partnership for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. That is, the NCAA has partners that reside in North Dakota and that breaks diversity jurisdiction. I'm not really sure, but it seems to me that the NCAA would have already removed it to federal court if they had grounds to do so.

I forgot about the holiday (sorry veterans). You're right, that would probably preclude a Friday ruling date. I hope that means the Judge (and his law clerk) have been doing their research ahead of time and will be prepared to rule from the bench on Thursday. I suspect that will be the case.

My bad. Let's hope there's a ruling by Friday then.

Yes, it will be open to the public. There may or may not be a ruling on Thursday. The Judge could take it under advisement and rule by written order on Friday (but hopefully not later than Friday given the selection committee meeting taking place early next week). Once there is a ruling, I suspect the Herald and Forum will post it on their website in short order.

Not completely. There are Democrat politicians tangled in that web as well, including North Dakota's to some extent. Did you even click on Sicatoka's link? The point of why this issue even came up was to give a plausible explanation why North Dakota's congressional delegation has been unwilling to do anything about the Sioux nickname issue. If you click on the links you get a pretty good reason why.

The potential flight risk of the Montana schools is the biggest reason I voted for MidCon/Gateway. While UND obviously would accept an invitation into any conference, a Montana-less Big Sky (or even the possibility of a Montana-less Big Sky) is far less ideal than Mid-Con/Gateway IMO. I'd be interested in people's thoughts on how big the flight risk is for the Montana schools. And I suspect if the people who frequent this board are evenly divided (which it appears they are), the average UND fan who doesn't visit this board would be overwhelmingly in support of joining whatever conference NDSU is in.

Please explain.

UND finally played with excitement and deserved the win. I'm normally pretty negative after UND losses/ties, but justice and equity required a better fate for UND tonight.

I agree they are rarely granted. However, in this case, I expect the Judge will focus heavily on the balancing of harms factor. UND has been using the nickname for 75 years...1 or 2 more is not going to hurt the NCAA one bit. On the other hand, if the injunction is not granted, it will directly hurt all of the student athletes that would have gotten home-field advantage otherwise (not to mention the monetary loss for UND).

They had one for years, until political correctness reared its ugly head.

You obviously don't come here much. It's actually a forum for amateur forensic accountant enthusiasts to debate UND's athletic budget.

I can live with it on the football uniforms because of the tradition associated with it, but the interlocking ND logo has NO BUSINESS on the hockey jerseys. Someone should grow a pair and replace them with the old S tomahawks, or something completely different and unique to the University of North Dakota.

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience went as follows: The anti-UND chants occurred in the tailgating lot a little bit, and were pretty much non-stop on the shuttle bus ride to the Dome. Once in the Dome, I didn't hear any. I was not wearing any UND clothing, nor did I see anyone who was. I did not reveal my allegiance to UND in any way. But I like I've said before, I was surprised, but I loved it. It got me pumped for the rivalry to be renewed.

Good post Timmay. I wasn't offended by the anti-UND chants at all. Hearing them reminded me of the rivalry (which I hadn't thought about in a while) and got me really excited for it to be renewed.

So I take it this mean the NCAA is not going to remove to federal court?

In my experience, it was pretty much all 20-somethings doing the "Sioux suck" chants. I didn't hear any at the game, but I heard some tailgating and it was pretty much constant on the shuttle bus ride from the tailgating lot to the Dome. I wouldn't have been surprised if there had been anybody around with Sioux clothing on, but there wasn't (me included). I thought it was great, though. Nothing to "move on" from, since the rivalry will be renewed in 2009 anyway.

Unfortunately, this is what's going to happen for a while when UND plays a good team. You just can't pick up where you left off when you lose five players early. Maybe they can develop into a good team, maybe they can't. All I know is this sweep is not going to look good in the PWR come the end of the year.

Just so you know. Any Bison fan who tries to say that they've moved past UND are full of !@$!. I went tailgating with all the Bison unwashed (without my Sioux gear on), rode the shuttle bus with them from the tailgate lot to the Metrodome, and...trust me...they still hate UND as much as ever. UND this, UND that. Sioux suck this, Sioux suck that. It was kind of flatering to know they still care. Awwe. Can't wait for 2009...

Great. Adding injury to insult.