Legal Fees

[The Sicatoka]

The real and most important issue is what are the chances of prevailing. Is this even a constitutional or anti-trust issue? (many of you arm chair lawyers seem to think so).

I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on TV.

However, I can read the NCAA by-laws and what those say is that legislation (like this) is supposed to come from an Association-wide vote. (Read more here.)

UND pays to be an NCAA member. The by-laws serve as a contract. I don't see Constitution or anti-trust as prime issue as much as I see possible breech.

Prove breech; go from there.

[The Sicatoka]

PS - To me, $100k sounds like money for the AG's office to oversee some private firm working the case on contingency.

[PCM]

PS - To me, $100k sounds like money for the AG's office to oversee some private firm working the case on contingency.

If you're responding to my earlier post, I wasn't suggesting that "overseeing" was all the AG's office would do. That would be part of the job, but certainly not all of it.

[jloos]

PS - To me, $100k sounds like money for the AG's office to oversee some private firm working the case on contingency.

What would the contingency be? The only damages UND could seek (besides punitive) would be for any loss of revenue do to the ruling.

If UND is going to argue antitrust, this would basically be an attempt to topple the NCAA as a monopoly. I am not sure of their chances at winning this argument, but I suspect it would be pretty low.

The Constitutional argument could be pretty broad. Frankly I have no clue how much if any the NCAA is governed by the government, which would make a huge difference in this arena. If the NCAA is truly a private organization the Constitutional arguments are few and weak.

I guess I would agree with the Sicatoka and say the best theory to sue on would be contract. What is the contract? If this is the case, then it becomes much less specialized. I am sure there are numerous contracts UND has entered into with the NCAA. It would be interesting to review them.

Like someone else mentioned the antitrust and Constitutional theories may not be realistic. Especially if other schools do not join in the lawsuit. At this point UND's best bet is to go through the legislature.

[Siouxman]

Tim O'Keefe was on KXJB last night. Said they are receiving many contacts about donating money to the legal effort, and getting legal offers to represent UND "pro bono." Said the contacts started coming last fall already.

[HockeyMom]

Tim O'Keefe was on KXJB last night. Said they are receiving many contacts about donating money to the legal effort, and getting legal offers to represent UND "pro bono." Said the contacts started coming last fall already.

[BIGSIOUX]

are you blushing cause he said pro bono?

[Sioux-cia]

are you blushing cause he said pro bono?

She's not blushing, . She's in love, . Yes, very likely 'cause he said 'pro bono'.

[PCM]

I guess I would agree with the Sicatoka and say the best theory to sue on would be contract. What is the contract?

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this because I'm not. However, I did spend seven years working for a private association. It was no coincidence that the organization's president was an attorney. I sat through many meetings with the association's management in which member relations were discussed. We had to be careful about overselling or overpromising what we could do or provide for our members.

Because there was always a concern that someone could take the association to court for not delivering on what was promised, we were careful to spell out in writing what we would do for anyone who joined. And we were always careful to deliver everything that we promised.

To me, it's similar to buying a service. If you give someone money to do something for you, there's a reasonable expectation that the service will be performed under the agreed-upon conditions. When you take someone's money to perform a service, you don't get to say, "Sorry, but I've decided to do something different than what I told you and -- SURPRISE! -- it's going to cost you more."

The NCAA's constitution and by-laws clearly state that members of the organization have autonomy in dealing with issues involving discrimination. The NCAA doesn't like the way UND and the federal government have dealt with the discrimination allegedly caused by the Sioux name and logo. It has decided to hurt UND financially and interfere with the university's intellectual property rights by imposing its own punishment.

Furthermore, the NCAA hides behind the its private association status by claiming that its action is designed to protect the national championship events it operates and nothing more. However, to my knowledge, neither the NCAA nor any of the name-change advocates have ever cited an incident of racism or discrimination against Native Americans attending NCAA events in which UND has been involved.

So what problem is the NCAA really trying to solve? What evidence is there that UND's logo is causing "hostility and abuse" at NCAA-sponsored events? If the NCAA is truly controlling what's within its realm of control, why is it basing its policy on events and evidence that occur outside of the athletic arena?

I recall, too, that when the NCAA said that all Sioux logos and references would have to be covered during the West Regional, many "experts" claimed that as a private association, the NCAA had every right to force UND to do that. But when Kupchella pointed out that the NCAA was unilaterally changing a contract, the organization dropped that demand.

If the NCAA had simply told UND and the 17 other universities that American Indian nicknames and imagery weren't allowed at its championship events, I think those schools would have had a difficult time making their case in court. But the NCAA went beyond that and took punitive action against some of those schools for supposedly violating a very broad and very vague association principal, a principal that's being selectively applied in this case.

The breech of contract approach appears to be fertile legal ground to me.

[PCM]

Yes, very likely 'cause he said 'pro bono'.

I promise here and now never to change my amateur bono status.

[ScottM]

The breech of contract approach appears to be fertile legal ground to me.

It's a start. However, I would make it a tortious breach of contract, which makes it a tort, and takes it out of the more limited realm of contracts, which can allow for damages well beyond economic and compensatory damages, e.g., punitive damages. I think a claim of defamation might also fly, especially since the NC$$ has proclaimed UND to be "hostile or abusive" and impinged its reputation on an international basis. Throw in a few other things related to intellectual property, maybe some anti-trust issues, etc., and you have the makings of an interesting showdown. I'd also explore the NC$$'s tax exempt status, since it seems to be delving into social and political matters outside of its own charter under 501 © of the Internal Revenue Code.

[Sioux-cia]

I promise here and now never to change my amateur bono status.

Whoa, PCM!!!!

(Oh, excuse my faux paux. I see now you said 'bono'. Ooops....)

[Supertrex]

PCM, I like your arguments. They flow and conclude logically. I hope that is the prevailing argument. But you can be sure that the NCAA will take the position that it has a right, in its sole discretion, to protect the NCAA "brand" and if UND will not respect that right, it does not have to belong.

I'm on the Board of Directors of a state-wide organization that uses the "brand" of a national non-profit. As such, that national organization dictates exactly how and when it's name and other trademarks, names, etc. will be used. I don't see this situation as being much different. Myles Brand (no pun) has already stated NCAA is prepared to defend its position (and brand). While I wish they would just leave us alone, I know we will have an uphill battle here.

[redwing77]

I agree with those of us that are talking that suing over anti-trust would be a bad move.

To my knowledge, the NCAA has never lost an Anti-Trust case, only settled one.

I don't think Anti Trust is the way to go on this. We need to focus on solving our problem, not toppling the NCAA. I'd love the current form of the NCAA to go down, but it's not realistic. We need to go into the courtroom with the objective of resolving our grievance and our grievance alone. We cannot solve everyone else's problems with the NCAA or the NCAA will surely win.

Take that as an opinion from someone who ISN'T a lawyer.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Be glad you have support at the state government level. Here in Illinois, the leader of our state assembly (essentially our House of Representatives) is threating to lower the amount of support from the state by the exact dollar ammount spent on any lawsuit defending Chief Illiniwek.

[PCM]

PCM, I like your arguments. They flow and conclude logically. I hope that is the prevailing argument. But you can be sure that the NCAA will take the position that it has a right, in its sole discretion, to protect the NCAA "brand" and if UND will not respect that right, it does not have to belong.

I see where you're coming from and it's a good point. I think UND's best defense against that argument is that the NCAA is taking a very broad, vageuely worded general principle and applying it to a specific area for the purpose of targeting a few schools with punitive action.

The NCAA says that every single person who attends one of its championship events should be treated with dignity and respect, but we all know this isn't happening. It's futile to believe that this perfect state at athletic events will ever be achieved. There are countless stories in the media about how players are being singled out for the worst kind of hostility and abuse. And what does the NCAA do to make certain that those who officiate its events are treated with dignity and respect? When the last time you saw fans of opposing teams treat each other with dignity and respect?

"Respect and dignity for all" is a great idea in principle, but it seems to me that unless the NCAA is enforcing it for all members, at all events and under all circumstances, the idea that only UND and a few other schools are tarnishing the organization's image seems rather far-fetched.

[The Sicatoka]

"Respect and dignity for all" is a great idea in principle, ...

Yes, and it goes right out the window unless all said "offensive-type" monikers are gone.

What good is it to the person who dislikes them all if UND's is gone but Florida State's remains?

The NCAA's "for all" test and goal just collapse with that person.

[Supertrex]

Yes, and it goes right out the window unless all said "offensive-type" monikers are gone.

What good is it to the person who dislikes them all if UND's is gone but Florida State's remains?

The NCAA's "for all" test and goal just collapse with that person.

Very good point. The big sin committed by the NCAA is that they apply their standard in a capricious and arbitrary manner - a mortal sin in the world of law... Why is one school's use of native american emblems ok and another's is not?

[Sioux27]

I know it is somewhat unimportant to the "entire" issue, but I do have a problem with Holy Cross and the use of its mascot/name/emblem. As a devoted Christian, I think it is completely irresponsible for the use of its nickname. I do however, understand that the use of this in not intended to offend me. I will always wish a competitor best of luck in competition, AND, I also realize that their intent is not to humiliate me. BUT...............If we as a member of the NC$$ continue to "accept social and moral challenges" that the NC$$ wants to evaluate, then I also feel that they (meaning the NC$$) need to make a much broader appeal to the misfortunes of other minorities as they define it!!

[HockeyMom]

are you blushing cause he said pro bono?

Nope, I the peeps that care enough about our alma mater to do pro bono work and donate to the cause.

[redwing77]

I see where you're coming from and it's a good point. I think UND's best defense against that argument is that the NCAA is taking a very broad, vageuely worded general principle and applying it to a specific area for the purpose of targeting a few schools with punitive action.

The NCAA says that every single person who attends one of its championship events should be treated with dignity and respect, but we all know this isn't happening. It's futile to believe that this perfect state at athletic events will ever be achieved. There are countless stories in the media about how players are being singled out for the worst kind of hostility and abuse. And what does the NCAA do to make certain that those who officiate its events are treated with dignity and respect? When the last time you saw fans of opposing teams treat each other with dignity and respect?

"Respect and dignity for all" is a great idea in principle, but it seems to me that unless the NCAA is enforcing it for all members, at all events and under all circumstances, the idea that only UND and a few other schools are tarnishing the organization's image seems rather far-fetched.

I think the "Respect and Dignity for all" idea is tragically flawed. I mean, you can't run an athletic season, playoffs, or championships if you hold to the word of that principle because SOMEONE has to lose and, at times, the "losers" don't look to dignified in doing so. If they followed the rule of the words they cite, then there can be no National Championship team because that would put that team or individual on a higher ground than the rest and there would be no respect given towards those who did not earn the award. What can you say would be the dignity of a team like UAA of a few years back that only won 2 games the entire season?

Next thing you know they'll give out participation ribbons/banners and have group hugs instead of national championship plaques and trophies. There's going to be winners and losers. The losers shouldn't be happy with their plight. They shouldn't accept it either. That's why they have a new season every year. If it were just generally accepted that a team was the best and that's that, why hold the season? I mean, the Yankees would be a thing of the past because they won the World Series way back when and everyone else said "Well, that's that. Let's take up farming." Lame.

Respect and Dignity for all. There can be no bigger fiction in sports.

[larsensa]

On the 10 o'clock News tonight Wayne Stenehjem said he may ask for donations to fight to keep the name. He thinks the cost would be less than $100, 000. He doesn't want the students or state to pay for the cost.

I will go on record here and now: I will donate the same amount of money to the fund that I pay for my football and hockey season tickets including the Club fee if the States Attorney asks for donations to fight to keep the name.

My dad was talking with Wayne Stenehjem last week and Wayne told him that this case is going to cost about $1 Million to prosecute.

[Sioux-cia]

My dad was talking with Wayne Stenehjem last week and Wayne told him that this case is going to cost about $1 Million to prosecute.

Since his statement on the News, he has said that cost would be around a million. Must have mispoke when interviewed.