NCAA Wants Documents Sealed

[Sioux-cia]

Is the pre-trial conference still scheduled for tomorrow ?

Domuments should be unsealed tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what is in there.

I have a buck that says they stay sealed.

[HockeyMom]

I have a buck that says they stay sealed.

A buck or a pig?

[Sioux-cia]

A buck or a pig?

I believe the pig is spoken for.........

[HockeyMom]

I believe the pig is spoken for.........

What?! I want my pork spare ribs!!!!

[Sioux-cia]

What?! I want my pork spare ribs!!!!

I believe PETA has asked the NC$$ to declare them hostile and abusive. They are no longer available.

[HockeyMom]

I believe PETA has asked the NC$$ to declare them hostile and abusive. They are no longer available.

Actually, the NCAA declared them hostile and abusive, but you can still purchase them on their website. Just like a Fighting Sioux jersey.

[Chewey]

Does anyone think that there will be yet another continuance? The AG mentioned some meeting in January that the NC$$ is having and he indicated that he wants the thing to go to trial before that meeting happens. Would that meeting be simply another meeting for the NC$$ Executive star chamber or would it be a meeting of "all department heads" so to speak? Would the whole NC$$ vote on the indian naming at that meeting? I would think not and I would think that it would take a lot more than one meeting to overcome opposition from FSU, etc. Given the complexity of the litigation, I would think that memos, motions, witness lists, etc. will need to be filed very soon so that the Judge and his staff are well prepped with all of the applicable law and rules by the time of trial. Any thoughts? With most well-financed, legal bullies, the staredown usually lasts until two weeks before trial and then the bullies become suddenly "reasonable." I'm sure that's a lot to expect from an organization as imperious, over-reaching, reactionary and tyrannical as the NC$$ but I was just wondering. I'm sure it shares the same pathology as other big, well-financed bullies.

[Goon]

A buck or a pig?

I am thinking a puck.

[GeauxSioux]

UND, NCAA meet in court

During today's pretrial conference, the adversaries will make oral arguments on two motions: a motion by the NCAA to expand the scope of the nickname case to include UND's interactions with the state's Sioux tribes and a UND motion for partial summary judgement.

That motion asks Jahnke simply to find in UND's favor on the school's breach of contract claim against the NCAA, rather than sending the question to a jury. UND claims the NCAA's executive committee breached its contract with UND when it adopted the 2005 American Indian nicknames bylaw without a vote from the association's entire membership.

Jahnke also will hear an argument today from Forum Communications Co. attorney Steve Johnson.

Forum Communications filed a motion opposing Jahnke's Sept. 14 decision to seal all future filings in the nickname case from public view.

Predictions??

[sioux7>5]

UND, NCAA meet in courtPredictions??

I think that Jahnke will want to have a jury decide the case, but I also think that he will not allow the NCAA to expand their case. I think that the Fargo Forum will win their case and the documents will be openned. I really think that the NCAA is reaching and if they lose today on the expansion of the case, I feel they might look for towards a settlement.

[ScottM]

I don't see Jahnke granting either motion. Breach of contract is *usually* a jury question, unless it's so flagrant a jury could not decide any other way than to find a breach. As for the NC$$, I definitely agree they are reaching, and may be a bit desperate. Having been exposed as hypocrites, they're now hoping the usual cast of characters will again whore themselves out on Myles' behalf.

[UND92,96]

The pre-trial was continued until November 5. link.

[TheGreatSiouxNation]

I think that Jahnke will want to have a jury decide the case, but I also think that he will not allow the NCAA to expand their case. I think that the Fargo Forum will win their case and the documents will be openned. I really think that the NCAA is reaching and if they lose today on the expansion of the case, I feel they might look for towards a settlement.

What would be the settlement be? I think the proper action would be to drop the whole "hostile and abusive" claim. Then allow member schools to call themselves what they wish. UND is not the one to blame in this. The NCAA should be responsible for all court costs and the executive board be forced to resign or be financially responsible. I hope UND does what is right and settle nothing. The NCAA brought all this on themselves.

[sioux7>5]

What would be the settlement be? I think the proper action would be to drop the whole "hostile and abusive" claim. Then allow member schools to call themselves what they wish. UND is not the one to blame in this. The NCAA should be responsible for all court costs and the executive board be forced to resign or be financially responsible. I hope UND does what is right and settle nothing. The NCAA brought all this on themselves.

I do not disagree with you at all. I think that the settlement will be just that. The the NCAA drops everything and puts UND on some sort of watch list, to save face and to make it look like they got something out of this whole thing. Go Fighting Sioux, Fighting Sioux forever!

[Chewey]

I do not disagree with you at all. I think that the settlement will be just that. The the NCAA drops everything and puts UND on some sort of watch list, to save face and to make it look like they got something out of this whole thing. Go Fighting Sioux, Fighting Sioux forever!

Agreed. Why allow the bullies to save face at all? I think some sort of actions should be pursued against the professors at UND who have helped the NC00 do all of this. If they start doing what the nuts at UofI did, there should be personal accountability exacted from them.

[mksioux]

I don't see Jahnke granting either motion. Breach of contract is *usually* a jury question, unless it's so flagrant a jury could not decide any other way than to find a breach. As for the NC$$, I definitely agree they are reaching, and may be a bit desperate. Having been exposed as hypocrites, they're now hoping the usual cast of characters will again whore themselves out on Myles' behalf.

Whether a breach of contract case is a jury question depends on the nature of the dispute. If the facts are in dispute, then of course it's a jury case (assuming a jury trial was requested). But if all that is in dispute is the interpretation of the contract, then it is not a question for a jury and is ripe for summary judgment. At least in Minnesota, contract interpretation is a question of law to be decided by the Judge. I can't imagine it's any different in North Dakota. Other than damages, what are the factual disputes in this case? Either the NCAA's interpretation of the by-laws is correct and the Executive Committee had the authority to enact this policy or UND's interpretation of the by-laws are correct and the Executive Committee did not have the authority to enact this policy. To me, that seems like a decision for the Judge, not the jury.

Having said that, when making predictions, it's always easier to predict that a judge will deny a summary judgment motion rather than grant it, because a denial is not appealable.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I do not disagree with you at all. I think that the settlement will be just that. The the NCAA drops everything and puts UND on some sort of watch list, to save face and to make it look like they got something out of this whole thing. Go Fighting Sioux, Fighting Sioux forever!

Here is my question then: how can your side agree to being on an indefinite "watch list" status that can be rescinded at any time? One year from now the NCAA can say they are reviewing the names on the watch list-and suddenly your school will be placed right back on their "S" list with no home playoffs, etc. Or it might not even take a year, it might be the spring.

Its just my opinion, but without a substantial, solid "we won't touch your nickname for 20-odd years" statement from the NCAA such a pretrial settlement has no value for North Dakota. I would think that whatever dollars expended so far had been wasted if all I got was a vague "well, we'll think about it for a while" settlement.

[sioux7>5]

Here is my question then: how can your side agree to being on an indefinite "watch list" status that can be rescinded at any time? One year from now the NCAA can say they are reviewing the names on the watch list-and suddenly your school will be placed right back on their "S" list with no home playoffs, etc. Or it might not even take a year, it might be the spring.

Its just my opinion, but without a substantial, solid "we won't touch your nickname for 20-odd years" statement from the NCAA such a pretrial settlement has no value for North Dakota. I would think that whatever dollars expended so far had been wasted if all I got was a vague "well, we'll think about it for a while" settlement.

I think another school was put on a "watch list" it is a 5 year deal or something. I do not recall all the details. I am just saying that would be one way the NCAA would be able to get out of it. Of course I agree there should be a substantial amount of time built into any deal to avaoid this coming up again in the near future, 50 years sounds good.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I think another school was put on a "watch list" it is a 5 year deal or something. I do not recall all the details. I am just saying that would be one way the NCAA would be able to get out of it. Of course I agree there should be a substantial amount of time built into any deal to avaoid this coming up again in the near future, 50 years sounds good.

IIRC, the other school on the watch list is Bradley, with the Braves. They got down to that by emphasizing that they only use the letter "B" as their symbol these days. I am not aware of any time limit on the watch list, but that doesn't mean such a limit doesn't exist. For myself, I wouldn't be satisfied with just five years.

I was afraid to say anything more than 20, I don't know what legal effect a longer term might have. Personally, I'd go with at least the old 99-year term (if you can't get 9,999 years).

I thought the way that the NCAA would be able to declare victory and go home would be to find a namesake tribe and just say "hey, they have just as much right to accept the nickname as the other tribes have to protest it" and then let the job of placating/satisfying that namesake tribe on a continuing basis fall to your school-just like FSU and Utah. But I also think that both sides are pretty "dug in" to their positions right now.

[GeauxSioux]

UND nickname documents to remain sealed

Grand Forks Judge Lawrence Jahnke today denied a request from Forum Communication to unseal documents in the legal fight between UND and the National Collegiate Athletic Association over the school's nickname and logo.

Jahnke issued the latest ruling today following a morning hearing with Forum Co. attorney Mike Andrews.

[Sioux-cia]

I am thinking a puck.

Shoot, no one took me up on my bet!

[Chewey]

Jahnke wrote, in a three-page memo denying the motion, the two sides had appeared to be close to resolving their differences following a July 13 meeting.

"However, between July 13 and August 19, a number of media articles appeared, both in North Dakota and elsewhere, which continued to focus upon divisiveness of the litigation, both on the UND campus and within the Native American communities," Jahnke said.

"The net result of the continuing regurgitation of this divisiveness was that just days before Aug. 19, one of the parties withdrew from its earlier indication to settle."

What does anyone think the terms of the "settlement" that was abandoned by one party were? I read it as the NCAA agreed to some sort of deal where UND keeps the name/logo and the NCAA saves some face but then the PC powers that be lobbied the NCAA to abandon whatever agreement was reached after understanding the terms. Further, I think the "divisiveness" part of Jahnke's remarks indicates that the PC powers believe that holding onto the name, as per the proposed "settlement," would case further "division" on campus. Therefore, "for the good of the university," whatever agreement needed to be "scuttled." Since the NCAA wanted the records sealed, one can only conclude that it was the party that withdrew from the "settlement" talks. Maybe UND is saying "allow the status quo and never bother us again or, if this goes to trial, all of your dirty laundry will be publicly known." Maybe the NCAA has agreed to this but the PC powers don't like it?

Some of this sort of stuff has been discussed previously on this site by many of you. I am just wondering what you think this latest language from the bench really indicates. I too don't like all of the NCAA-style secrecy business.

[darell1976]

Jahnke wrote, in a three-page memo denying the motion, the two sides had appeared to be close to resolving their differences following a July 13 meeting.

"However, between July 13 and August 19, a number of media articles appeared, both in North Dakota and elsewhere, which continued to focus upon divisiveness of the litigation, both on the UND campus and within the Native American communities," Jahnke said.

"The net result of the continuing regurgitation of this divisiveness was that just days before Aug. 19, one of the parties withdrew from its earlier indication to settle."

What does anyone think the terms of the "settlement" that was abandoned by one party were? I read it as the NCAA agreed to some sort of deal where UND keeps the name/logo and the NCAA saves some face but then the PC powers that be lobbied the NCAA to abandon whatever agreement was reached after understanding the terms. Further, I think the "divisiveness" part of Jahnke's remarks indicates that the PC powers believe that holding onto the name, as per the proposed "settlement," would case further "division" on campus. Therefore, "for the good of the university," whatever agreement needed to be "scuttled." Since the NCAA wanted the records sealed, one can only conclude that it was the party that withdrew from the "settlement" talks. Maybe UND is saying "allow the status quo and never bother us again or, if this goes to trial, all of your dirty laundry will be publicly known." Maybe the NCAA has agreed to this but the PC powers don't like it?

Some of this sort of stuff has been discussed previously on this site by many of you. I am just wondering what you think this latest language from the bench really indicates. I too don't like all of the NCAA-style secrecy business.

Sounds like the NCAA was about to settle but something made them change their mind which i agree with you, it sounds like the PC Police had talked the NCAA into pulling away from the decision. This whole thing is just a mess, i mean what the hell did UND do to the NCAA. We are a quiet college very low key no violations no sanctions against us I mean leave us alone.

[ScottM]

I hope the Forum would appeal this soon. If not them, then perhaps one of the media trade organizations.

I see no reason for a blanket order, regardless of how close the sides are/were to settling. UND and the NC$$, to a lesser degree, are public entities. From my perspective, I think the NC$$ has the most to lose if/when the seal is lifted. I also think the NC$$'s feeble attempt to interject UND's relationships with the various tribes speaks volumes about its confidence in its own positions.

[dagies]

I'm guessing that the continuing media attention convinced the NCAA that it needed to continue to save us from ourselves. I doubt the PC police got to the NCAA because no one seems to have known there was almost an agreement between the parties in the first place. Therefore, no chance for increased lobbying by the PC's.

No, I think the NCAA read the papers and decided that they couldn't abide giving up.