UND sues NCAA over nickname

The long-anticipated lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was filed Friday in the Grand Forks District Court, starting a courtroom battle to stop the organization from implementing new postseason restrictions on UND after the school was unable to be removed from a "hostile and abusive" mascot and logo list.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem outlined the three grounds on which the NCAA is being sued in a written statement Friday, including "breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing ... and unlawful restraint of trade."

The 83-page lawsuit was being researched and compiled over the past several months after UND lost its second appeal to the NCAA on April 28.

"We have probably four reams of supporting documents and affidavits that all had to be researched and assembled, so it just took a lot of time," Stenehjem said.

The NCAA has 20 days to respond to the complaint before the ruling would automatically be in favor of the State of North Dakota, on behalf of the North Dakota State Board of Higher Education and UND, which is the plaintiff in the case.

For now, a preliminary injunction request also has been filed to attempt to stop the nickname restrictions from going into effect until after the legal action is complete. "That is to maintain the status quo while the lawsuit proceeds," he said.

The document ultimately seeks a permanent injunction, which would prevent the policy from being implemented at UND, as well as reimbursement for the costs and legal fees resulting from the lawsuit.

It's impossible to predict how long the case may take, except to say that it will be a matter of months, Stenehjem said.

"Everybody wants to know, and so do I," he said. "It just kind of depends on what position the NCAA takes."

Legal reasoning

The key argument for the suit rests on the idea that the NCAA overstepped its boundaries, something that may be tricky because of their status as an independent organization.

An antitrust argument against the group claims that although membership is optional, any interest in athletic programs would almost require a university to join.

The breach-of-contract portion of the lawsuit contends that the correct processes of passing new rules were not followed in this case. According to Stenehjem, any major policy changes are supposed to be brought to the entire membership for a vote, but a committee within the NCAA passed this rule.

Additionally, the new regulations were not enforced uniformly among all member colleges, the suit claims.

"Others with more political clout in the NCAA got an exemption," Stenehjem said. "We weren't able to."

Funding and consequences

Private donations made to an NCAA litigation fund established by the UND Foundation are being used to fund the legal cost, something Stenehjem believes is important to the lawsuit.

"I thought it was important for the university to try to raise private funding for this, so the taxpayer dollars aren't used," he said.

Reactions so far to the case have mainly been supportive, he says, with occasional comments from "people of good conscience who disagree very strongly." But Stenehjem sees the case as just part of his job.

"In this case, our client is the North Dakota Board of Higher Education, who voted unanimously to proceed with the litigation," he said.

Stenehjem also believes that no matter what someone's opinion on the nickname is, they should be angered by the NCAA's actions in getting the new regulations in place.

"Really, nobody should be happy with the process that was followed. The process is a sham," he said.

He also acknowledges that if the state wins the lawsuit, the controversy will continue.

"At least it will continue in the proper forum - and that is on the campus of UND and among the members of the North Dakota Board of Higher Education," he said.

If the lawsuit isn't successful, then he thinks that the future of the issue would be in the hands of the university.