NoiseInsideMyHead

1. In another part of the now-infamous, debated ad nauseam settlement agreement, the NCAA expressly ordered UND to protect the Sioux name and logos, which "shall not be...abandoned." 2. Now, if fans use (i.e., purchase and wear, or simply read) Sioux gear sold by UND for the purpose of remaining in full compliance with the agreement, the NCAA purportedly tells us it will "very likely result in sanctions." Why the two orders, Colonel?

Many of you are the NCAA's bitch, some seem content to be the NCAA's bitch, and some appear to even relish the role. There are ways out, but you have closed your minds to the concept of freedom. For you, there is no hope. I am sorry.

NCAA sanctions are not a legal consequence for breach of contract. Next.

But your carefully selected phrase "legally-binding" is only meaningful because there are legal consequences for not complying, right? Nothing is absolute, and these things cannot be viewed in a vacuum. How can you possibly conduct yourself in a society of laws without knowing which types of activities warrant the stiffest penalties and which are throwaways? Speed limits are "legally-binding." What does that mean? Can you get a lengthy prison sentence or death? Of course not. One reason people speed is that the consequences of being caught are relatively mild. Anyone who concludes that UND should not risk breaching the settlement agreement without having first critically examined the possible (and likely) consequences of doing so is either intellectually lazy or a holier-than-thou hypocrite. Be honest, who among you has never breached a contract; website terms of use, iTunes user agreements, and software licenses are contracts, by the way. Moral relativism has no place here; UND is not above breaching a contract when the risks are outweighed by the benefits, and neither are you. So I turn it back on all of the doomsayers: just what is it about the legal consequences of breaching the contract that chills you? An award of money damages? How much is too much to pay? A court order mandating that UND select a name? Is that any worse than the NCAA, or is it in some way actually better? Or are you worried about reputation and appearances? Do you fear for UND's credibility in the business world? Is UND not well served by adhering to principles and fighting rather than capitulating to a bully?

How else am I going to get to 6k posts?

Takes two to tango, chief. Have your legal eagle buddy Scott explain mutual assent as a predicate to contract formation. Listen to yourself. You would have us believe that UND willingly and knowingly signed on the dotted line when one possible outcome would be the whole enchilada of NA nickname sanctions imposed anew for having no nickname at all? Come on. That's utterly preposterous.

Forest for the trees, my boy, forest for the trees. The parties clearly did not anticipate at the time the agreement was entered into that "no nickname" was even remotely a possibility. Therein lies the problem. To impose sanctions for a rule that is not being violated defies logic and common sense. The excruciating and painstakingly literal interpretation espoused by you and others is a nullity. A fiction. There is no way that anyone with a straight face and a shred of common sense can arrive at the conclusion that UND should suffer penalties intended to punish users of NA nicknames when UND is not itself using a NA nickname. To read the contract that way is absurd.

UND may have done a lot of things in the settlement agreement, some of them wrong and/or ill-advised (especially in hindsight), but I 100% guaran-freaking-tee you that one thing UND did NOT do was consent to have sanctions imposed for conduct that does not amount to a violation of any NCAA rule. It's not there. Keep looking, if you wish. You're not going to find it. All UND did was agree that if it was using the name without tribal approval in violation of the policy, it would then be back on the sanctions list. No court is going to interpret the settlement agreement otherwise. Flame away, but you know I'm right.

Sanctioned FOR WHAT? What NCAA rule is being violated? Is there a "no (alleged) breach of contract" rule? What is that, a lack of institutional control, or an improper recruiting violation? Please elaborate. These wildly imaginary and unfounded fears are an embarrassment to the state, and are dragging down the entire cause.

Why are so many of you willing to concede defeat on the mythical breach of contract action? Have you lost the will to fight? Have you no faith that the NCAA will be exposed for wasting the court's time by litigating such a petty and trivial claim (the NCAA's underlying policy was vindicated long ago and the Sioux name is now relegated to the dustbin of history), and even if they win be redressed appropriately and sent packing with a nominal damages judgment of $1.00? UND could (and likely would) come out on top, because (1) the NCAA cannot demonstrate economic harm caused by the alleged breach, and (2) no court in its right mind is going to compel UND to adopt a nickname when the NCAA hasn't even seen fit to enact a rule requiring it. All this assumes that the NCAA would even waste the time, money and effort by pursuing such a lawsuit, which I believe is itself unlikely. If you haven't noticed, the NCAA is up to its ankles in crap right now and the tide is rising. I'm no expert, but I would swear you are all suffering from battered spouse syndrome, and Mr./Mrs. NCAA just came home after a long day at the office, reeking of alcohol and looking in your direction. Man up, FFS.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the clock. I was with you up to "...breach of the Agreement, and...." Are you suggesting that the NCAA can not only sue but also arbitrarily impose "sanctions" for the (ahem) violation (wink) of a non-existent rule? There is no NCAA rule requiring member institutions to have a nickname. Much in the same way there is (thankfully) no NCAA rule that exposes members to extra-judicial sanctions for allegedly breaching a contract with the NCAA. Can we please, now and forever, divorce the notion of sanctions (not going to happen) from liability for breach of the settlement agreement (which I concede is a conceivable, yet laughable, risk)?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/business/3806916-barbecue-chain-dickeys-closes-grand-forks Cue ...

With all the armchair lawyering going on, this forum could be sponsored by La-Z-Boy. Y'all need to relax and leave it to the professionals. Also, if any of you are lawyers, please out yourselves so I know to never, ever retain your services. "I read it in the contract, and the contract was perfectly written, so it must be true. And if we don't do it, we're in breach, and we're going to lose, and there's nothing we can do about it." - No Lawyer, Ever

You say, "UND must…." as if there is no alternative. I ask in response, "What are the consequences if UND doesn't?" See the difference?

I'm going to speak slowly, and type even slower. The settlement agreement is a contract. In order to establish a breach of contract, a party to the contract must allege and prove 3 things: the existence of the contract, a breach by the other party, and resulting harm.

FYP. And the response has to be "BIG DEAL." The fans weren't parties to the settlement agreement and cannot be sued. Nor are the fans subject to NCAA's member bylaws, rules, or resolutions and thus the fans cannot be sanctioned. The University is not using anything and thus has no culpability under the nickname policy. Short of stifling individual expression up to and beyond the point of violating people's constitutional rights, what more would you have UND do? Interesting aside about fan behavior -- notwithstanding its own policy, has the NCAA ever ejected a fan from an NCAA event solely for wearing and/or uttering "Sioux"? The NCAA's hands are completely tied on this one, and they know it. Their only options are to (1) deal with it; (2) enact a new nickname rule, which would probably grandfather UND in anyway; and (3) take UND to court on a dubious breach of contract theory, and try to explain to a judge how they have been harmed by UND not having a name and that the court should exercise its extraordinary power to remedy such a gross injustice. Short version, for the cognitively impaired: No nickname = no sanctions No nickname = possible lawsuit for breach with remote chance of money damages against UND and infinitesimal chance of UND being ordered to adopt a name

And I'm sure the STH are sworn to never, ever sell to Sioux fans.

But if UND adopts a single "logo" or "image", doesn't the literal equivalent or description of that image become the de facto nickname? And please stop with the preaching about preserving the sanctity of your precious thread. We get it; you think you're better than every Tom, Dick, and Harry who fires off an anonymous post on an Internet forum. I'll take mud-encrusted witty insight over 'competence' every day of the week.

If they're anchored by and/or populated with a variety of up-and-coming and diverse restaurants, as many as possible. Your question is a fair one. The repurposed, former Golden Corral space is still 100% vacant, as I recall. And strips are planned for Columbia south of 36th. At least the Noodles/E&G/Spicy Pie strip is full. Time to jump-start the GF Economy thread, perhaps?

I'm actually a fan of the current MHKY jerseys, but I will readily admit to liking very little else in the way of post-Sioux gear. But then again, at any time during the Sioux era, how much did non-Sioux merchandise really ever catch on? I believe if there was a way to "make North Dakota sexy," somebody would have figured it out by now. You'd have better luck with a tractor.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/business/3804251-around-town-pepperjax-grill-plans-grand-forks-restaurant Positive development. Keep 'em coming.

I predict he will be out as president.

Fair to say that CC has adopted a Dump Chase style of play?

Bump, and a reminder of happier (hope-ier?) times.