jimdahl Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Got this in my email. If the contributor would like to take a bow, feel free. Summons Notice of motion for preliminary injunction Plaintiff's memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction Complaint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Okay lawyers, after reading it, what are the State of North Dakota's chances against the NC$$ ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Thanks Jim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jloos Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Interesting that they tried to sue in State. The NCAA will try and move this to federal court right away. I pretty much slept through civil procedure, but I believe the NCAA should be able to move it to federal court as they are being sued by the state of ND in ND state court - although that may only be the case where a state sues another state. It appears they are trying to keep this in state court by not making any constitutional claims. My opinion is that it will take several months to determine who has jurisdiction. Hmm the brief supporting the temporary injuction is full of federal questions. This is not making sense to me. I do not understand why they didn't simply file this in federal court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Had been unaware of this until reading the complaint: 84. In the Spring of 2006, a major media organization acting on behalf of a major corporate sponsor terminated discussions regarding UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 How much was that tv contract!!! And the nay sayers have the balls to say there is NO money in D1 college hockey!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Had been unaware of this until reading the complaint: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 What about the potential economic loss to the Grand Forks community? Maybe GF should sue the NC$$..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDM Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Got this in my email. If the contributor would like to take a bow, feel free. It was me. GDM Forums Moderator SiouxSports.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 It was me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Walrus Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Link on ESPN today... http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2615396 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 The "quick and dirty" press release from the AG's office. http://www.ag.state.nd.us/documents/10-06-06.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Walrus Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Check out the Top Banner ad at USA Today Sports... http://www.usatoday.com/sports/front.htm Nice Logo.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Just a quick note to say best of luck, and I hope you take them for all they're worth. I am ashamed to say that my school seems content to ride your coattails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted October 7, 2006 Author Share Posted October 7, 2006 It was me. GDM Forums Moderator SiouxSports.com Thanks for the filings GDM. I really appreciated reading them, as I know did a lot of other peeps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Had been unaware of this until reading the complaint: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 The lawsuit has an interesting tact considering most of us "non-lawyers" thought they'd attack the NC$$'s policy directly but the key arguement shoots directly at what amounts to an unprotected underbelly...the fact the NCAA violated their own constitution by allowing the executive committee to implement policy without the approval of 2/3 of their membership...OOOPPPS!! This will (hopefully) be the key to a temporary (at least) injunction...in other words... Never mind who they think violates "THEIR" rules - they violated their OWN rules! The devil is ALWAYS in the details... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 It appears that UND's best argument is Count I - Breach of Contract - which is based on the fact that the NCAA did not follow it's own Constitution and Bylaws in adopting this policy. However, if UND wins on Breach of Contract alone, it may just be a temporary victory. All the NCAA would have to do is refine the policy (make it consistent and somewhat logical), and then go back to the members for a vote. Does anyone honestly think the vast majority of members (most of which are controlled by far-left ideologues) wouldn't vote for some sort of nickname ban that would undoubtedly cover UND? The way I see it, Count III - Unlawful Restraint on Trade - is the theory Sioux fans should be rooting for. That's the only one that will prevent the NCAA from simply going back and revising the policy and bringing it to the members. If UND can win on Count III, that would be a HUGE victory. However, IMO, Count III is -- by far -- the toughest argument for UND to successfully make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 It appears that UND's best argument is Count I - Breach of Contract - which is based on the fact that the NCAA did not follow it's own Constitution and Bylaws in adopting this policy. However, if UND wins on Breach of Contract alone, it may just be a temporary victory. All the NCAA would have to do is refine the policy (make it consistent and somewhat logical), and then go back to the members for a vote. Does anyone honestly think the vast majority of members (most of which are controlled by far-left ideologues) wouldn't vote for some sort of nickname ban that would undoubtedly cover UND?If the re-writing of the policy somehow does not somehow exempt Florida State, the NCAA will have congressional issues. In many respects, the NCAA has already accomplished much of what they intended - of the 18 schools only CMU, FSU, Utah, Catawba, & Mississippi College received exemptions. UND, Arkansas St, and Newberry are the holdovers. P.S. Forgot about Illinois and William & Mary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 All the NCAA would have to do is refine the policy (make it consistent and somewhat logical), and then go back to the members for a vote. Does anyone honestly think the vast majority of members (most of which are controlled by far-left ideologues) wouldn't vote for some sort of nickname ban that would undoubtedly cover UND? I've wondered about that, too. But if it were that easy, why didn't the NCAA simply do that to begin with and avoid all this mess? Are NCAA members that eager to start goring each others' oxen? And what about the NCAA principle quoted in my signature? Wouldn't that have to changed before the NCAA decided that it was in the business of enforcing discrimination sanctions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 I've wondered about that, too. But if it were that easy, why didn't the NCAA simply do that to begin with and avoid all this mess? Are NCAA members that eager to start goring each others' oxen? And what about the NCAA principle quoted in my signature? Wouldn't that have to changed before the NCAA decided that it was in the business of enforcing discrimination sanctions? Probably because they believe the Executive Committee has the authority to do it. Or maybe they know it's a grey-area and want to establish a precedent that expands the power of the Executive Committee. Or maybe they just didn't think it through and got caught with their pants down. I'm not really sure why they did it this way, but I'm fairly certain that the NCAA will not stop if the policy is struck down on procedural grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 I'm not really sure why they did it this way, but I'm fairly certain that the NCAA will not stop if the policy is struck down on procedural grounds. I agree completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I agree completely. I'm curious how confident they'd be in getting a 2/3rds majority in a member vote?? - maybe that's why they tried to "sneak one past the goalie" in the executive committee...just to justify spending all that $$$ on the pc committee?? Nah! Just being a conspiracy theorist here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Interesting point of view coming from a moderator over on Bobcat Nation. Bobcat Nation Bay Area Cat said: You know, UND should file another lawsuit as a parallel strategy in case this case against the NCAA falls through. As anyone who has opined on this topic knows, the reason the NCAA has ruled against UND is because the local Sioux Tribal governing bodies have requested this of the NCAA, saying that they do not approve of the way UND uses their tribal name as a mascot for their athletic programs. To get around this complication, UND needs to sue the Sioux Tribe's governing bodies for the exclusive rights to the name "Sioux." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 From the Sports Economist Blog If the NCAA was serious about reducing the number of universities using the mascot, a simple Coasian solution would be to pay the damages. In this case, exempting some teams but not others would be an efficient outcome -- buying out UND and Indiana University of Pennsylvania (to name two) would be efficient because the schools are low revenue, while allowing the negative externality at Florida State or Illinois to continue because it's not worth the money to be spent by the member organizations. The question of due process -- asking the full body of the NCAA university presidents to approve the mandate -- would still remain, but the issue of treating different universities differently would make sense. IMHO, this Coasian Solution approach would have made sense if the NCAA actually had attempted it. Instead, what the NCAA is doing is giving the wealthiest (Florida State, Utah) a free pass, taxing the poor (Southeastern Oklahoma, Chowan), and gouging the middle class (UND, La-Monroe, Ark St., IUP). The middle income group gets hurt the worst because the changes are almost or more costly than the upper class, have less of an income base to pay for changes and can least afford to alienate their smaller fan base. Ironically (and perhaps just hopeful thinking), the NCAA may end up paying much more. The Say Anything Blog has been quoting $2.6 Million in damages as what UND is asking:North Dakota Alleges $2.6 Million In Damages Over UND Logo IMHO, this number is not at all correct as the damages being sought: the $2.6 Million is what it would cost the REA to be retrofitted to another logo in the event we lose the lawsuit. In actuality, if I understand the legal process, a jury would have to decide what the monetary damage that the NCAA caused by capriciously imposing this "hostile and abusive" claim on UND. For example, if the NCAA's actions did indeed cause UND the loss of an annual hockey tournament, the value of that loss needs to be determined. If the average annual gain from that tournament would have been $500,000, the net present value of a loss of an annual regular season tournament is maybe $7 million. Triple the damages for antitrust, and the jury could say damages are $20 million, just from that one issue. The poor media publicity that resulted from the NCAA declaring UND to be "hostile and abusive" could possibly be an even more major $ issue. 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.