The Sicatoka

Involved alumni, we don't disregard the efforts of those involved with a team and a team name, but we don't see just a team and a team name either. We see a great institution that someone worked to improve for us and we're expected to do the same for those who follow.

I'd say I was pretty close with my assumption that the SBoHE was going after the whole process meaning Carlson's Folly was unconstitutional, as is the repeal of it (all aspects, meaning repeal of the Folly and the cooling-off period). Going after the June election seems unnecessary: If the law in question on the June ballot is unconstitutional, why vote on something that'll be stricken down immediately, other than to save the money on the election process.

Both sides here are claiming the other is making assumptions about outcomes. One side claims the other is assuming damage will happed to UND if the name is kept and sanctions for it come. However, there's ample evidence of that not being an assumption but a reality: loss of Iowa games, loss of Wisconsin games, Minnesota saying they won't schedule, the BSC commissioner saying they won't stand for a conference member on such sanctions, and even a former UND coach stating he's witnessed the effects. And finally, the NCAA has said the sanctions stand directly to the Governor of ND. The other side claims the first assumes Spirit Lake will win. Except, the NCAA has never lost in court. So who are you going to believe? The grand stories of assumed victory over the undefeated in court NCAA, or your own lying eyes as games come off schedules and even Coach Lennon may start using the name and sanctions against UND.

UND graduate Dave St. Peter runs the Twins, not the Vikings (and their Ragnar guy). Leave TC Bear at home.

If Carlson's Folly is unconstitutional, the repeal would be unconstitutional as if you don't have the power to make, you don't have the power to unmake. And if you have neither make nor unmake power, do you even have the power to put a hold on? If they toss out all of both law there's nothing to vote on in June.

Are we sure? I'd like to see the filing and exactly what they are challenging.

That's what I've been asking: If Carlson's Folly is unconstitutional, the repeal would be unconstitutional as if you don't have the power to make, you don't have the power to unmake. And if you have neither make nor unmake power do you even have the power to put a hold on the folks who do have make/unmake power?

" ... playing Russian roulette, but she loads all six ..." -- Billy Gibbons, Dusty Hill, and Frank Beard Now I'll have ZZ Top tunes running through my head the rest of the day.

So maybe they're saying if Carlson's Folly and the repeal of it laws are both striken, there's nothing to vote on in June.

Could they be referencing a "contracts clause" challenge to the proposed state constitutional amendment process? Or if the NDSC rules that the first law didn't exist and correspondingly the second law didn't exist, there's nothing to vote on in June. Or both?

Could that be a pre-emptive strike against the November ballot initiative (the proposed constitutional amendment) using Article I, Section 18 (contracts clause), by the SBoHE?

After Al Carlson's visit I figured the NCAA would be instituting this "exit policy" for UND moniker visitors clueless about the settlement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaQUjbc2-YU

And the filing has happened ... http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/351219/

That would slam things shut.

So apparently we need Roebuck to speak out to end the contract-leverage conspiracy theories.

If you were flying alone in your private Mitsubishi Zero I'd say go for it. However, this flight has passengers not looking to fly this thing into the ground.

You're really, truly expecting Mark Emmert and his minions to change their position. That expectation makes buying the winning PowerBall ticket look like a sure thing.

Surely his contract is up also.

Only if we can start calling you "Cartman".

Fuk-ushima'd.

Are you saying no one could honestly be that ( dense / obstenent / illogical )?

Sure, but there are some pretty conservative folks on that list also. So let's leave politics out of this. This is about looking out for UND or wanting to see it suffer under NCAA sanctions.

I'd say more like the kid that saw others burn their hand on the burner but just had to smell their own flesh on it too.

To me, still, O'Keefe is the most telling. He's UND through and through. He has a unique perspective. He can see into the inner workings but is beholden to no one in those workings. And he's in contact with key alumni. And he's reached the conclusion that the moniker has moved to the "net negative" category and should go. Lennon straight up stating what he's heard from recruits moves this into a whole new realm of the dangers to UND Athletics.

Some like Blais. Some like Gino. Some like Hak. I like that the Leinie's comes in sampler packs. And all those opinions mean exactly diddly-squat (except for mine).