The Sicatoka

Choosing Path A or Path B in the settlement is not violation of the settlement as long as the one who chose the path had the power to make the choice.

I believe it's 4 of 5 to overturn (declare unconstitutional) a state law.

The SBoHE is suing on a State issue in State court. SL is suing in Federal court. Different process. Different rules.

For those of you who haven't read Tim O'Keefe's letter:

I'm surprised one of the media jackals ( © Jesse Ventura ) isn't live blogging on it.

Anyone have video of the MacWilliam hit on Hendrickson that Brad Schlossman mentioned in his blog?

I'm not a lawyer, but there's some interesting reading here under "The Contract Clause Since Blaisdell". "Succinctly, there is more scrutiny when the government modifies a contract to alter its own obligations."

Section 18. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed. The response to I.18 will be that the contract is not impaired, meaning that it can be folllowed through (under the 'sanctions' portion). So the question I have is this: Is a contract impared if it gives two options and only one is impaired?

I was going to ask how Hoeven created an oil reserve but I figured the answer involved Budweiser and a late-night visit to Taco Bell.

To the green part: No. (The answer is what you say: " ... enable him to take a shot at the SBoHE.") To the red part: EPIC FAIL by him.

Wouldn't Tim just stop by Dave's house to visit his grandkids and talk to Dave?

The GF Herald articles from last week mentioned that O'Keefe would be contacting via email various leaders around the state (at the state, county, city, and town levels) with his message about how we've reached the point where the Sioux moniker is a detriment and needs to go. Has anyone received one of those yet and is willing to share?

I haven't given UND leadership a pass on every issue. See Caleb Warner matter, and many others. Bullying? Seriously? If statements of fact or opinion is bullying then we have a major problem. (PS - Love your passive aggressive tactic. ) And I can state quite assuredly, no Bison fan, no fan, has been banned from here for being "condescending" (by your usage) or for commenting in each topic.

I agree with you 100%. However, people need to lay off Kelley and Faison. When there was still a chance to save the name the man in the best position to negotiate with the Tribes and the NCAA was conspicuously absent in person, but maybe not action: John Hoeven.

Why are people so upset with Kelley and Faison? The power, the decisions, were never theirs. The ND SBoHE took control of the issue in 2000 (and many of us cheered then). When it came time to deal with the NCAA the SBoHE gave Kupchella power to sue the NCAA but then the SBoHE took over the negotiations when the SBoHE decided to settle out of court. Then-chancellor Goetz led the settlement negotiations for the Board with AG Stenejhem representing the State as a whole. And whose marching orders were those two under? Well, Goetz had been then-Governor Hoeven's chief of staff and Hoeven and Stenejhem were both Rs. Basically, the then-Governor of ND, John Hoeven, had Goetz and Stenejhem settle. And now Senator Hoeven, a man who could launch Congressional (Federal) hearings about the NCAA and its possible status as a monopoly (anti-trust) is mysteriously silent, again. So leave Faison, Kelley, and even Kupchella out of this. It was taken out of their hands. Go see the man who could've made a difference. Hoeven. John Hoeven. The Dartmouth Indi... ,er , I mean Dartmouth Big Green alumnus. Any questions?

Bottom line, If the situation has reached the point where Tim O'Keefe has said the consequences are too dire, it's time. I don't care who you are or what "cred" you claim, you really can't trump Tim: member of four generation UND family, hockey letterwinner, VP of the Alumni Association and Foundation. Remember, Tim O'Keefe is the guy who, when SCSU created their "can't say 'Sioux' on our campus" policy checked his hockey broadcast (color guy) microphone by saying, "Fighting Sioux, Fighting Sioux, FIGHTING SIOUX!" Tim O'Keefe has come to the conclusion that the name has to go for the best interests of UND. Tim O'Keefe. Name someone, anyone, living, who's more "Mr. UND." Someone in the room I'm in just tried "Earl Strinden" on me. Remember the earlier letter from past UNDAA&F presidents saying it was time for the name to go? Earl signed onto that. Try again.

Like I said somewhere else, this has made some strange bedfellows. REA was suiting to keep "save the name" petitions off their site. Long time Sioux fans will be voting to retire the name to protect UND

" ... from now on ... " is a misstatement. They can not wear a jersey with the logo in the NCAA tournament (assuming they make it). It's the NCAA's event, and yes, the NCAA can control that.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa have "if you're on the NCAA naughty moniker list we won't play you" policies. Nothing is stopping others schools, be they DI, DII, DIII, (all NCAA) from doing the same. South Dakota State has made such noise. Others will follow, especially if it puts them in the good graces of the NCAA.

And here I thought they ripped off Buffalo or the U of Manitoba

When it comes to tribal issues, I'll listen to Frank Black Cloud. He's on the inside of the tribes. When it comes to UND issues, I'll listen to Tim O'Keefe. He's on the inside of UND and paid to look out for UND first.

Under state law, even if a constitutional amendment passes it can be overridden by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the Legislature. ND Constitution, Article III, Section 8:

Your pink girlfriend wishes you'd leave her out of this.

It is sad when an NDSU fan is doing more to look out for UND Athletics than some here.

The ND SBoHE is a leasee of the hockey arena facility. What the state did in naming the arena is the equivalent of passing a law stating my home shall be known as "Casa Sicatoka" under state law. The ND SBoHE would have nothing to say about that either. But "Casa Sicatoka" does have a nice ring ...