CAS4127 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 GSioux: The bill--soon to be law--does not contain a penalty clause. In other words, there is no out-right penalty that could be handed down to UND. Might UND see some "legislative" penalties in two years when the legislature next meets if it violates the law? Also, remember that Shaft said the SBoHE is not going to challenge the law, thus, UND is the only one left standing to do so. I hope you now all see what this was about, as I said when the bill was being debated and voted upon. Al Carlson wanted to rein in the SBoHE, and this was one of his ways of doing that, even though the ND Constitution does not allow the legislative branch to control the SBoHE or UND. Also, Big Al wanted his name and face front and center in the news because he has bigger political aspirations. He has used UND for the good of his own plans, not for the good of UND. Now look at the position Big Al's "Sioux Bill" has put UND!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
28noel60 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 No that is not what it means, so you only care about football and basketball? No it means, sometimes you have to stand up and fight for what is right. If the NCAA really gave a crap about Native American names then big schools like Florida State and Utah would be transitioning to a new name too, bu this is a power play by the NCAA to push a small school around in a small state just because they think they can. I cheer for all UND sports and I hope they do well. But someone has to stand up and say enough is enough. I give you credit for sticking by your position you are very creditable problem is just as in poker when you put in a huge raise in the pot you don't ever want your bluff called. The BSC and NCAA not only called but went all in. Our lawmakers, citizens, and UND alumni are not going to foot that bill so they will fold. And that is the way it is going to all end. Anybody want to wager on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2and10 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 No that is not what it means, so you only care about football and basketball? No it means, sometimes you have to stand up and fight for what is right. If the NCAA really gave a crap about Native American names then big schools like Florida State and Utah would be transitioning to a new name too, bu this is a power play by the NCAA to push a small school around in a small state just because they think they can. I cheer for all UND sports and I hope they do well. But someone has to stand up and say enough is enough. No one is arguing the name needs to be dropped at this point because its right or wrong, its because enough is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 The long version of the NCAA statement. by Chuck Haga. Questions that need to be asked... What are the implications should UND violate the state law and retire the name/logo? What kind of enforcement is there? What are the implications? Does funding get cut off? Does someone get put in jail because of a well-intention, but reckless law was put on the books? Edit: I know there are laws on the books in a lot of states that are not enforced, usually because they are outdated. Perhaps this is a law that can be unenforced until such time as it is repealed. I readily admit, I don't have a legal mind. Even though its not outdated lets pretend this is one of those turn of the century (20th not 21st), bill that we can just "ignore" and retire the name. Pretend this bill ranks next to shooting Indians in a covered wagon on a major highway on Sunday law (I learned that one as a kid, don't know if it is a real law but sounds like an 1889 law). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 GSioux: The bill--soon to be law--does not contain a penalty clause. In other words, there is no out-right penalty that could be handed down to UND. Might UND see some "legislative" penalties in two years when the legislature next meets if it violates the law? Also, remember that Shaft said the SBoHE is not going to challenge the law, thus, UND is the only one left standing to do so. I hope you now all see what this was about, as I said when the bill was being debated and voted upon. Al Carlson wanted to rein in the SBoHE, and this was one of his ways of doing that, even though the ND Constitution does not allow the legislative branch to control the SBoHE or UND. Also, Big Al wanted his name and face front and center in the news because he has bigger political aspirations. He has used UND for the good of his own plans, not for the good of UND. Now look at the position Big Al's "Sioux Bill" has put UND!! Could those penalties be any worse than what would happen if UND is forced to maintain the nickname and be booted out of the Big Sky? My comment about someone going to jail in an earlier post was rhetorical, but I do want to know what would/could happen if the soon-to-be law is violated. The way I read this bill, if UND decided not to use the Sioux logo on the Women's Softball batting helmets, that would violate the bill/law, because that would be discontinued use of the logo. A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 15-10 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the athletic nickname and logo of the university of North Dakota. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA: SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 15-10 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: University of North Dakota fighting Sioux nickname and logo. The intercollegiate athletic teams sponsored by the university of North Dakota shall be known as the university of North Dakota fighting Sioux. Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Any actions taken by the state board of higher education and the university of North Dakota before the effective date of this Act to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname and logo are preempted by this Act. If the national collegiate athletic association takes any action to penalize the university of North Dakota for using the fighting Sioux nickname or logo, the attorney general shall consider filing a federal antitrust claim against that association. The last sentence of this bill is idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 This: Dakota shall be known as the university of North Dakota fighting Sioux. Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Couldn't that be construed to mean the hockey team must wear the same jerseys next year at all times that it was using as of January 1, 2011? If so, this law arguably will elimate UND's ability to participate in the Final Five, etc, as the NCAA will not allow the Sioux logo to be worn during NCAA tournaments, but the bill says UND can't take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux logo. See what I mean? And I agree: "An effin Federal Anti-trust lawsuit"? Carlson is braindead IMO!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Could those penalties be any worse than what would happen if UND is forced to maintain the nickname and be booted out of the Big Sky? My comment about someone going to jail in an earlier post was rhetorical, but I do want to know what would/could happen if the soon-to-be law is violated. The way I read this bill, if UND decided not to use the Sioux logo on the Women's Softball batting helmets, that would violate the bill/law, because that would be discontinued use of the logo. The last sentence of this bill is idiotic. It says "consider" filing an antitrust suit....well he could say I have considered it but I am not doing it, and because of that wording nothing can be done after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 How about a big "What if" here. The SBoHE gives control of the issue back to the University saying that it is up to the institution to decide. UND decides to retire the name/logo. The bill says any action to retire the name by the SBoHE AND UND, not SBoHE OR UND. At that point SBoHE can say we didn't do it UND did. The AND is gone. CAS, ScottM or any other legal person have a take on that? Okay, I admit, this is a loooooooong stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 This: Couldn't that be construed to mean the hockey team must wear the same jerseys next year at all times that it was using as of January 1, 2011? If so, this law arguably will elimate UND's ability to participate in the Final Five, etc, as the NCAA will not allow the Sioux logo to be worn during NCAA tournaments, but the bill says UND can't take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux logo. See what I mean? And I agree: "An effin Federal Anti-trust lawsuit"? Carlson is braindead IMO!! Final Five is not an NCAA event, it is WCHA, but to advance to the play-offs, they are playing in NCAA events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 How about a big "What if" here. The SBoHE gives control of the issue back to the University saying that it is up to the institution to decide. UND decides to retire the name/logo. The bill says any action to retire the name by the SBoHE AND UND, not SBoHE OR UND. At that point SBoHE can say we didn't do it UND did. The AND is gone. CAS, ScottM or any other legal person have a take on that? Okay, I admit, this is a loooooooong stretch. Someone at the UND law school has to be looking at loopholes in this bill. IMO the wording is law. So if its just UND retiring the name....get Kelley on the phone and retire it now, come up with a new name later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMeister Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Any actions taken by the state board of higher education and the university of North Dakota before the effective date of this Act to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname and logo are preempted by this Act. Someone at the UND law school has to be looking at loopholes in this bill. IMO the wording is law. So if its just UND retiring the name....get Kelley on the phone and retire it now, come up with a new name later. The effective date of the NCAA agreement is August 15th. Isn't the ND bill effective August 1st? If so, discontinuing the name between August 1st and the 15th would not be prohibited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Arguably, the school could decide to remove the Sioux name/logo from the teams' gear, and in official publications, which may avoid the NC$$ sanctions and comply with the law since there would be no "official" discontinuation. There would still be Sioux gear sold to the general public, but the teams would not wear it in competition or be referred to as the Fighting Sioux in an official context. At the very least, it may forestall some adverse action by the NC$$ and the BCS until Clueless Al's Crazy Train is ridden off the books. There would still be "use", at least for purposes of intellectual property protection, but the teams would not be presented as Fighting Sioux. The "best" solution is still to repeal the damn bill entirely, and retire the name, so there is some certainty for the school, its student-athletes and other affected stakeholders. Timing is so critical now, and the legislative, the BCS and NC$$ calendars are not synched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 How about a big "What if" here. The SBoHE gives control of the issue back to the University saying that it is up to the institution to decide. UND decides to retire the name/logo. The bill says any action to retire the name by the SBoHE AND UND, not SBoHE OR UND. At that point SBoHE can say we didn't do it UND did. The AND is gone. CAS, ScottM or any other legal person have a take on that? Okay, I admit, this is a loooooooong stretch. It says "neither SBoHE nor UND" Well, I guess it's actually the other way around, but you get my point I assume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 It says "neither SBoHE nor UND" Well, I guess it's actually the other way around, but you get my point I assume. You are right the AND comes later in the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Arguably, the school could decide to remove the Sioux name/logo from the teams' gear, and in official publications, which may avoid the NC$$ sanctions and comply with the law since there would be no "official" discontinuation. There would still be Sioux gear sold to the general public, but the teams would not wear it in competition or be referred to as the Fighting Sioux in an official context. At the very least, it may forestall some adverse action by the NC$$ and the BCS until Clueless Al's Crazy Train is ridden off the books. There would still be "use", at least for purposes of intellectual property protection, but the teams would not be presented as Fighting Sioux. The "best" solution is still to repeal the damn bill entirely, and retire the name, so there is some certainty for the school, its student-athletes and other affected stakeholders. Timing is so critical now, and the legislative, the BCS and NC$$ calendars are not synched. Sounds like action taken to discontinue the use of the logo/nickname to me, Repeal is what is needed, and you're correct, the timing is not synchronized. If the BSC is looking for a way to bail on the invite becuase of travel given that USD didn't come along, this could be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 The effective date of the NCAA agreement is August 15th. Isn't the ND bill effective August 1st? If so, discontinuing the name between August 1st and the 15th would not be prohibited. Vern, I think you know better. If the law becomes effective the 1st, you can't do anthing after that. Also, it has retroactivity language--just sayin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think it is the NCAA and BSC that are bluffing. I may not have a law degree, but it does not require one to understand that a LAW will win out over a POLICY in court. I say we should call their bluff and go all in. Take these weasels to court and make fools out of them for being arrogant and delusional enough to think that they are above obeying the LAW. I don't want to hear their lame excuses about the law being new, just because it is a new law doesn't mean they can choose not to obey it. You go ahead and do that, Dave. Be sure to check back and let us know how things are going. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think it is the NCAA and BSC that are bluffing. I may not have a law degree, but it does not require one to understand that a LAW will win out over a POLICY legally binding contract in court. I say we should call their bluff and go all in. Take these weasels to court and make fools out of them for being arrogant and delusional enough to think that they are above obeying the LAW. I don't want to hear their lame excuses about the law being new, just because it is a new law doesn't mean they can choose not to obey it. Fixed your post, Now the question is at least correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think it is the NCAA and BSC that are bluffing. I may not have a law degree, but it does not require one to understand that a LAW will win out over a POLICY in court. I say we should call their bluff and go all in. Take these weasels to court and make fools out of them for being arrogant and delusional enough to think that they are above obeying the LAW. I don't want to hear their lame excuses about the law being new, just because it is a new law doesn't mean they can choose not to obey it. Dave, psssst, the law is not directed at nor does it govern either the NCAA or the BSC. It is directed at and is meant to govern the conduct of the SBoHE and UND. Also, within the same minute a lawsuit being filed, Kelley will recieve a fax or email from Fullerton saying "Good Bye!" Think about it, don't react emotionally!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Dave, psssst, the law is not directed at nor does it govern either the NCAA or the BSC. It is directed at and is meant to govern the conduct of the SBoHE and UND. Also, within the same minute a lawsuit being filed, Kelley will recieve a fax or email from Fullerton saying "Good Bye!" Think about it, don't react emotionally!! Hate to say it but that could very well be true. The BSC doesn't need this going to court. They want it resolved now!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I realize that it is meant to govern the conduct of the SBoHE and UND, but my point is that the NCAA and BSC are out of bounds in a legal sense for encouraging UND to break the law. If it went to court I'm thinking it would be ruled that you can't punish a school for obeying the law, or am I being too logical? But, Dave, UND does not have a "legal right" to be a member of the NCAA or the BSC. Anyway, looks like NCAA will at least meet with Big Al and Co.:Late July? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I realize that it is meant to govern the conduct of the SBoHE and UND, but my point is that the NCAA and BSC are out of bounds in a legal sense for encouraging UND to break the law. If it went to court I'm thinking it would be ruled that you can't punish a school for obeying the law, or am I being too logical? Logical? No. Channeling Clueless Al Carlson? Yes. UND and/or the Board would be laughed out of court if they tried to re-open a settlement agreement where the NC$$ had not breached the contract. No amount of "rose colored" legislating will change that. Moreover as the North Dakota Constitution explicity states: Section 18. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed. I wish I was still in private practice, as I probably would have hit my goal of 2400 billable hours by now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 At this point my wish is that Archie Fool Bear and Eunice Davidson can be included in this meeting with the NCAA. If the powers that be at the NCAA could see that the very people they're trying to appease are actually disgusted at what has transpired, then perhaps they could have a change of heart. Dave, the NCAA doesn't care what they think. Both parties agreed to a settlement. UND was to get the approval of both tribes. It didn't happen. The NCAA is fulfilling their end of the settlement.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Here's what I see happening: From now until November special session, Big Al will be attempting to garner votes for repeal of the law, and there will be public statements to that effect. He'll say he tried, but now must do the right thing. NCAA and Big Al and Co. meet in July--no change of policy Discussion on repeal escalates, and it becomes almost a given that repeal will happen in November (sending message to BSC). BSC meets in October. Outcome: provided law is repealed, UND still in. Law is repealed in November (nickname retired as a result). Confirmation by BSC that UND is still in. Big Al paints himself as a true politician. One that put up a "fight", as they like to say in Nodak politics, but given the un-yielding NCAA, he fully studied the issue and decided not to risk UND athletics. Big Al runs for U.S. House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Big Al runs for U.S. House. If he does that, and wins, his first order of business should be to have a "heart to heart" with the NC$$ in the form of a subpoena. 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.