The Sicatoka

That is correct. I am the lone and sole decider. PS - There is a thread for this in the Sioux Name forum. I'm closing this one.

Take it back. Take that back right now.

I hate the NCAA. But do you know what the best revenge against the NCAA is? Continuing to be successful, heck, becoming more successful, even after their little vendetta against certain monikers.

Folks, Earl Strinden, yes, Earl Strinden, Ralph's long-time friend, and member of the REA board of directors, voted YES on Measure 4 to retire the moniker. That bears stating again. Earl Strinden advocated retirement of the moniker at the end. And Earl and Ralph aren't all that different.

So you speak the Siouxan dialects? sica means wicked or evil toka means foe or adversary

Hill. Larious.

Denied. Next question.

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.