The Sicatoka

And some high profile, respected UND alumni, such as a couple former governors (Schafer, Olson) and such.

UND can continue on strongly short or long term without the moniker. SL can continue on strongly with their case. Two parallel paths that may or may not reunite. But parallel paths that coexist ... except in some (far Fetch-ed) universes.

You really think you have more UND or "Fighting Sioux" credibility than Tim (hockey letterwinner) O'Keefe. If so, seek help.

Complain about Faison. Complain about Kelley. Complain about Grant Shaft about the ND SBoHE. Complain about the NCAA. Tell me how you can argue or complain with the "UND credentials" (or even "Fighting Sioux" credentials) of a third generation (his kids are fourth generation) UND graduate, letterwinner as a UND athlete, and man entrusted to lead the UND Alumni Association. Go ahead, try to tell me he's "anti-moniker". The man, Tim O'Keefe, is laying it out as it is. Tim's a pragmatist. He's done the cost/benefit analysis and when he's saying this clear "Sioux" is now a cost, not a benefit. And don't forget who is son-in-law is. Tim knows what he's doing. Tim is protecting his first precious gift, the University of North Dakota, and is also protecting all aspects of it, including mens hockey. http://www.grandfork...group/homepage/ Thank you Tim O'Keefe. Another check is in the mail.

I just heard Brian Faison raise some excellent questions: - without Big Sky Conference, how, as a football independent do you schedule games? Everyone else in FCS is in a conference now. UND doesn't have the money to pay that many guarantee games - without Big Sky Conference, how would UND be able to schedule 24 plus MBB and WBB games? There are only 3 other independents so that leaves that many to schedule. I heard the replay of Doug Fullerton. He's not bluffing. Why would he and his group of schools want to take on this albatross? They'll cut UND loose before they have to deal with it. It's their party. They can and will. And the NCAA brass would sit back with popcorn and watch.

What about hosting NCAA post-season football? Womens hockey? You'd throw them under the bus for a cartoon. The sanctions are real, UND is under them, and they will be a negative impact to UND. First witness: Womens hockey.

... and they love applying punishments to those they deem worthy of their ire.

Hak is as jammed up as anyone else right now. Say "keep it" and he is effectively screwing every other of his coaching peers and athletic program at UND, including womens hockey, and ultimately his own when his calls to Minneapolis and Madison to schedule games go unanswered. Say "lose it" and the Chewey/Fetch/DaveK/ksixpack mindset will call for his head for not being for the name at all costs.

You don't. Sioux County is not Standing Rock Tribal Council. SRTC is who has to approve to the NCAA, not some ND voter tally.

Scott, Philly, If the contract clauses is the better tactic, is that for just this first issue (reinstatement of Carlson's Folly), or would it apply to the drive to amend the ND Constitution as well?

If UND is under NCAA sanctions UND Is damaged goods. Do you accept damaged goods? You ship them back.

Would you want to be in a club where 10 of the members wanted you out and only one wanted you? To your question, Dr. Kelley got us into the Big Sky --> Effective. If Carlson's Folly gets us kicked out, what's Al Carlson?

I wondered why the ND SBoHE didn't constitutionally challenge Carlson's Folly when it first appeared and passed. Since then a wise man has pointed out to me that, at the time, it would be a direct attack by the SBoHE against the Legislature while the Legislature was reviewing and approving appropriations for the NDUS. Not good. Roll the clock forward to today: The Legislature itself has reversed Carlson's Folly and pulled it off the books. But Carlson's Folly has returned due to the petitioners' actions. Now if the SBoHE raises a constitutional challenge to strike down Carlson's Folly they can look at the Legislature and say, "All we did is follow suit to your action to kill the (Carlson's Folly) law." That's a much better position for the SBoHE to be in come next legislative session.

Like I said when Carlson's Folly first appeared, attempting to reneg on a legal contract (the settlement between State of North Dakota and the NCAA) is poor form and not how North Dakotans do business.

Some folks just don't understand "hot" until they put their hand on the (NCAA sanctions) burner. And those same folks will be the first ones to complain that a burned hand doesn't work like it did before.

And because Florida State is not on the NCAA "hostile and abusive" list because FSU has all their required tribal approvals.

Would the NCAA change their policy to that? I daren't predict because I could have never imagined being here. But stranger has happened ... My great fear is many will vote to screw UND over without regard for the larger ramifications to the entire State. I'd like to see them have skin in the game before a vote. However, it won't happen. NCAA doesn't move that fast. But I'd prefer it if everyone voting really did have skin in the game.

You're one who would vote no because you see the harm. (Wise and not short-sighted you are.) Other NDSU fans would vote yes to spitefully harm UND. If it's a statewide vote, shouldn't we all have skin in the game?

Ole Miss and Miss State didn't want to be dragged into the Confederate flag issue in their state either. Blame the utopian idealism of the NCAA.

As I heard a wise man say once, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

That must be NDSU math. If the best leave, the UND and NDSU median relative to the state's median should go down. However, if the state's best are leaving, and UND and NDSU are holding par to the state average, that should be the result of: UND and NDSU attacting talented non-ND folks to bring their averages back up to the state's average (call it "make up for the losses"). Or your statement that the "state's best students leave" is just plain in err.

There’s a law on the books in Mississippi that says the Confederate flag must be in the state flag. Mississippi state law. And for it, the NCAA will never allow an NCAA tournament game in the state. The SEC followed suit, so Ole Miss and Miss State never can host SEC or NCAA post season events in Mississippi. If North Dakota puts a law onto its books, shouldn’t the whole state of ND have to pay the price? Happened to Mississippi, and to South Carolina (another Confederate flag issue). There are lots of NDSU fans out there who’d love to vote yes and screw UND. If the NCAA had “state law – state sanctions” as the enforcement policy for the moniker policy (which they can do because it's their private association) it would give many anti-UND voters pause as they’d also be screwing every other NCAA member in the state, namely, U of Mary, Minot State, and NDSU. The NCAA doing that would allow them a chance to flex their "we know better" muscles on this moniker policy issue again. And we know they love that. So if I were counselling the NCAA I'd tell them, "If no state law, sanctions on violating school only. If state law, it was put in by the State, so punish the State." And the NCAA has the Mississippi and South Carolina precedents to point to if they do it.

Love to see it happen. Won't be holding my breath. Others have had far better cause and lost against that monolith.

Honestly, I hope the NCAA says "No". They, the NCAA, have a legal settement agreement with the State of North Dakota. The State of North Dakota. The NCAA doesn't have to do any favors to anything North Dakota, like letting any ND city benefit from hosting an NCAA playoff game. The NCAA's agreement is with the State. The NCAA needs to remind the State of that.

I prefer the term poseur.