Benny Baker

You were making a lot of sense up until the last part. UND can only be removed for cause according to the bylaws. Upon this showing, UND can only be removed with unanimous consent of every Big Sky president. "Won't be very difficult" is disingenuous.

So ScottM, in other words, you're saying you can't. That's what I thought.

So when/if those scenarios don't occur . . . You do realize that speculation goes both ways, right? Let's talk facts. We know where Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota currently sit. We have for several years. This isn't new and EVERYONE realizes it. It's time for you all to move on from your anectodal stories about these three schools. So what other schools have adopted policies like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa over the last seven years? How many of the other 360 D-1 institutions won't be playing UND? For everyone's benefit, please don't use the response, "But if other schools follow suit..... what happens if other programs . . .." For starters, let's see if ScottM can name three more.

"Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota---Three schools with no history against UND outside of hockey." I said that an hour ago; I figured you had read that. As for the other programs, yes they'd probably be "toast" without a conference. But like I've constantly said, the most important issue is conference affilitation, not what Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota chose to do. The Big Sky season starts in a couple of months. Why haven't they removed UND yet? What are they waiting for? Do they want to wait until summer to take action so that the schools will have to face tight deadlines for rescheduling since UND would be out of the picture? Fat chance. Maybe Fullerton is waiting until the Big Sky has a "super major concern" with the nickname, rather than the simple "concern" and "major concern", which the conference currently has.

I'm simply amazed that UND has been able to survive its D-1 transition without playing Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. How on Earth will the athletic program continue to survive when it can't play these three programs that it has never played before? Nice spin job by the GF Herald again. A big headline announcing that Iowa, a school who has declined to play UND since 2005, won't let UND participate in its track meet. I thought headlines were for news. Wouldn't the bigger story be that Iowa is now competiting against UND in soccer next fall? Yes, indeed it is. And Scott.... that is enough for me. I have heard enought about Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. I'll leave the doomsday scenarios to you. Nothing you said in your prior post has happened. It would be like me saying, what would happen if Iowa changed course and chose to play UND in a sport like soccer? Oh wait, nevermind, Iowa is playing UND in soccer.

Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota---Three schools with no history against UND outside of hockey. I'd rather have UND keep playing Kansas than any of those schools. But, I did just find out that UND is playing the University of Iowa in soccer this fall. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/230088/ It'll be interesting to see how may times the words "Iowa", "Minnesota", and "Wisconsin" are posted in this thread before another handful of schools jump on board with the NCAA. Or will it be this troika of Big Ten schools that continually gets regurgitated?

Filings? http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Application%20for%20Writ%20of%20Injunction%20Under%20Original%20Jurisdiction%20-%20UND%20Sioux%20Nickname%20Referral.pdf

I think this is the best argument out there. But I question the slippery slope. A lot of the legislature's decisions will affect UND economically.

Yup, the argument goes both ways depending on whether one's views side with the legislature or executive branch. It would be a bit naive to say that this isn't tremendous when a lawsuit has been filled directly with the North Dakota Supreme Court. With that said, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the SBHE has no lawmaking power and that the Board is an administrative body. You guys can cite the constitutional language all you want. But some of you really need to start reading the Supreme Court's case law (binding precedent) that is interpreting those very provisions.

I think Brad is the most thorough beat writer in college hockey, but he is, for lack of a better word, a bit of a UND propagandist. Danny Kristo, Gregiore's decision to turn pro, etc. But with that said, I believe Hakstol was telling the truth.

Absolutely. In fact, it is so tremendous that the SBHE has filed a lawsuit directly to our state's highest court in order to retire that very nickname, which is what you want, isn't it?

15-10-11. Authority and general powers of board. The state board of higher education has full authority over the institutions under its control with the right to prescribe, limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In furtherance of its powers, the board has the power to delegate to its employees details of the administration of the institutions under its control. The board has authority to organize or reorganize, within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each institution under its control, and to do everything necessary and proper for the efficient and economical administration thereof. I'm just hung up on the "statutory limitations" part. good points.

I'll definitely take your word for it regarding President Kelly, the interlocking ND, etc., but it's a fact that this breaks the repeal law, which prohibits the adoption and use of any nickname for three years. The settlement agreement specifically requires UND to adopt a new nickname. UND can't comply with both at the same time. Either they break the law and adopt a new nickname or follow the law and breach the settlement. As for the constitutional questions, are you saying it's unconstitutional now because of a separation of powers issue or because of the contracts clause? If the latter, than I see what you mean. Everyone seems sure that the SBHE will win on the contract clause. I honestly do not see how they win on a separation of powers issue. The Supreme Court has said multiple times that the SBHE is an administrative body of the executive branch with no legislative power. The Supreme Court has found legislation unconstitutional where the legislature delegates lawmaking power to the SBHE. When it was created, the SBHE adopted all the powers of the Board of Administration. The Board of Administration did not have control over or change UND's nickname to the "Fighting Sioux" in 1930, so history even shows that "moniker" authority does not lie with the SBHE. Two years ago, Justice Kapsner wrote a dissent saying the SBHE has absolutely no legislature power and that the SBHE's constitutional authority it limited by statute. Nickname proponents only need one more justice. I think the contracts clause is a better argument. Still doubt they will win because the Supreme Court has already said that there is no longer a contract between the parties. The legal status of the settlement agreement is now a court judgment. The Supreme Court says they will enforce it as a court judgment. There has never been a Court in the United States, of which I am aware, that has found a law to violate the contract clause when it infringes on a court judgment. Secondly, I still think UND is complying with the judgment: "If UND does not adopt a new nickname or logo . . . they will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the policy."

I know I'm probably a bad teacher, but you are rather helpless. I know that none of the parties were choosing to enforce the settlement, but lack of enforcement does not mean compliance. Look at the plain language of the statute and settlement. If UND does not adopt a "new nickname" then they are supposed to continue with sanctions under the settlement. The repeal bill prohibited the adoption of a "new nickname" and logo. You cannot reconcile the two. One cannot both follow the law, which prevents the school from adopting a new nickname, and follow the terms of the settlement, which requires adoption of a "new" nickname. Whether the parties you listed choose to abide by the settlement, well that's another story. But it does go to show that the NCAA is not truly wound up in the specific terms of the settlement. These are all facts. I'm sorry, but I can't help you any longer and you're unable to appreciate these facts.

Good to know. Makes sense. But I just didn't think it was possible after so many people have said that the NCAA has taken a hard stance and won't back off the settlement agreement and sanctions under any circumstances. But I guess it is true that the NCAA is not 100% committed to enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement, either.

You're not understanding. In order to comply with the explicit terms of the settlement, UND needs to "adopt a new nickname." The absence of a nickname is a per se violation of the settlement agreement. SBHE is a named party, the legislature is not; therefore, SBHE is in breach. However, whether it be the legislature or SBHE, it is a distinction without a difference.

Funny how that works. SBHE will use tax power money to righteously enforce the very same settlement agreement that they have no intention of following.

Can't. The repeal law is no longer a law. Who on Earth has standing to challenge the constitutionality of an idea, which is no longer the law? The'y have to wait til June.

Can't, we'll have a repeal law on the books, which forbids adoption of any new nickname. The settlement agreement is explicit: "if UND does not adopt a new nickname . . . then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the policy."

How do you propose that UND comply with the settlement agreement? According to its terms, UND needs to adopt a new nickname and logo, otherwise the state is in breach.

So if the Supreme Court finds the law unconstitutional because of the contract clause what happens with the unconstitutional repeal law? The repeal law places a moratorium on a new nickname for three years while the holy grail settlement agreement mandates that “UND will announce that its Athletic Department will transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the Policy or rend UND subject to the Policy.” In order to fix this, which way will we waste more of the public’s money: new constitutional lawsuit or a special legislative session? Anyone know of any other way the state could ensure that UND is in compliance with settlement agreement? Or perhaps the SBHE could adopt a new interim nickname come August . . . and then break the law shortly after crying foul on the legislature. Even if the Court strikes down the pro-nickname law and the public still votes (the vote wouldn’t even happen anyway) “no” to keep the repeal law, we’re back at square one: we need a nickname in order to comply the settlement agreement. The same settlement agreement over which the SBHE plans to sue to ensure that very same level of compliance. I’m sure the Supreme Court will enjoy making this ruling.

I assume you place one of Fullerton's own athletic directors in that category as well. I suppose Wanless could be a liar though.

Credited Response. There is nothing inherent within the logo or nickname that is hurting student-athletes at UND. (see North Dakota athletics from 1930-2005). It's the external reactions by other institutions---the NCAA's sanctions, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin's choice not to compete against UND.

About time.

Clearly, did you really think I was trying to make a point to the NCAA by writing posts on an unofficial University of North Dakota athletic's message board? Come on, you're smarter than that . . . I think. In terms of a long-term goal. I'd first say B.S. Seminoles, Fighting Irish, Chippewa, Ragin' Cajuns, Vikings, etc.---those are names that aren't going away. I know you may think that they are, but it's not going to happen. When the NCAA started this process in 2001, the only nicknames they considered were Native American based. Even if I were to agree with you about some alleged goal, I would really emphasize the word "slowly."