The Sicatoka

Q: Who Should Get to Vote on the New Name? A: Me, and me alone.

I still like the Reapers. It's a nod to the state's ag history. It's a nod to the MQ-9s going in at GFAFB. And the black jerseys would be a whole-lotta fun.

That HS being in Ft. Collins I suspect the "lambkins" moniker they use is a play off of the Colorado State Rams being in town. (A lambkin is a young lamb and Rams have Lambs.) It's like Ames, IA, is home to the Iowa State Cyclones and the Ames HS Little Cyclones. That's why I say Rough Riders wouldn't be all bad for UND. (GFRRHS could be known as the Young Riders.)

The unofficial motto of SEC football? If ya ain't cheatin' ya ain't tryin'. I want every advantage within the rules (plus as many others as you can get away with ).

This is definitely not the time people should be excluded from an important decision.

Every legislative district (except one that hasn't reported yet, District 37, part of Dickinson) voted YES. See it here: http://results.sos.n...TY&districtLG=1 If this somehow ends up back in front of the Legislature that should be a pretty clear message to the Legislators on what to do.

The SL CUR's fight is with the NCAA. I wish them well as I'm sure many other do, but I also wish them to keep UND out of their line of fire during their battle with the NCAA.

I believe it becomes basically "the Board can retire it" (they'll do that immediately) and the other part of it is the clause that no new moniker can be official taken until 1/1/2015.* *That last part is foolish. Why let the spectre hang around and continue to cause the undercurrent.

Those are the District 41 numbers. I typo'd. I'll fix it. Thanks. Here is the raw data by district: http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsCTY.aspx?text=BQ&type=SW&rid=285&cty=0&osn=915&map=CTY&districtLG=1 By county: http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsCTY.aspx?text=BQ&type=SW&rid=285&osn=915&map=CTY

In an email to Tim O'Keefe after the Fargo Forum polling showed Yes at 56% I told him to not get complacent. He said he wanted 67% Yes or more. I didn't think he could pull it off. Looks like he might.

I do believe Rep. Al Carlson represents District 41 (part of south Fargo). If we are to view Measure 4 as somewhat of a referendum on Al after his "Carlson's Folly" law, Al's in trouble in his home district. They're more "yes" than the rest of the State. District 41 Yes 1991 (74.74) No 673 (25.26%)

Precisely. If anywhere had free reign to vote the "moral way" (according to some) it was Sioux County.

To all those who were banking on using Sioux County to claim to the NCAA that Standing Rock really really approves after all ... all I can say is "oops."

I doubt you'll see anything before 8 pm (CDT).

Like I said in another thread, they didn't have any implementation plan with Measure 2 so that turned me off. Plus, if they're worried about Bismarck (the State) having too much money why not eliminate the income tax? Income taxes go to Bismarck. The vast majority of property taxes stay with the local taxing entities.

Allow me to respectfully disagree and here's why: Twenty years ago the average WCHA game had 9 total goals scored. Today it is roughly half that number with about 5 total goals per game scored. (Brad Schlossman of the Herald has done the analysis in the past.) In a game with 9 goals a fluke goal is 11% of the scoring. In a game with 5 goals a fluke goal is 20% of the scoring. Put another way, in today's game a single fluke goal in a game is twice as likely to decide the outcome as it was 20 years ago. I guess I'd like to see the game be more likely decided by skill and less likely decided by bad ice spots or "funny" spots in the boards or glass.

Really? Really? C'mon Herd ... USD had a Big Sky invitation, right along side UND, but instead got coerced and manuvered into going where SDSU was. Now tell me again who separated from whom.

Honestly, if Patrick Elias hadn't piped that shot late in the first it may have been a game. But, instead of 3-1 to start the second, it's 4-0 Kings a couple minutes into the second and it was done.

Regarding the MVFC, weren't some concessions recently, when USD was added, made to the eastern schools in that league, specifically that schedules would have to be set up so that (for example) Indiana State would only have to travel to just one of Dakota schools (NDSU, SDSU, USD) each season. I believe at least one other MVFC got that same concession. The "why" behind it was that Indiana State didn't have the travel budget to make two trips to the Dakotas per season. Given that, tell me exactly how Indiana State would look upon adding UND and effectively force themselves into two trips to the Dakotas per season. The eastern wing of the MVFC doesn't like going to the far western hinterlands (Fargo, Brookings, Vermillion) now. They'd really want to add going to Grand Forks too? I guess I'm what you'd call skeptical of that.

If Target Center spends the money to improve itself as a hockey venue, you have to figure they're going to try to get more hockey events than just this one weekend.

Brad Schlossman of the GF Herald just put out: NCHC release says Target Center contract is for five years. Release doesn't talk about opt out (not surprisingly).

Has that happened before?

This is approval for construction, contingent upon having construction funding in place.

The new rules: No hand passes - http://insidehockey.com/ncaa-rules-all-hand-passes-illegal Net dislodgement - http://insidehockey.com/ncaa-rules-net-dis-lodgement-change I like the change regarding the net coming off. The change to the hand pass rule to make it different from other level? Silly. And to claim it's to increase scoring? Sillier. If more scoring is what they want I can increase scoring tomorrow. I'd shrink the allowable sizes for goalie gloves and blockers.

Your assessment of Option 3 is correct. I heard once about a skyway over 6th Ave N that would connect the two if a new building were to come to pass. As far as soccer, remember, there's a facilities master plan floating around out there somewhere that would put a soccer field field east of a proposed second parking ramp which would be located east of the existing ramp and on the east side of Columbia Road. (That area is currently the parking lot north of Memorial and old REA.)