bisonh8er

I was under the impression that we are blacklisted from the above schools until our nickname situation is resolved. I don't think it specifies whether we get to keep the name or not just that the issue is settled. So if the bill passes and UND indeed keeps the name then the issue would be resolved. Therefore I believe they would be open the scheduling us.

If the North Dakota Legislature passed a law saying that its NCAA-participating universities were exempt from any of these NCCA rules or bylaws, would the NCAA simply make an exception for those schools because they are simply following state law?

Ya but the question is how can the NCAA punish a public institution for following state law? I don't know how they possibly could because UND has followed the rulings handed down to them but if a law is passed saying they have to be the sioux then the school has no choice but to abide by the law. That would mean that the NCAA would be forcing UND to break the law to avoid their sanctions which I'm sure is illegal. As far as another poster saying they could kick UND out of the NCAA, I think that would be a PR nightmare for the NCAA. Could you imagine the fallback against the NCAA for kicking a school out because they didn't like their mascot?

Well this is directly quoted from my law book. Requirements of a Valid Contract "The Following list briefly describes the four requirements that must be met for a valid contract to exist. If any of these elements is lacking, no contract will have been formed. 1. Agreement- An agreement to form a contract includes and offer and acceptance. One party must offer to enter into a legal agreement, and another party must accept the terms of the offer. 2. Consideration- Any promises made by parties must be supported by legally sufficient and bargained-for consideration. 3. Contractual capacity- Both parties entering into the contract must have the contractual capacity to do so; the law must recognize them as possessing characteristics that qualify them as competent parties. 4. Legality- The contract's purpose must accomplish some goal that is legal and not against public policy." And another section The Effects of Illegality "In general, an illegal contract is void: the contract is deemed never to have existed, and the courts will not aid either party. In most illegal contracts, both parties are considered to be equally at fault- in pari delicto. " Im not a law major and i don't know if this is relevant or not but seems like it could apply. Any law students or professionals care to clarify if i'm interpreting these correctly by saying that because the NCAA decision would be illegal the contract is voided?