Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[PCM]

If UND were to win on those grounds, wouldn't they just be setting themselves up for a cleaned-up version of the same policy?

Perhaps it's not as easy as you assume.

One that would be much more difficult to challenge in court because the previous lawsuit resolved most, if not all, of the other legal claims UND had available?

If the trial's outcome determines that the NCAA owes UND millions in damages, was it worthwhile? If UND prevails on the anti-trust portion of its lawsuit, was it worth it?

This lawsuit appears to be a lose-lose situation for UND. If they win this round they're just that much less likely to win the next round.

You are assuming too much.

[Chewey]

What this lawsuit will establish is that even private clubs have to obey the law. This is a breach of contract lawsuit. The NCAA isn't following their own procedures for developing and implementing a policy such as this. They are supposed to put this to a vote of the membership. They probably realized that they don't have (and never will have) the votes, so they tried to ram it through via the Executive Committee. Private clubs are not omnipotent. The NCAA, however, seems to think it is. They need a big slice of humble pie. And that is what they are going to get.

The NCAA is not just any, ordinary "private club"; they are the only game in town. Either you join the NCAA or you don't have an athletic department. This isn't like private golf clubs, where if you don't like how a club is operated you can just join a different one. If you don't like the NCAA, you don't have an alternative. If the NCAA is allowed to throw their weight around like this, there is no telling what will come up next: policies governing the male-female ratio of the student body, the racial make-up of the student body, the sky's the limit with this outfit. If the NCAA is going to behave like an abusive monopoly, then I suggest some Federal legislation that would strip the NCAA of it's not-for-profit status (this is a bad joke, anyway) and also strip it of any anti-trust protections that they might currently have. I'd love to watch the United States Federal Government put the NCAA in its place. That would inject some humility into Myles Brand; I am not sure what else would.

Excellent points. The government does need to do that. I'm for going even further and breaking up the NC00 into regional associations. That would certainly help in terms of competition for broadcast rights to games, etc.

[Gothmog]

Perhaps it's not as easy as you assume.

If the trial's outcome determines that the NCAA owes UND millions in damages, was it worthwhile? If UND prevails on the anti-trust portion of its lawsuit, was it worth it?

You are assuming too much.

"millions in damages"

"I don't think they will be able to pass the new and improved version of it"

And you think I'm assuming too much?

[The Sicatoka]

If they could have run this past a full association vote and got Myles and the Exec Comm's desired outcome, why didn't they?

Shouldn't the Association be mad at them for not doing it the right way (and saving a court battle)?

[PCM]

And you think I'm assuming too much?

I said "what if?" Unlike you, I'm assuming nothing.

[Gothmog]

I said "what if?" Unlike you, I'm assuming nothing.

C'mon! Saying "what if" doesn't get you off the hook. You were assuming that there is a realistic chance of those things actually happening, which seems not to be the case given the judges instructions to the parties regarding a settlement.

Unlike you, I only assumed what the previous poster had asserted as fact. And, I might add, that assumption was clearly stated in the second sentence of my post - "If UND were to win on those grounds..."

[Chewey]

C'mon! Saying "what if" doesn't get you off the hook. You where assuming that there is a realistic chance of those things actually happening, which seems not to be the case given the judges instructions to the parties regarding a settlement.

Unlike you, I only assumed what the previous poster had asserted as fact. And, I might add, that assumption was clearly stated in the second sentence of my post - "If UND were to win on those grounds..."

Last I heard, a jury trial was demanded. This means that a jury and not the judge would be the arbiters of whether millions in damages would be appropriate. There's a lot more realistic chance of that happening than there would have been had the demand not been interposed. Once a jury gets wind of how abitrary and capricious and punitive and tyrannical the NC00 has been, it may indeed award such damages. The judge's dictates regarding settlement mean nothing in the context of whether a jury would award damages. Rather, it means that the judge does not want one thing on his calendar for 6 months. This will be a complex and protracted trial and the Judge only has so many resources. I'm sure all 4 law clerks would be working on it and I'm sure much of the Court Admin staff would be working on it too. It is not like Federal Court where there are more resources and where the demands on attorneys are a lot more stringent. Much of a Federal Article 3 Judge's job -- research, available case law for both sides, stipulations about factual background and exhibits -- is already done for him/her when a case gets to trial.

I think the Judge should keep quiet on the settlement issue. Judges always encourage settlement but they should not go overboard. I once had a criminal defendant in state court get told by a judge that he was a "damn fool" for not accepting the prosecutor's offer. That defendant was found "not guilty" and, of course, the judge was reported to the judicial ethics committee. This judge has clearly indicated his preference that the parties "Settle." That's fine. The parties are aware of it. Now, the judge should shut up, sit back and let the parties hammer it out. If it goes to trial, so be it.

[Sioux-cia]

North Dakota jurys are very conservative. While I believe that a jury will vote in our favor, award a monetary judgement and lawyers/court costs, I don't know that they would award 'millions'.

[PCM]

C'mon! Saying "what if" doesn't get you off the hook.

Certainly it does. You accused me assuming too much. I assumed nothing other than that outcomes other than those that you envision are possible. You don't know that they aren't, and neither do I.

You were assuming that there is a realistic chance of those things actually happening, which seems not to be the case given the judges instructions to the parties regarding a settlement.

Wrong. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what the outcome will be one way or the other. Judges tell parties to settle out of court all the time. Doesn't mean it will happen.

Unlike you, I only assumed what the previous poster had asserted as fact. And, I might add, that assumption was clearly stated in the second sentence of my post - "If UND were to win on those grounds..."

Which assumes that UND will win on the procedural grounds and no other. Which assumes that UND will not receive damages if it wins on procedural grounds. Which assumes that UND won't win on the anti-trust portion of its lawsuit. I asked you if the lawsuit could still be considered a "lose-lose" for UND if those things happened. All you have done is duck the question and obfuscate the issue.

[Gothmog]

Last I heard, a jury trial was demanded. This means that a jury and not the judge would be the arbiters of whether millions in damages would be appropriate. There's a lot more realistic chance of that happening than there would have been had the demand not been interposed. Once a jury gets wind of how abitrary and capricious and punitive and tyrannical the NC00 has been, it may indeed award such damages. The judge's dictates regarding settlement mean nothing in the context of whether a jury would award damages. Rather, it means that the judge does not want one thing on his calendar for 6 months. This will be a complex and protracted trial and the Judge only has so many resources. I'm sure all 4 law clerks would be working on it and I'm sure much of the Court Admin staff would be working on it too. It is not like Federal Court where there are more resources and where the demands on attorneys are a lot more stringent. Much of a Federal Article 3 Judge's job -- research, available case law for both sides, stipulations about factual background and exhibits -- is already done for him/her when a case gets to trial.

I think the Judge should keep quiet on the settlement issue. Judges always encourage settlement but they should not go overboard. I once had a criminal defendant in state court get told by a judge that he was a "damn fool" for not accepting the prosecutor's offer. That defendant was found "not guilty" and, of course, the judge was reported to the judicial ethics committee. This judge has clearly indicated his preference that the parties "Settle." That's fine. The parties are aware of it. Now, the judge should shut up, sit back and let the parties hammer it out. If it goes to trial, so be it.

Well, I'm not an attorney, from your post you seem to be.

If you are an attorney, what is your honest legal opinion? Is UND likely to prevail?

[PCM]

North Dakota jurys are very conservative. While I believe that a jury will vote in our favor, award a monetary judgement and lawyers/court costs, I don't know that they would award 'millions'.

I don't know what a jury might award. I would think that the judge would instruct the jury to award something within reason.

However, some seem to assume that if North Dakota wins only on the procedural aspect of its case, the NCAA will simply turn on its heel and get its members to approve an air-tight policy, which is what it should have done in the first place. It's not that simple.

If the state wins because the NCAA didn't follow its own procedures, a jury is likely to view the organization as "arbitrary and capricious," in breach of its contract with UND and may believe that the NCAA didn't deal with UND in good faith. Jurors may feel that UND's reputation was damaged as a result of the NCAA's handling of the matter. What sort of amount might the jury award in damages if that happens? Might the jurors feel that they need to send a message to the NCAA and its members?

Edited July 27, 2007 by PCM

[Chewey]

Well, I'm not an attorney, from your post you seem to be.

If you are an attorney, what is your honest legal opinion? Is UND likely to prevail?

I really don't know but I think UND, from what I know, has a very strong and compelling case. It's in a ND court which bodes well for UND too. Like others have posted, the NC00 probably thought that UND would cave once real coin was being spent and once the propaganda and "protests" were in full swing irrespective of the fact that the matter was venued in ND. I'm sure the NC00 is somewhat surprised that UND has not caved and I'm sure it is becoming ever more convinced, as it should, that UND won't cave. A bully like the NC00 probably never really considered this scenario. The pathology of Myles and Co. was simply "this is our 'policy,' we're going to enforce it, UND had better step in line, if it does not we have the resources to spend it into submission." It was very arrogant. This is much like an insurance company against a plaintiff. Insurance companies love to go through all of the discovery hoops, independent medical exam hoops, etc. and they love to delay, delay, delay even when a plaintiff has a compelling case (rear-ended by a UPS truck and suffered a broken neck). Some of this is because insurance defense lawyers like to earn money too. Most of it is because insurance companies know that the longer they delay, the more agony and stress a plaintiff will go through and the more inclined a plaintiff will be to "get the matter over with" and the more inclined a plaintiff attorney will be to, after having fronted thousands in costs, accept a mediocre settlement and the more medical expenses a medical insurance provider will be subrogated to out of a final award.

As a recovering Republican, I have no problems scumming insurance companies. In the UND case, the NC00 is acting much like this. It's contemptible but at least UND has the resources to fight back. Like one poster said, ND juries are conservative. While I don't practice in ND, I can say that most juries are conservative, especially in rural areas. A Twin Cities jury will grant a totally different award than a Fargo jury. Juries are conservative when it comes to an individual plaintiff. Juries typically are jealous of the plaintiff and have the mindset that "this happened to me and I didn't get nothin" or "the person should just get tough, I don't want my insurance premium going up." UND has the advantage here in that it is not one of these individual plaintiffs. Rather, it's an instituion that has been victimized and slandered. It's an institution that employs many people in GF County. I don't think a jury will be as conservative with it as compared to an individual plaintiff.

Scott M and other lawyers on this site and PCM have a lot more knowledge about this than I do and would be in better positions to evaluate these issues. I only do bankruptcy but even I can see the obvious.

[Gothmog]

I really don't know but I think UND, from what I know, has a very strong and compelling case. It's in a ND court which bodes well for UND too. Like others have posted, the NC00 probably thought that UND would cave once real coin was being spent and once the propaganda and "protests" were in full swing irrespective of the fact that the matter was venued in ND. I'm sure the NC00 is somewhat surprised that UND has not caved and I'm sure it is becoming ever more convinced, as it should, that UND won't cave. A bully like the NC00 probably never really considered this scenario. The pathology of Myles and Co. was simply "this is our 'policy,' we're going to enforce it, UND had better step in line, if it does not we have the resources to spend it into submission." It was very arrogant. This is much like an insurance company against a plaintiff. Insurance companies love to go through all of the discovery hoops, independent medical exam hoops, etc. and they love to delay, delay, delay even when a plaintiff has a compelling case (rear-ended by a UPS truck and suffered a broken neck). Some of this is because insurance defense lawyers like to earn money too. Most of it is because insurance companies know that the longer they delay, the more agony and stress a plaintiff will go through and the more inclined a plaintiff will be to "get the matter over with" and the more inclined a plaintiff attorney will be to, after having fronted thousands in costs, accept a mediocre settlement and the more medical expenses a medical provider will be subrogated to out of a final award.

As a recovering Republican, I have no problems scumming insurance companies. In the UND case, the NC00 is acting much like this. It's contemptible but at least UND has the resources to fight back. Like one poster said, ND juries are conservative. While I don't practice in ND, I can say that most juries are conservative, especially in rural areas. A Twin Cities jury will grant a totally different award than a Fargo jury. Juries are conservative when it comes to an individual plaintiff. Juries typically are jealous of the plaintiff and have the mindset that "this happened to me and I didn't get nothin" or "the person should just get tough, I don't want my insurance premium going up." UND has the advantage here in that it is not one of these individual plaintiffs. Rather, it's an instituion that has been victimized and slandered. It's an institution that employs many people in GF County. I don't think a jury will be as conservative with it as compared to an individual plaintiff.

Scott M and other lawyers on this site and PCM have a lot more knowledge about this than I do and would be in better positions to evaluate these issues. I only do bankruptcy but even I can see the obvious.

I can't help but notice that much of your argument is based on the assumption that a jury would be favorable to UND. While that may be a reasonable assumption, isn't there at least a chance that the opposite might happen? Isn't it possible that the jury might see the NCAA as a sympathetic figure? After all, UND could have resolved this issue years ago if they had simply done as many other schools have done. Don't juries usually get upset if they believe their time is being wasted on an issue that could have easily been resolved by one of the parties?

Also, would you admit any possibility that the NCAA really is acting in what it sees, however misguided, as the best interests of college sports?

[Chewey]

I can't help but notice that much of your argument is based on the assumption that a jury would be favorable to UND. While that may be a reasonable assumption, isn't there at least a chance that the opposite might happen? Isn't it possible that the jury might see the NCAA as a sympathetic figure? After all, UND could have resolved this issue years ago if they had simply done as many other schools have done. Don't juries usually get upset if they believe their time is being wasted on an issue that could have easily been resolved by one of the parties?

Also, would you admit any possibility that the NCAA really is acting in what it sees, however misguided, as the best interests of college sports?

One can never predict anything when it comes to a jury. There is a possibility that a jury may see the NC00 in a different way than UND sees it. Juries and judges certainly do get upset if they feel their time is being wasted. There is a possibility that a jury would be sympathetic to the NC00. I am just indicating that UND is better off in ND than somewhere else. After all of the facts are put out there and a jury sees just how arbitrary and capricious and tyrannical the NC00 has been with respect to its own policies, I don't see how a jury could perceive the NC00 as a benevolent player but it could happen. Juries and judges also don't like bullies. People generally don't like players from foreign areas/states trying to ram-rod things in their own areas. I would not be surprised if the NC00 favored moving people into GF. Perhaps this is paranoid but I know it's happened before in ND (See the derailment in Minot involving the CP Rail where CP Rail was paying people at $250.00 per pop at the Town & Country Shopping Center and, allegedly, moving people into Minot in case some cases went to trial there). If it does go to trial, I am sure a lot of money will be spent on analysis teams reviewing prospective jurors.

[The Sicatoka]

Dear Gothmog:

UND is only doing this because ND Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has had nothing else to do for the last year.

[Gothmog]

Dear Gothmog:

UND is only doing this because ND Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has had nothing else to do for the last year.

And the NCAA is only doing this because they have some axe to grind with UND.

[The Sicatoka]

And the NCAA is only doing this because they have some axe to grind with UND.

Apparently not the NCAA (membership vote? what membership vote?), but just its Executive Committee.

But they, per the NCAA Constitution, can't mandate policy.

[DamStrait]

And the NCAA is only doing this because they have some axe to grind with UND.

Being willfully obtuse in defense of your own specious arguments is a sure sign of a troll. I look forward to your impending involuntary banishment form this forum.

[Gothmog]

One can never predict anything when it comes to a jury. There is a possibility that a jury may see the NC00 in a different way than UND sees it. Juries and judges certainly do get upset if they feel their time is being wasted. There is a possibility that a jury would be sympathetic to the NC00. I am just indicating that UND is better off in ND than somewhere else. After all of the facts are put out there and a jury sees just how arbitrary and capricious and tyrannical the NC00 has been with respect to its own policies, I don't see how a jury could perceive the NC00 as a benevolent player but it could happen. Juries and judges also don't like bullies. People generally don't like players from foreign areas/states trying to ram-rod things in their own areas. I would not be surprised if the NC00 favored moving people into GF. Perhaps this is paranoid but I know it's happened before in ND (See the derailment in Minot involving the CP Rail where CP Rail was paying people at $250.00 per pop at the Town & Country Shopping Center and, allegedly, moving people into Minot in case some cases went to trial there). If it does go to trial, I am sure a lot of money will be spent on analysis teams reviewing prospective jurors.

So, would you say that there's no chance that the NCAA really is a "benevolent player" in this matter? That they created this policy and are attempting to enforce it because they believe that the policy is in the best interest of its membership.

[Gothmog]

Being willfully obtuse in defense of your own specious arguments is a sure sign of a troll. I look forward to your impending involuntary banishment form this forum.

So you're saying that I should be banished because I disagree with the majority opinion, or because I responded to a smart aleck question with a smart aleck answer?

[Gothmog]

Apparently not the NCAA (membership vote? what membership vote?), but just its Executive Committee.

But they, per the NCAA Constitution, can't mandate policy.

Well, whomever may have instituted this policy, did they do so because they have a problem with UND?

[GeauxSioux]

So, would you say that there's no chance that the NCAA really is a "benevolent player" in this matter? That they created this policy and are attempting to enforce it because they believe that the policy is in the best interest of its membership.

If it was in the best interest of the membership, why not get membership approval instead of circumventing the members? Instead, they pushed it through the back door.

[The Sicatoka]

... did they do so because they have a problem with UND?

No. It's because they've never read my signature.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Excellent points. The government does need to do that. I'm for going even further and breaking up the NC00 into regional associations. That would certainly help in terms of competition for broadcast rights to games, etc.

Right now, it seems like broadcasting rights are controlled mainly by individual conferences (which are almost all regional). I don't see breaking up the NCAA as doing much to change that.

And to take that one step further, there's already a movement to create a national championship playoff in football. If we did break up the NCAA I think it would be inevitable that the organization would re-consolidate, much like the Baby Bells.

Like others have posted, the NC00 probably thought that UND would cave once real coin was being spent and once the propaganda and "protests" were in full swing irrespective of the fact that the matter was venued in ND. I'm sure the NC00 is somewhat surprised that UND has not caved and I'm sure it is becoming ever more convinced, as it should, that UND won't cave.

I agree, I think the NCAA did count on the protestors and PC maniacs to carry the day on individual campuses; and that didn't happen.

Finally, I can't quote everyone but I'm in total agreement with anyone who ever said "arbitrary and capricious". Give us a vote on ALL nicknames that refer in any way, shape or form (under the most liberal of guidelines) to humans and not just those nicknames that refer to groups of people who were living within the current boundaries of the Continental USA before Columbus arrived (and then back off if any group decides that they don't mind being humiliated for the right price), and I think there might be a different result.

[Gothmog]

If it was in the best interest of the member, why not get membership approval instead of circumventing the members? Instead, they pushed it through the back door.

Certainly, they should have done exactly that. But that does not mean that Myles Brand and the NCAA leadership are evil people, bent on imposing some sort of dictatorship over college sports.