GRAND FORKS (AP) - An expert in sports law says the University of North Dakota would have a difficult time winning a court battle with the NCAA over postseason use of its "Fighting Sioux" nickname.

"These are very, very hard cases to sustain in the courts," said Paul Haagen, a law professor at Duke University.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he believes UND would have a good chance of prevailing.

"I wouldn't bring legal action if I thought we were going to lose," he said.

The NCAA on Friday rejected UND's second and final appeal of an August ruling that the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo create a "hostile and abusive" environment. Effective this coming August, UND will be barred from using its nickname and logo in postseason play if it refuses to change the name. The school also will not be allowed to host NCAA tournaments, effective immediately.

UND President Charles Kupchella said the school will look at options with the state Board of Higher Education and Stenehjem. Kupchella has said earlier that UND would go to court if its appeal were denied.

One possible approach to a lawsuit would be to attack the NCAA's process of selecting schools to put on the list of those deemed to have offensive nicknames. Haagen said that tactic likely would not work.

"As long as (the NCAA) can prove the standards were applied consistently to all schools, the 'arbitrary and capricious' argument would fail," he said.

Another possible argument would raise antitrust questions about the NCAA.

"There are a series of antitrust suits pending by other schools right now," Haagen said. "However, it would be hard to make a convincing antitrust argument when it comes to the issue of demeaning names."

Stenehjem said the antitrust aspect likely would be a part of UND's case if the matter goes to court, but NCAA officials said the tactic would be misguided.

"The restrictions, in our view, have nothing to do with antitrust," said Bob Williams, a spokesman for the NCAA in Indianapolis. "We're confident we'll win if we go to court."

Haagen said the NCAA would have precedent on its side because the courts historically have allowed "a great deal of latitude" to independent organizations such as the NCAA to set standards for itself and its members.

"You can make the argument that a great deal of the rules are unfair, but it wouldn't work," he said. "If you want to participate in the Olympics, you have to follow their rules, and it's not really any different for the NCAA. Either you follow the rules or you don't participate."

Haagen said the most likely argument would question the fairness of the NCAA appeal process. Four of the list's original 18 schools have been removed, and another was placed on a five-year "watch list."

"The schools that were evaluated and taken off the list had clear documented support" of American Indian tribes, Williams said. That wasn't the case for UND, he said.