star2city Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Obtained a copy of UND's lastest rebuttal to the NCAA. Phil Harmeson wrote an earlier appeal if I'm not mistaken, but this letter seems to clearly spell out what UND's intentions are if the nickname "Policy" is not reversed. The letter is not stamped with any restrictions, so, if anyone is interested in some reading, portions of the letter and attachment are in the next postings. Note: The letter was four pages and the attachment was 21 pages - left out the "dry" parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 January 30, 2006 Members of the Division II Presidents Council And to the NCAA Executive Committee C/o Bernard Franklin National Collegiate Athletic Association PB Box 6222 Indianapolis, IN 46206 Dear Fellow Presidents, The main body of our rebuttal to the NCAA Staff review of our earlier rebuttal of their initial review of our appeal is attached. I know this sequence and rebuttals sounds convoluted and it is. It seems odd to us that the very group that considered our initial appeal gets to weigh in again on our second appeal, not just once but twice, and in an appeal being considered by the group that issued the very policy and application of that policy we are appealing. Also, please forgive the length and the legalistic tone found in the attached portion of this rebuttal. We are advised that should we ever wish to raise a legal challenge, we must have raised all of the legal and other arguments in the administrative or internal appeal process in order to make those arguments in court. [ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the correspondence from Bernard Franklin, Senior Vice President for Governance and membership for the NCAA, dated January 18, 2006, the University of North Dakota ( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 II. THE MASCOT POLICY SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN A. The Executive Committee Has Exceeded Its Authority In Adopting the Policy. In its December 23, 2005 Memorandum, UND demonstrated that under the Division II Constitution and Bylaws, the Executive Committee lacks the authority to ban member institutions from participating in or hosting post-season play. (long discussion of NCAA Articles of Constitution, Divions II Articles 5.01.1, 5.2.2, 4.3.2, Dominant legislation issue, Operating Bylaw 18.1, Executive Regulation 31.1.1) Incredibly, instead of responding specifically to these arguments and the authorities cited by UND, the Staff Committee has made a bold and unprecedented assertion of limitless authority for the Executive Committee. It reasoned that since the Executive Committee is charged with the responsibility to identify and act on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 B. The Mascot Policy, as Applied, Is a Violation of Federal Anti-Trust Laws The Staff Committee underestimates the potential application of anti-trust laws to the Policy, and the likely success of a plaintiff in challenging its application of the Policy to UND. There is no question the NCAA is a commercial venture. Indeed, the Staff Committee has conceded that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 C. The Mascot Policy Reflects Only One Side of an Intellectual Debate The Staff Committee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 III. THE STAFF COMMITTEE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The only logical conclusion from the denial of the exemption to UND is that the namesake tribe exception was not created as a rational extension of the Policy, but rather as a special exception for a large Division I school. Crafting special exceptions for influential members is a hallmark of bad faith. I can't help but wonder if this part of UND's latest response didn't have something to do with the NCAA granting the appeal of tiny Mississippi College last Friday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGSIOUX Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I can't help but wonder if this part of UND's latest response didn't have something to do with the NCAA granting the appeal of tiny Mississippi College last Friday. probably not since it is dated the 30th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm happy that the legal eagles that put together this response to the NC$$ are on our side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 probably not since it is dated the 30th. Which means that the Mississippi College appeal was approved more than two weeks AFTER UND submitted its last response to the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm happy that the legal eagles that put together this response to the NC$$ are on our side. We are in good hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGSIOUX Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Which means that the Mississippi College appeal was approved more than two weeks AFTER UND submitted its last response to the NCAA. right!, sorry i read your post wrong, apparantly right to left is backwards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 This is the most compelling argument I have read yet. I realize that means little, as I have a limited legal understanding. This seems very compelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I still have the same gut feeling that I did when we were banned by the NCAA. They will back down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Aside from the typo, I think this appeal was written by somebody with some high-caliber legal credentials. Perhaps this blast should be "leaked" to the media or passed to George Will, since it appears the NC$$, like a cockroach, really doesn't like too much light shown on its practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Aside from the typo, Tried using old scanning software, but it wasn't as accurate as I had hoped. I think this appeal was written by somebody with some high-caliber legal credentials.Had seen a copy of the December 23rd appeal - not nearly as polished as this version. Perhaps this blast should be "leaked" to the media or passed to George Will, since it appears the NC$$, like a cockroach, really doesn't like too much light shown on its practices. The same thought passed through my mind yesterday ... seems like people taking offense at certain images is a world-wide issue now. Although the whole Sioux nickname may seem trivial, the deeper issues underlying this topic are at the core of the West's concepts of freedom. Seems the NCAA's view on logos closely corresponds with mullahs' viewpoint on cartoons, sans violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Seems the NCAA's view on logos closely corresponds with mullahs' viewpoint on cartoons, sans violence. I wonder what will happen when UND wins; either the appeal or court decision. We have had one NameChanger threaten violence early this winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nodaker Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I would like to entitle this reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The Spirit Lake Nation voted against the current nickname and logo last August. Is this denial, selective listening, or selective reading. It is you who is guilty of selective reading. What does this line from the AP story you referenced say? Opponents of the school Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 It is you who is guilty of selective reading. What does this line from the AP story you referenced say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjw007 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Wrong again PCM . Sorry, but you are wrong. You're simply twisting the facts to make it appear that something you wanted to happen did happen. But it didn't happen. And that's a fact. 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.