The Sicatoka

That's three weeks old. And Kelley has no power in this anymore. It's been taken up by the ND SBoHE. He can only react.

You killed Kenny.

I've had to deal with media on a complex issue in the past. They get it exactly right about 30% of the time, close about 40% of the time, and the other 30% we'll assume something else happened.

Leave Don Henley, Glen Frey, et al, out of this.

The NDSC is the final arbitrator of constitutionality of state law.

You "lobby" respresentatives in a legislative body (and the lobbying usually involves $$$$$$$$). The NDSC looks at law (constitutional and statutory) and legal precedent and decides based on law and fact. The sides present briefs (documents pointing to law and precedent) to make their arguments. This ends Civics 101 today. Quiz tomorrow class.

Now you're starting to understand why I say the only, only remaining option is the SL case v. the NCAA. Why that? Because it's in FEDERAL court, not State court. And now you see why I say SL's efforts would all be best directed to that case and that case alone. (The NCAA doesn't have to regard ND State laws.) The NCAA won't respect anything other than a ruling from a Federal court. PS - Unfortunately, I see SL's chances in "SL v. NCAA" as about the same as UAA or MSU-Mankato winning the DI mens hockey title this year.

The only place the phrase "Divine Providence" belongs in any UND conversation is in reference to April 8, 2000.

The religious argument is a red herring. The SBoHE is claiming the Legislature passed an unconstitutional law. If that's law is unconstitutional, so it the law undoing it. And if both laws are unconstitutional, why hold an election to reinstate a law that isn't constitutional in the first place.

Read the actual response (not the GF Herald story): http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/doc02728320120306165213.pdf

Second Amendment? I was hoping they'd tie it into the Eighteenth and Twenty-first Amendments. Actually, those would have more applicability in this situation (creation and repeal of a law) than trying to create a "freedom of religion" fight.

So because it was given it must be used? Admit it: Did you see your dad wear that striped and polka-dot tie you gave him for Father's Day when you were seven? He kept it proudly, on the shelf.

I thought the original filing date deadline was March 2. When SL CUR was added to the case they (Soderstrom, their attorney) were given three additional (non-weekend) days to file briefs. Apparently we'll be seeing Soderstrom's filing tomorrow or he'll miss the bell.

All those are noble, worthy things. However, UND is not in a position to do any of those against the private (meaning they don't have to follow the First or Fourteenth Amendments) NCAA. As I've said before, find a way to get the NCAA declared a state actor and UND suddenly has a chance. Beyond that, UND has to protect UND first. Spirit Lake has to protect Spirit Lake first. Those paths diverge today. If they reconnect later, all the better. But I won't risk UND Athletics for the slim chance of that reconnection.

That one was miserable to witness. The outcome was decided ten minutes in. At least v. Michigan there was a chance to recover to the very end.

I still believe the NDSC will find the original law (and thus the repealing law) to be unconstitutional under the ND constitution. If that were to happen, why hold a vote to reinstate a law that is immediately defunct (unconstitutional)? Mentioning all this, when should we expect to hear from the NDSC on the suit filed by the ND SBoHE by the NDAG?

Seems that the ND Sec of State is aware of the obvious: 1. He can't declare things to be or not be constitutional. 2. His job is to validate signatures on petitions and if enough valid signatures exist put things on the ballot. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/231414/ The ND SBoHE didn't ask SecState Jaeger to not put the action on the ballot. They asked to Court to stop the action if they find the law it would reinstate is unconstitutional.

What the heck is that? It surely isn't a news article, and it's too short on facts and has too many "non-facts" (trying to avoid saying made up crap) to be an opinion piece. I'm thinking he went to a proctologist to retrieve that before submission.

Before Oriska, ND, Schools merged into the Maple Valley School District, they had a nickname that stood out. They were the FLICKERS. You had to look twice at that, didn't you.

Uh, you do realize the "Lame agreement" is between the State of North Dakota (by and through the ND SBoHE and UND) and the NCAA. The NCAA won't "get out of our way" on that. They are a full party to it. And the NCAA will enjoy slamming the sanctions on UND.

Would the travel party intend to hurt UND? No, but mistakes happen. But, I'm quite sure the NCAA intends to make an example of UND at first opportunity.

It's a free country in the public square. The NCAA is a private organization. They can make as arbitrary and capricious rules as they like in their private club.

First 12 games: 4-7-1 Last 23 games: 16-5-2 And those last 23 games have been with a smaller and smaller roster to work with. Either Hak can coach or he's better than Houdini.

Are happening. Not may. Are. If the women show up to their NCAA womens hockey tournament game against Minnesota this weekend with one, just one Sioux logo visible, or one visible word "Sioux" on any of their gear, or any jersey, or other gameday equipment, they are forfeited. And it's not just the team. It's the band. It's the cheerleaders. It's UND's official travel party (Athletic Dept. staffers on the trip) that this applies to. One slip-up by any one of that entire travel party (team, band, cheer team, staff) and it's "sorry Olympian Lamoureux twins, you're forfeited." And if forfeited, UND has to reimburse the NCAA for the costs of the NCAA bringing UND there. It's all spelled out in the letter from the NCAA to UND. Read it. Understand it. http://ndgoon.blogsp...caa-to-und.html And I'm willing to bet that the NCAA will have folks there looking for the first chance to prove the letter wasn't just a hollow threat.

Well, our former FB coach (won a DII title here, currently at Southern Illinois) Dale Lennon tells us that we're losing recruits because of the moniker issue because he's been told as much by recruits. Football players know that home NCAA playoff games are a big deal and under sanctions UND can not host (i.e. have a home) playoff game. That's more than "not wearing a jersey". That's losing home contests and losing recruits. And now toss in for good measure that the Big Sky Conference would reconsider our membership if we can't host home NCAA playoff games. That's the answer to "what other harm?" Actually, "BillVol", to put this into your neck of woods familiarity, the Big Sky could also consider doing what the SEC (Tennessee's conference) does to Mississippi and Mississippi State and South Carolina in not allowing home conference tournament games in the states of Mississippi and South Carolina, basically extending NCAA sanctions through and into conference operations. Nothing stops that from happening. (Note: in Miss. and SoCar cases it relates to Confederate flag usage in those states and the NCAA's disapproval of it.)