NCAA response months away

[jimdahl]

Herald article yesterday:

Phil Harmeson, a point man for UND on the nickname issue, said the NCAA has told UND officials that it won't be until January at the earliest that it will be able to respond to the school's second appeal.

Bernard W. Franklin, NCAA senior vice president of governance, wrote in a Nov. 9 letter to UND President Charles Kupchella that the college sports association's Executive Committee will consider the university's new appeal at its next "in-person meeting" scheduled for Jan. 9.

Franklin's letter goes on to say, "The Executive Committee will receive a recommendation from the appropriate presidential governance entity based on an institution's divisional affiliation."

In UND's case, the appropriate panel would be the NCAA Division II Council of Presidents.

Harmeson said Franklin's description of the NCAA appellate process is a change from the way he and other UND officials understood it. He said UND officials have been under the impression that the Council of Presidents, a 15-member elected body of Division II CEOs, would be the third level of appeal within the NCAA.

[redwing77]

It is a delay tactic.

They are trying to delay this until February. They'll reject the appeal, and by the time the third appeal can be levied, February 1st will pass before we could take them to court.

So, my question is: What do we do then?

[dagies]

I'm hoping the DII Council of Presidents will give us the best chance of winning. I would think they should be very concerned with the NCAA not following their own constitution in implementing this policy.

DII Council of Presidents Roster

DII President's Council Oct 27 Meeting Agenda They talked about UND's nickname issue but the "supplement" is only available in hard copy, unfortunately. We won't know what they talked about.

[The Sicatoka]

There's nothing magical about February 1.

If the NCAA hasn't "pooped or gotten off the potty" around the time that the WBB team should be in the playoffs (not trying to curse anyone here) who cares: UND can file for an injunction with the courts at any time. There's no "before we could take them to court" about it.

UND could take them to court now, but the court wouldn't be as favorable to UND because the court wants to see the plaintiff has tried all other remedies (appeals) first. However, if February 1 rolls around and the NCAA hasn't moved yet, then UND is well within their rights to go to a court for an injunction: "Your honor, we've appealed but the NCAA has sat on the appeal until now, thus effectively denying our appeal, and thus imposing sanction before the appeal is ever dealt with." That would hold more water with a court. (I'm no attorney, but I bet the resident attorneys here would concur.)

February 1 is a made up date just like this policy is a made up policy. (I dare say that because this policy is not "real" per the NCAA's own constitution*.)

* NCAA Constitution 1.2.(h) -- "To legislate, through bylaws or by resolutions of a Convention, upon any subject of general concern to the members related to the administration of intercollegiate athletics." This legislation or bylaw never went as a resolution to a vote of a whole convention. Tag on that NCAA Constitution 1.3.2 says, "Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting." I'm not exactly sure how "Seminole" or "Sioux" (or "Irish" for that matter) is a "basic athletics issue". Thus, should that be a matter for NCAA legislation? I guess we'll find out.

[redwing77]

I knew about the other remedies part, but the rest answered my question.

Thanks Sic.

[dagies]

* NCAA Constitution 1.2.(h) -- "To legislate, through bylaws or by resolutions of a Convention, upon any subject of general concern to the members related to the administration of intercollegiate athletics." This legislation or bylaw never went as a resolution to a vote of a whole convention. Tag on that NCAA Constitution 1.3.2 says, "Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting." I'm not exactly sure how "Seminole" or "Sioux" (or "Irish" for that matter) is a "basic athletics issue". Thus, should that be a matter for NCAA legislation? I guess we'll find out.

That's exactly what I'm hoping the President's council gets nervous about

[Goon]

* NCAA Constitution 1.2.(h) -- "To legislate, through bylaws or by resolutions of a Convention, upon any subject of general concern to the members related to the administration of intercollegiate athletics." This legislation or bylaw never went as a resolution to a vote of a whole convention. Tag on that NCAA Constitution 1.3.2 says, "Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting." I'm not exactly sure how "Seminole" or "Sioux" (or "Irish" for that matter) is a "basic athletics issue". Thus, should that be a matter for NCAA legislation? I guess we'll find out.

Hey Sica,

Are you a lawyer?

[choyt3]

Hey Sica,

Are you a lawyer?

Heard something about staying "in a Holiday Inn Express last night"...

[ScottM]

Hey Sica,

Are you a lawyer?

Nah. He has better sense than that.

[The Sicatoka]

Hey Sica,

Are you a lawyer?

I don't go around saying bad things about you, do I? ;)