NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname

[Cratter]

All this reads as: "Who's gonna get the last word in?"...

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

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

[darell1976]

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

All of this back and forth could be solved very easily....get rid of the no nickname option and vote on the 5 nicknames.  

[ScottM]

The Addendum talks about changes in requirements for facilities to meet the Settlement Agreement. It does not talk about changes in nickname. That means that all other requirements of the Settlement Agreement, other than the changes outlined in the Addendum, need to be met. The Settlement Agreement specifically says "new nickname". Since the Addendum doesn't address the nickname, it can not over rule the requirement for a new nickname that is listed in the Settlement Agreement. To say otherwise is pure conjecture on your part, it is not a fact.

 

Agree.  The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname.  The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters.  As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal. 

[Benny Baker]

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 probably couldn't afford their retainer fee anyway.

[GeauxSioux]

Agree.  The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname.  The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters.  As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal. 

Says the guy who went to school for this stuff.

[Oxbow6]

Agree.  The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname.  The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters.  As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal. 

 

 

So I'll ask again............what was Kelley thinking putting the just "North Dakota" option (no nickname) back on the table after the committee sent him 5 nickname options?  I struggle to understand how the president of the universiy can't or won't grasp what you just spelled out above.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

Agree.  The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname.  The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters.  As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal. 

 

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)?

[UND1983]

Agree.  The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname.  The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters.  As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal. 

 

Like I said earlier about an "addendum" and it's meaning.  But, of course was told I was wrong.  

[Blackheart]

Never has so much been said about so little.

[jdub27]

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)?

 

When UND signed the Settlement Agreement, it stated that they would be subject to sanctions if they were not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement.  Not sure how that would be the NCAA arbitrarily imposing anything when it was agreed upon by both parties. 

 

It has nothing to do with whether there is a rule of having nickname or not, it is whether the NCAA deems UND choosing "no nickname" being in full compliance with transitioning to a new nickname.

[Sundog]

Agree.  The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname.  The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters.  As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal. 

Does the agreement provide a definition of "nickname".  Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "a shortend version of one's name."  You could easily make the case that "North Dakota" is a nickname of "The University of North Dakota"  or even better, it is a shorter version of "The State University and School of Mines at Grand Forks" which is how UND is referenced in the century code.

[82SiouxGuy]

Does the agreement provide a definition of "nickname".  Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "a shortend version of one's name."  You could easily make the case that "North Dakota" is a nickname of "The University of North Dakota"  or even better, it is a shorter version of "The State University and School of Mines at Grand Forks" which is how UND is referenced in the century code.

The generally recognized format for sports nicknames is the name of the school or organization or location followed by the team nickname. For example, University of North Dakota ... Fighting Sioux, or North Dakota State University ... Bison, or Los Angeles ... Dodgers. If you are saying that you want to use North Dakota as the nickname, then the result is University of North Dakota North Dakota. Or in your other example it would be The State University and School of Mines at Grand Forks North Dakota. If you are claiming that they are just going to be identified as the University of North Dakota or North Dakota, then you are not using a sports nickname.

 

The Settlement Agreement specifies "choosing a new nickname", not just ending the use of Fighting Sioux. The University of North Dakota has also used North Dakota for a lot more years than it used Fighting Sioux. Teams were identified as North Dakota the entire time they were also called Fighting Sioux. Therefore, North Dakota cannot be called a "new nickname".

[Sundog]

The generally recognized format for sports nicknames is the name of the school or organization or location followed by the team nickname. For example, University of North Dakota ... Fighting Sioux, or North Dakota State University ... Bison, or Los Angeles ... Dodgers. If you are saying that you want to use North Dakota as the nickname, then the result is University of North Dakota North Dakota. Or in your other example it would be The State University and School of Mines at Grand Forks North Dakota. If you are claiming that they are just going to be identified as the University of North Dakota or North Dakota, then you are not using a sports nickname.

 

The Settlement Agreement specifies "choosing a new nickname", not just ending the use of Fighting Sioux. The University of North Dakota has also used North Dakota for a lot more years than it used Fighting Sioux. Teams were identified as North Dakota the entire time they were also called Fighting Sioux. Therefore, North Dakota cannot be called a "new nickname".

Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. The reason for the agreement in the first place was because "Fighting Sioux" was the nickname, not "North Dakota."  Following the logic of your argument, "Flickertails" could not have been an option for a "new" nickname either because it was previously used by UND.  Because the agreement apparently fails to define "nickname" the door is open to using "North Dakota" as a nickname. If the NCAA wanted the generally recognized (by whom?) format for sports names and wanted to exclude "North Dakota" as a nickname, they should have put it in the agreement. Finally, I apologize for using an obnoxious number of "quotation marks."

[ScottM]

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)?

 

Why not?  They could sue UND for breaching the agreement by not complying with the nickname requirements as a legal lever to fully enforce the sanctions that would have been enforced when the original "hostile and abusive" list was issued.  That would effectively estop UND from arguing the legality of the NC$$'s sanctions or their authority to devise the policy in the first place. 

 

Moreover, breaching an agreement with the NC$$ could also provide a mechanism for the NC$$ to impose other penalties on UND for violating any number of other NC$$ rules.  I haven't looked, but I'm sure the basic membership is somehow generally premised on UND complying with "all laws, rules, regulations, policies, etc., violations, thereof may constitute grounds for suspension or termination of the membership...".  The NC$$ is a private organization with its own rules, and its own arbitrary sense of "justice".

[Siouxperfan7]

Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. The reason for the agreement in the first place was because "Fighting Sioux" was the nickname, not "North Dakota."  Following the logic of your argument, "Flickertails" could not have been an option for a "new" nickname either because it was previously used by UND.  Because the agreement apparently fails to define "nickname" the door is open to using "North Dakota" as a nickname. If the NCAA wanted the generally recognized (by whom?) format for sports names and wanted to exclude "North Dakota" as a nickname, they should have put it in the agreement. Finally, I apologize for using an obnoxious number of "quotation marks."

 

NORTH DAKOTA IS NOT A NICKNAME!!!!!!  It is pretty obvious the intent of the language in the settlement.  An abritrator would most definitely agree that the intent of the settlemt was that UND would select a new nickname, replacing Fighing Sioux.  Heck, Stenjehm knew this too  when he signed it!! What the hell is is so damn hard for you people to figure this out!! 

[82SiouxGuy]

Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. The reason for the agreement in the first place was because "Fighting Sioux" was the nickname, not "North Dakota."  Following the logic of your argument, "Flickertails" could not have been an option for a "new" nickname either because it was previously used by UND.  Because the agreement apparently fails to define "nickname" the door is open to using "North Dakota" as a nickname. If the NCAA wanted the generally recognized (by whom?) format for sports names and wanted to exclude "North Dakota" as a nickname, they should have put it in the agreement. Finally, I apologize for using an obnoxious number of "quotation marks."

Fighting Sioux is the nickname that needed to be replaced. But the school has always been called North Dakota. Therefore it would not be a new nickname since it has been used for well over 100 years. More importantly, most people that are in favor of North Dakota actually want UND to go without a nickname. They are 2 separate things, although the discussions have combined them into one.

 

Several people have argued that Flickertails would not have been an option since it was used in the past. It could have been argued that it wasn't a current nickname, so it might be a new nickname. I haven't considered it since I knew that Flickertails was never going to be considered as a replacement name.

 

Finally, I know that ScottM is an attorney and he has shown that he knows something about the law during past discussions. I think I will trust his comments more than other anonymous posters that haven't proven themselves.

[dmksioux]

So I'll ask again............what was Kelley thinking putting the just "North Dakota" option (no nickname) back on the table after the committee sent him 5 nickname options? I struggle to understand how the president of the universiy can't or won't grasp what you just spelled out above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he hasn't put the 'no nickname' option back on the table yet. He just stated he'd consider putting it back on the table. Or did I miss something?

[Ranger]

Agree. The Agreement specifically required UND to pick a new nickname. The Addendum did not change that, and addressed other, ancillary matters. As others have noted ad nausem, failure to choose a new nickname in compliance with the Agreement could be considered a breach of the Agreement, and subject UND to the various sanctions the NC$$ has at its disposal.

Your thought is missing critical analysis... definition of what was meant by new.

[choyt3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he hasn't put the 'no nickname' option back on the table yet. He just stated he'd consider putting it back on the table. Or did I miss something?

I believe the question stands as asked. If "no nickname" is not a legal option, why would Kelley even give the matter consideration?

[Oxbow6]

I believe the question stands as asked. If "no nickname" is not a legal option, why would Kelley even give the matter consideration?

This......^^^^^^

[Unknown Siouxldier]

Why not?  They could sue UND for breaching the agreement by not complying with the nickname requirements as a legal lever to fully enforce the sanctions that would have been enforced when the original "hostile and abusive" list was issued.  That would effectively estop UND from arguing the legality of the NC$$'s sanctions or their authority to devise the policy in the first place. 

 

Moreover, breaching an agreement with the NC$$ could also provide a mechanism for the NC$$ to impose other penalties on UND for violating any number of other NC$$ rules.  I haven't looked, but I'm sure the basic membership is somehow generally premised on UND complying with "all laws, rules, regulations, policies, etc., violations, thereof may constitute grounds for suspension or termination of the membership...".  The NC$$ is a private organization with its own rules, and its own arbitrary sense of "justice".

Just curious if you would then make the argument that having a single institution subject to a single "law" when not all other institutions are would also void that agreement?

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

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.

[82SiouxGuy]

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.

As I have pointed out in the past, it is far more likely that the NCAA would impose their own sanctions if they believe that UND isn't living up to the Settlement Agreement. They would put UND back on the sanctions list. They would prevent UND from hosting playoff games. They would encourage other schools like Minnesota and Wisconsin to stop scheduling games. It is very unlikely that they would go to court to address the issue. Their actions are written right into the Settlement Agreement. UND would have to be the one to take the issue to court. The reward for the NCAA would not be monetary. UND would not be hurt by the monetary penalty. They would be hurt by the sanctions, the same sanctions that caused UND to give up the Fighting Sioux name in the first place.

[STS]

NORTH DAKOTA IS NOT A NICKNAME!!!!!!  It is pretty obvious the intent of the language in the settlement.  An abritrator would most definitely agree that the intent of the settlemt was that UND would select a new nickname, replacing Fighing Sioux.  Heck, Stenjehm knew this too  when he signed it!! What the hell is is so damn hard for you people to figure this out!!

You're cherry picking what the settlement actually says to make your argument. The agreement states that the transition must be COMPLETE by 8-15-2011, we know the NCAA doesn't care about state law after the whole debacle mandating Fighting Sioux so why would they respect the 'cooling off' period? If the NCAA is honoring the "transition" then just say the nickname issue will be revisited in 100 years or when 75% of the student body votes to adopt a new name, permanent "transition" and maybe somebody will eventually come up with a good nickname idea.

What if Flickertails had been selected? Would you be saying the NCAA is going to ban-hammer UND because it's not a NEW nickname?

Unless somebody has asked the NCAA, nobody knows exactly what they'll do. What you don't understand is that many wholeheartedly believe the nickname committee failed, their suggestions are garbage, and aren't willing to check the "any" box on the ballot just to put this behind them. In 25 years I would hate to have to try and explain why UND adopted Fighting Hawks...