Chewey Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 From a recent posting to Tom Miller's article: Mr. First Amendment, meet Mr. Big Sky Conference. Mr. Big Sky Conference, meet Mr. First Amendment. To the extent the NCAA has been involved in this latest drama, the sights can be set on it too legally. Let the lawyering begin........ From a legal standpoint, this opens up the door. So, you want to deny/rescind membership in the Big Sky because of what we call ourselves? And, you say that it's the NCAA's policy that you're following? Alright then, let's have that fight and I'll bet the farm on the First Amendment. Wayne, here's your encore invitation. Let's get going. This UND alum is ready with checkbook waiting. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 What happens then is the NCAA gets laughed out of the courtroom. The law voids the prior settlement. Once that law takes effect in August, the settlement for all intents and purposes never happened in the eyes of the law. The NCAA has no idea what they're dealing with. Or this situation goes against UND like it did the first time around when the SBoHE and Wayne Stenjum f-ed up the settlement with 2 tribal approvals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FargoBison Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 What happens then is the NCAA gets laughed out of the courtroom. The law voids the prior settlement. Once that law takes effect in August, the settlement for all intents and purposes never happened in the eyes of the law. The NCAA has no idea what they're dealing with. The only party that would be laughed out of the courtroom is the state of ND. The law that passed was a joke and the people that passed it had no clue what they were doing. I've always wanted UND to keep the name but that was not the way to go about doing it, now your admin, coaches and student athletes are stuck in a terrible mess that they in no way deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 What happens then is the NCAA gets laughed out of the courtroom. The law voids the prior settlement. Once that law takes effect in August, the settlement for all intents and purposes never happened in the eyes of the law. The NCAA has no idea what they're dealing with. I tend to think the NCAA legal team knows what they are dealing with more than the politicians of ND...as well intentioned as the politicians were (perhaps a legal ruling on the proposed legislation should have happened prior to a vote?). On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 From a recent posting to Tom Miller's article: Mr. First Amendment, meet Mr. Big Sky Conference. Mr. Big Sky Conference, meet Mr. First Amendment. To the extent the NCAA has been involved in this latest drama, the sights can be set on it too legally. Let the lawyering begin........ From a legal standpoint, this opens up the door. So, you want to deny/rescind membership in the Big Sky because of what we call ourselves? And, you say that it's the NCAA's policy that you're following? Alright then, let's have that fight and I'll bet the farm on the First Amendment. Wayne, here's your encore invitation. Let's get going. This UND alum is ready with checkbook waiting. The First Amendment applies to the government, not private actors like the NCAA and the Big Sky Conference. You would lose the farm. What happens then is the NCAA gets laughed out of the courtroom. The law voids the prior settlement. Once that law takes effect in August, the settlement for all intents and purposes never happened in the eyes of the law. The NCAA has no idea what they're dealing with. What is the basis for this statement? The law does not void the settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 The First Amendment applies to the government, not private actors like the NCAA and the Big Sky Conference. You would lose the farm. What is the basis for this statement? The law does not void the settlement. We could prepare quite a list of people that have been fired for things they have said which are perfectly within their first ammendment rights to say, but their boss didn't like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 What happens then is the NCAA gets laughed out of the courtroom. The law voids the prior settlement. Once that law takes effect in August, the settlement for all intents and purposes never happened in the eyes of the law. The NCAA has no idea what they're dealing with. No, what happens is the state, the Board and/or UND get laughed out of court on a summary judgment motion, probably sanctioned for bringing a frivolous complaint and look like complete rubes on a national stage for failing to grasp the concept of a "settlement" signed in Grand Forks County. And if you think the new law created any new "cause of action" not contemplated by the settlement, including some laughable First Amendment claim, you're a bigger fool than Al Carlson. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 No, what happens is the state, the Board and/or UND get laughed out of court on a summary judgment motion, probably sanctioned for bringing a frivolous complaint and look like complete rubes on a national stage for failing to grasp the concept of a "settlement" signed in Grand Forks County. And if you think the new law created any new "cause of action" not contemplated by the settlement, including some laughable First Amendment claim, you're a bigger fool than Al Carlson. I think Al's political career is over. Who in South Fargo is going to vote for this idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almostheavenin2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 What happens then is the NCAA gets laughed out of the courtroom. The law voids the prior settlement. Once that law takes effect in August, the settlement for all intents and purposes never happened in the eyes of the law. The NCAA has no idea what they're dealing with. Do you have a law degree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I'd take the name over Minn & Wisco their loss ... Reality check time hockey fans (of which I am one): If Minnesota and Wisconsin so desperately need UND, why are they leaving the WCHA for the Big Ten? Riddle me that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Reality check time hockey fans (of which I am one): If Minnesota and Wisconsin so desperately need UND, why are they leaving the WCHA for the Big Ten? Riddle me that. Minnesota and Wisco need UND about as much as the Big Sky conference does. "The Law of Unintended Consequences" resulting from this idiotic legislation is just starting to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Minnesota and Wisco need UND about as much as the Big Sky conference does. Precisely. And that amount is somewhere between nil and zip-dot-squat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Oh, and as far as a moniker, what're the Governor and the AG going to do, send all of UND to the state pen for not using the Sioux name? Seriously? The new moniker is clear ... call us ... The Outlaws. You know, I like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It doesn't take a law degree to understand that, based on the law, the agreement is now illegal and can't be enforced. The NCAA will be breaking the law if and when they try to uphold the terms of agreement. This is flat out wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share Posted June 13, 2011 Are you a Judge ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almostheavenin2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It doesn't take a law degree to understand that, based on the law, the agreement is now illegal and can't be enforced. The NCAA will be breaking the law if and when they try to uphold the terms of agreement. Was the law voted on as being retroactive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7>4 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It is time for North Dakota to stand up and be counted. I'm tired of watching bigger schools (and states) get a pass while North Dakota and UND gets kicked around on this issue. The question is asked time and time again and never answered: why are the Seminoles considered different than the Sioux? Both tribes have lent their support for their respective schools to use the tribal names. Both schools have outlying tribes who do not support it. I'm not sure why the "two tribes" agreement for us and not them, especially since so much of Standing Rock lies outside of North Dakota's border. The NCAA needs to be educated on the slap on the face they're giving to the people of Spirit Lake who have passionately backed keeping the name, through lawsuits, letters, testimony, and pure effort. Hell, they've fought harder then most of our alumni! If we just shrug our shoulders and cave we have insulted an indigenious group of people who are part of the fabric of our state. I would dare the NCAA or the Big Sky to look across the table at the Spirit Lake leadership and tell them that the Sioux name is offensive. They couldn't do it with a straight face and they know it. The leadership needs to meet with the NCAA and bring the tribal leadership with them. It's insulting for the disconnected people in the ivory tower to assume they know what's best for Spirit Lake, the people who honor the Standing Rock ceremony, UND and the people of North Dakota. Great post. I have thought this all along. The NCAA is an absolute joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 This person says it: Unwinnable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Great post. I have thought this all along. The NCAA is an absolute joke. Joke or not, it's the NC$$'s game, and they write the rules, not some cynical legislator in flyover country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knickball2 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 One certainty is this: The UND teams will be known as the Fighting Sioux for the upcoming season. A second certainty is this: The issue is far from dead. It has not completely played out, I would say the third quarter is just ending in this game. I'm an attorney and I've studied both sides, no clearcut favorite, anything can happen. NCAA doesn't want to be involved in further litigation, not with all the corruption within it's organization and it's member schools. It isn't the unbeatable entity that the nay sayers believe it is. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 One certainty is this: The UND teams will be known as the Fighting Sioux for the upcoming season. A second certainty is this: The issue is far from dead. It has not completely played out, I would say the third quarter is just ending in this game. I'm an attorney and I've studied both sides, no clearcut favorite, anything can happen. NCAA doesn't want to be involved in further litigation, not with all the corruption within it's organization and it's member schools. It isn't the unbeatable entity that the nay sayers believe it is. I'd like to believe that, yet the only tangible damage I've seen thus far is being taken by UND. Isn't it time for someone to put up or shut up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 One certainty is this: The UND teams will be known as the Fighting Sioux for the upcoming season. A second certainty is this: The issue is far from dead. It has not completely played out, I would say the third quarter is just ending in this game. I'm an attorney and I've studied both sides, no clearcut favorite, anything can happen. NCAA doesn't want to be involved in further litigation, not with all the corruption within it's organization and it's member schools. It isn't the unbeatable entity that the nay sayers believe it is. Even if North Dakota prevailed against the NCAA -------------> Pyrrhic Victory. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Well said Knickball and Blackburn87! Scott M and GeauxSioux and others bring up some very valid points about what some consider to be the pragmatic way to go and I can understand that viewpoint. However, the cynical actors here are the NCAA and the SBoHE and, of course, the "activists" opposed to the nickname and logo. If they were so concerned about UND sports/athletes, the nickname and logo would not be an issue. If it was a truly "trivial" thing, it would not be an issue; people would be indifferent to it. The NCAA needs to be told, over and over again, that this surrender agreement was drafted and agreed to with the idea that the Native Americans would have a voice in the process. Some have been given the opportunity to express that voice; some have not been given that opportunity. The legislature has been the ONLY body to give weight to the Native Americans who support retaining the nickname and logo. The fact that the legislature also had the benefit of input from alumni is a separate matter. If the NCAA truly cares about giving Native Americans a voice on this issue, then they should be willing to listen and modify their stance. If they want to be expedient and intransigent and trample on the wishes of Spirit Lake and the many other Native Americans who are being prevented from having a say on this issue and just plow ahead with the present course, then that indifference to Native American wishes and the sham that was/is the settlement agreement should be identified loudly. The legislators should approach the NCAA this way: "Look, the UND community and state would support retiring the nickname and logo if that is what the Native Americans in ND want, as per your settlement agreement that you (Walter Harrison) announced with much ballyhoo. We listened to the many tribal members who want to retain the nickname and logo. Why don't you listen to them? One tribe approved the nickname and logo by 70%. The other tribe would do likewise but its members are being prevented from having their voices heard. Why hold this against UND and against Spirit Lake and against the many other Native Americans who support the nickname? By not caring about what they think, aren't you acting in contravention of what you set forth your Almighty settlement agreement? Why not keep the nickname and logo until the other tribe's members have been able to express their wishes?" This presumes that the NCAA even cares about the Native Americans, which they probably don't. It's worth a shot, as I see it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Well said Knickball and Blackburn87! Scott M and GeauxSioux and others bring up some very valid points about what some consider to be the pragmatic way to go and I can understand that viewpoint. However, the cynical actors here are the NCAA and the SBoHE and, of course, the "activists" opposed to the nickname and logo. If they were so concerned about UND sports/athletes, the nickname and logo would not be an issue. If it was a truly "trivial" thing, it would not be an issue; people would be indifferent to it. The NCAA needs to be told, over and over again, that this surrender agreement was drafted and agreed to with the idea that the Native Americans would have a voice in the process. Some have been given the opportunity to express that voice; some have not been given that opportunity. The legislature has been the ONLY body to give weight to the Native Americans who support retaining the nickname and logo. The fact that the legislature also had the benefit of input from alumni is a separate matter. If the NCAA truly cares about giving Native Americans a voice on this issue, then they should be willing to listen and modify their stance. If they want to be expedient and intransigent and trample on the wishes of Spirit Lake and the many other Native Americans who are being prevented from having a say on this issue and just plow ahead with the present course, then that indifference to Native American wishes and the sham that was/is the settlement agreement should be identified loudly. The legislators should approach the NCAA this way: "Look, the UND community and state would support retiring the nickname and logo if that is what the Native Americans in ND want, as per your settlement agreement that you (Walter Harrison) announced with much ballyhoo. We listened to the many tribal members who want to retain the nickname and logo. Why don't you listen to them? One tribe approved the nickname and logo by 70%. The other tribe would do likewise but its members are being prevented from having their voices heard. Why hold this against UND and against Spirit Lake and against the many other Native Americans who support the nickname? By not caring about what they think, aren't you acting in contravention of what you set forth your Almighty settlement agreement? Why not keep the nickname and logo until the other tribe's members have been able to express their wishes?" This presumes that the NCAA even cares about the Native Americans, which they probably don't. It's worth a shot, as I see it. From the NCAA perspective, wasn't the purpose of the timeline agreed upon in the settlement written that way for the very purpose of giving plenty of time to get tribal approval? As long as we are renegotiating the settlement here, what is a reasonable amount of time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.