The Sicatoka

Folks, this is no longer about monikers or respecting tribal wishes. That's long gone. This is about the NCAA having a signed agreement and the NCAA flexing their muscles. Pure and simple. We can argue about how we got here and what could've gone differently, but it won't change that fact. This is about the NCAA having a signed agreement and the NCAA flexing their muscles.

"Simply put, it will possibly diminish our hockey program slowly over time. In my opinion, it would be extremely damaging to all of our other sports on campus in the near future.'' -- Dave Hakstol, speaking about what happens if the moniker is kept

Especially when his gift (quoting) was intended to benefit "UND Athletics".

You keep using that misnomer. Leigh Jeanotte and his ilk (the 'notte-heads) are "name changers". You may refer to me (and I'm assuming '82, ira, ScottM, et al) as Pragmatists: we don't want to change the name, but changing it is the lesser or two evils. You want the name even if the impacts (sanctions) kill the UND Athletic department: Moniker or die. North Dakota Hockey fans will keep coming out. What are you.

You really are quite delusional, aren't you.

Another name for Mjolnir, the War Hammer? Maul. "Let's go Maul" or "Maul 'em" kind of has a ring to it.

Previously discussed way back in this thread. Personally? Pass.

Back in 2006 and 2007, SL and SR could have been good, helpful neighbors. They weren't. And that tells me all I need to know. (SL's trying now, but it's an effort I don't expect to succeed in court.) But all that is water under the bridge. The past is the past. What we have now is the settlement agreement. Any other document is of no consequence. The settlement says "keep the name and suffer sanctions" or "drop the name and no sanctions". That is all.

Altitude. Short bench for UND. (Healthy scratch? What's that?) DU still having a shot at the two slot in the standings (first round bye at Final Five). If you offered a split right now and the team didn't have to travel I'd only ask where to sign.

To my recollection, UND only needed a positive affirmation from one tribe. It's only after UND sued that the settlement agreement called out for two tribes. I'm not surprised the NCAA put in a two tribes requirement. How charitable would you feel after you'd been sued? As to what standard the NCAA is using? Seriously? Which ever one they decide upon. It's their party. They aren't a government entity. They're a private club. Sad, but reality. Read all about the folks who've tried (and failed) to defeat the NCAA in court: http://www.shawlegal...rtsLawPaper.pdf By the way, that document is over 10 years old, and still no one has knocked down the undefeated (in court) champion NCAA.

You don't seem to understand the UND Alumni Association, what or why it is. Here's some help: http://www.undalumni.org/

I'm hoping he was "bit" by the Mad Dog 20/20.

It's a 24-page thread. You're late to the party.

Age? "Slow"? I'd say it's time to turn the screw cap back onto the Mad Dog 20/20.

This is good 108498. Get the emotion out. It the only way you'll be able to deal with a terrible situation pragmatically. PS - I can plainly admit I dealt with the emotional aspect in 2000. I expected the name to go back then.

This is a repeat of another thread. I'm locking this.

Involved alumni, we don't disregard the efforts of those involved with a team and a team name, but we don't see just a team and a team name either. We see a great institution that someone worked to improve for us and we're expected to do the same for those who follow.

I'd say I was pretty close with my assumption that the SBoHE was going after the whole process meaning Carlson's Folly was unconstitutional, as is the repeal of it (all aspects, meaning repeal of the Folly and the cooling-off period). Going after the June election seems unnecessary: If the law in question on the June ballot is unconstitutional, why vote on something that'll be stricken down immediately, other than to save the money on the election process.

Both sides here are claiming the other is making assumptions about outcomes. One side claims the other is assuming damage will happed to UND if the name is kept and sanctions for it come. However, there's ample evidence of that not being an assumption but a reality: loss of Iowa games, loss of Wisconsin games, Minnesota saying they won't schedule, the BSC commissioner saying they won't stand for a conference member on such sanctions, and even a former UND coach stating he's witnessed the effects. And finally, the NCAA has said the sanctions stand directly to the Governor of ND. The other side claims the first assumes Spirit Lake will win. Except, the NCAA has never lost in court. So who are you going to believe? The grand stories of assumed victory over the undefeated in court NCAA, or your own lying eyes as games come off schedules and even Coach Lennon may start using the name and sanctions against UND.

UND graduate Dave St. Peter runs the Twins, not the Vikings (and their Ragnar guy). Leave TC Bear at home.

If Carlson's Folly is unconstitutional, the repeal would be unconstitutional as if you don't have the power to make, you don't have the power to unmake. And if you have neither make nor unmake power, do you even have the power to put a hold on? If they toss out all of both law there's nothing to vote on in June.

Are we sure? I'd like to see the filing and exactly what they are challenging.

That's what I've been asking: If Carlson's Folly is unconstitutional, the repeal would be unconstitutional as if you don't have the power to make, you don't have the power to unmake. And if you have neither make nor unmake power do you even have the power to put a hold on the folks who do have make/unmake power?

" ... playing Russian roulette, but she loads all six ..." -- Billy Gibbons, Dusty Hill, and Frank Beard Now I'll have ZZ Top tunes running through my head the rest of the day.

So maybe they're saying if Carlson's Folly and the repeal of it laws are both striken, there's nothing to vote on in June.