NoiseInsideMyHead

Yes. A contract. Which means that if one party fails to live up to its end, the other party has a legal remedy. The aggrieved party cannot unilaterally impose arbitrary punishment upon the party in breach. This includes declaring that the party is in violation of a rule that is not actually being violated and trying to impose a sanction that would do more harm than good. That would be anarchy, and would turn the rule of law on its head. No, the remedy for breach of contract is a lawsuit. In order to prevail on said lawsuit, the plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of a contract, (2) a breach, and (3) resulting harm. I will go so far as to concede (1) and (2) for the sake of discussion. Which leaves (3). I submit to you that the NCAA is not harmed by UND not having a nickname. In fact, the NCAA has no rule requiring nicknames of any of its members. There is no economic loss to the NCAA. Keep in mind that the NCAA got what it wanted…UND dropped its hostile and abusive nickname and the NCAA has one more member walking in step with its Native American nickname policy. What more could it possibly ask? Let's assume for the moment that the NCAA really was steamed about this. Ignore the fact that the NCAA is already engaged in a fight on countless fronts for its own survival, over such trivial things as: 1. Amateurism and compensation 2. Unionization 3. Player likenesses in video games 4. Player likenesses in broadcasts and DVDs 5. Long-term health effects and medical coverage 6. Having its HQ in the bigoted state of Indiana Let's also assume that the NCAA is willing to spend the time, money and effort necessary to sue UND for breach of contract. It somehow articulates a theory of 'harm' caused by UND's non-adoption of a nickname, and the judge buys it. The judge will be asked to do two things: award damages (i.e., money), and/or order specific performance (i.e., compel UND to follow through on its contractual promise to adopt a new nickname). As a baseline proposition, courts generally prefer not to compel action, especially when such action is not necessary to avoid a greater loss to someone's life, limb, or property. It's messy, and it's hardly the job of the judiciary to tell folks how to conduct their business. That's why lawsuits usually result in an award of money damages. Now, money damages must bear some relation to the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff. Courts are known to award nominal damages in a case that lacks any real economic harm. Where and how is the NCAA harmed here? I just don't see it. The NCAA won. It's nickname policy was vindicated. "Butt-hurt" and injured pride are not compensable. You ask, "What part of [the contract] do people not understand?" I am telling you that this has less to do with the contract and far more to do with the realities - both economic and legal - in which the parties to the contract find themselves. This is not unusual. Very few legal "wrongs" are ever righted. Costs versus benefits. Risks versus rewards. Battles are picked. There are reasons to pick a new name, and not to pick a new name. My point all along has been that fear of the NCAA should not be a driver.

Let me guess…you went to law school with this guy, right?

The list exists solely to punish schools that have a hostile and abusive nickname. The NCAA cannot just make the rules up as they go. The drafters of the settlement agreement never in a million years anticipated that no nickname was a possible outcome. There was merely an underlying assumption that no new nickname = Fighting Sioux, which has been proven false.

This paranoia schtick is so tiring. The NCAA is a lot of things, but they are not stupid. And they are not a boogeyman. They are not going to arbitrarily and capriciously punish an institution for doing nothing wrong. And no, breaching a contract and 'just pissing us off in general' are not punishable by the NCAA. Show me one NCAA sanction levied against a member that is not tied to a violation of an existing rule or bylaw. I'll wait.

Are you serious? We have ridden this merry-go-round before. There is no "naughty list" for having no nickname, because there is no NCAA rule or bylaw being violated. The NCAA's sole remedy is to sue UND for a breach of contract. Period. End of story.

And then what? It's a contract. They would have to sue. They would then have to try and win, and prove damages. On what amounts to a token breach. They will be exposed as petty tyrants. A court is not likely to compel UND to do anything, and monetary damages will be nominal. As in, a dollar. On a good day. This is not a frightening prospect. Why do so many people pee themselves when it comes to the NCAA?

But the NCAA would also have to have something else…damages. An economic incentive to sue. This is where I cringe at the armchair lawyering. What good could the NCAA possibly hope to achieve by trying to enforce this part of the settlement when it already got what it ultimately wanted? It's like sending in a high-priced SEAL team to blow up one last stupid bunker years after your defeated enemy has signed the surrender agreement and disbanded its army. Courts aren't keen on ordering extraordinary relief (which is why money damages are the norm), and ordering a public university to adopt a new nickname just to appease a perverse plaintiff is about as extraordinary as it gets.

I don't think the last chapter has necessarily been written on that. There are going to be logistic challenges with a truly "public" vote that Kelley might not have fully appreciated. If conducted online, the University will have to employ technological safeguards against spamming, spoofing, and ballot-stuffing. Not impossible, but potentially very complicated and expensive. An in-person vote on campus will necessarily favor students, staff, and local residents. Ballots by mail can be directed to particular recipients, whereas a print-at-home and mail-in ballot might be more 'accessible' to a wider population. It may be that vote integrity wins out over unfettered inclusion, despite the somewhat lofty intentions originally declared.

Are people confusing the very open and public call for suggestions with the as-yet undefined "public" vote? I think that would be a mistake. At least until the parameters of the vote are announced.

The criticisms of Kelley are fascinating. What were his options, really? 1. Public vote (however one defines 'public') 2. Small, hand-picked committee 3. Large, hand-picked committee 4. Presidential fiat 5. Inaction (a/k/a practically begging the ND legislature to step in where it is not welcome) Am I missing any? Can anyone honestly make a compelling case for one over the others?

The disagreement generally stems from context and the circumstances under which the agreement was entered into. Was there an underlying assumption that it was going to be Sioux or something else (an A or B proposition)? Yes. Were the parties at that time even remotely contemplating that there could be no name (option C)? In my humble opinion, absolutely not. One simply cannot construe that clause in a vacuum. Several of the terms and conditions have been rendered impossible or moot as events have unfolded, and the parties through their conduct and/or by formal amendment have basically nullified or negated a number of them.

For the 10 millionth time…UND cannot be on the naughty list because it does not have a hostile and abusive nickname. There is no NCAA rule or bylaw mandating that member schools have a nickname. Ergo, no NCAA punishment can be levied. There is an interpretation of the settlement agreement that obligates UND to select a new name, but there is by no means a consensus that the NCAA would or could enforce it.

Maybe, maybe not. But look at it this way, those who embrace the new name and logo will buy that stuff, and those who don't will then have to decide between buying generic and nothing at all. Either way, there is a huge potential up-side for licensing revenue that does not currently exist.

Any evidence to back that claim? What about the countless people on this board who have sworn off of "North Dakota" merchandise. I don't suspect they're going to race to the store with their wallets out absent change. Besides, is anyone really moved by any of the generic "North Dakota" stuff?

Where's that kind of support at the Clink? At the outdoor game? Fair weather, to say the least.

After a good result, the headline could be "Lab Majora!" Team has an off day? "Lab Minora".

By height.

Both of which would make great 4th quarter food specials at the Alerus.

Democracy can be slow and messy. Anonymous balloting is the norm, and 'poll taxes' (i.e., any burden imposed on the free exercise of the right to vote) are strictly verboten. This is pretty much the only way UND could deliver on its oft-stated promise of inclusion and public input. Remember that there are plenty of ND taxpayers who feel that they have as much ownership and say over the state's flagship institution but who would be excluded from the relatively narrow class of eligible individuals you describe. Junk submissions (which may number in the hundreds or thousands, with many lacking in taste) are obviously seen as an acceptable cost of doing business. The subsequent "vote" will likely be quite different in scope, and you may find that more to your liking.

Oddly enough, the NCAA probably can't on the strength of its rules and bylaws alone, because no such rule or bylaw exists. However, UND entered into a settlement agreement whereby it undertook the affirmative obligation not only to dump Fighting Sioux but also - arguably - to replace it with a new nickname. Thus, you have the only NCAA member institution required to have a nickname. The last legal chapter has not been written, for there is a question whether the NCAA would try to enforce that aspect of the settlement agreement and whether a court would go along with it. The NCAA really has not been damaged by what amounts to a token breach of contract, and courts generally do not like to force parties to take specific actions absent compelling circumstances. Being forced to adopt a nickname is rather extraordinary.

Maybe the Committee members are starved for attention at home. Or maybe they really, REALLY like UND catering and all the cookies and punch they can consume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania

Committee members be all like

Presumably, there will be safeguards against spamming, spoofing, and ballot stuffing. A "vote" is an entirely different animal from an open call for submissions. Now, it is fairly up for debate whether the open call approach was the best choice, but that ship done sailed. Who knows what kind of gems they will find.

You mean, as opposed to a fill-in-the-blank online form where anyone could pretend to be anyone? Or were you thinking that individual submissions could be tied to a completely unreliable e-mail verification? Or perhaps requiring people to submit SSNs, credit card numbers, or DNA?

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/s-d-highway-patrol-to-strictly-enforce-new-mph-speed/article_ff709a85-ba4e-576f-99e2-0493a415b7a1.html Anybody else know this was coming? I found this quote from the article to be…um, interesting: Because those extra 2 mph really do make a difference.