The Sicatoka

Dang. I'd have thought they'd have planned ahead better.

If you are on the North American continent and less than 500 miles from an ocean there's just this blob of open land in the middle of the continent that really doesn't matter. Hence, eh, North, South, whatever Dakota. It's nothin'. So don't let stories like this surprise you.

Folks were saying before that the state law regarding the moniker was in violation of the state constitution. Well, that allegedly unconstitutional law is active again this morning. The ND SBoHE apparently (if you believe the unconstitutional claim) had it's state constitutional power usurped, again, by the moniker law (or as I like to call it, Carlson's Folly). I'm betting that by close of business today, Feb 8, 2012, the ND SBoHE will file suit claiming that the state law is in violation of the state constitution and thus is void. Takers?

Numbers, dates, details, all in the link.

Good to hear there's no profit for Soderstrom angle to this. But ScottM's prior point still exists: Soderstrom working to get the petitions in place to restore the State law actually harms his client's (SL's) case as the power goes to the State and is taken from SL.

Amazing what one can find online ... http://www.nd.gov/sos/forms/pdf/initiating.pdf Starting at page 5, "Gathering Signatures", explains what should have happened up to now, what has to happen by midnight, and what happens after that as far as the Secretary of State's office is concerned.

Just thinking out loud here: Did Soderstrom realize that if the petitions are there it undermines his case in Federal court (and a lot of possible billable hours)? If the petitions are there, the SL case loses key footing. If the petitions aren't there Soderstrom can pressure his clients to pay to accelerate their case.

The VNL.com story has been updated with ... One guy says they have 15k signatures. Their attorney says he's not as confident? Attorney speak? Or does Soderstrom know something about some of the petitions?

It's the same academic mindset (trying to create utopias) in this as there is running the NCAA. Oh, wait, it's the same group of academic elitists. Not Surprised.

Maybe renovating the defunct logos out of and off of the facility? That'd be long-range and a capital cost.

They're 6-2-1 (7-2 if you count the shoot-out win as a win) since starting to wear these at home ... and they're smiling. I'm guessing they'd like to wear those and be home if they earn that right (rather than be subject to the NCAA moniker policy and be on the road).

I wonder what folks will say and do when the UND womens hockey team earns a home first-round NCAA playoff series but is denied it by the NCAA because of the NCAA moniker policy and this petition putting UND back under sanction of it.

http://www.valleynew...have-signatures Seems we may be live witnesses to what UND will do. I'm guessing this will be a more thorough than usual "thorough process".

Is it true that you don't buy green bananas?

You mean the Julie Evans that won't ever be on Caleb Warner's Christmas card list?

That's my point. You have 16 year old kids playing against 20 years olds (some with 9 games in the NHL) and the 16 year old is considered a professional because of the 20 year old's experience?

One simple change I'd like to see: If a kid has played in the CHL (meaning the WHL, OHL, or QMJHL) and has not yet reached their 19th birthday they are still eligible for NCAA hockey without any sanction. I pick that because if they aren't 19 yet they'd still be in high school if they hadn't gone off to play junior hockey. Currently the NCAA views kids playing in the CHL as "getting benefits" or "being a professional" and thus they face sanction if they want to play in the NCAA. I wonder how many CHL players would like to leave the CHL for college after having gotten a taste of it for a year or two at 16 or 17 but can't. Also, that change would also give pause to CHL teams looking to pluck guys from NCAA rosters.

I'm not seeing the rest of the conference agree to a non-US tournament site.

Our resident college hockey reporter, BE Schlossman of the GF Herald, has a nice article about the possible changes to recruiting in college hockey. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/228555/

The team will wear the pre-1/1/2012 jerseys until the new, post-1/1/2012 jerseys are available (late February). As far as the "band jersey" I'll cut them slack if they really were that rushed.

Why should you? Your team will be in the NCHC.

We're into February and UND's mens hockey team is supposed to be sporting their post-January 1, 2012 jerseys soon as the prior statements all said "end of February". There must be tight security around this because we haven't seen a leaked image of the design yet. I'm surprised.

If looking for something centered in their new footprint, the post-2013 WCHA should look at the Resch Center in Green Bay.

I'd worry about that until I see Alabama, Mississippi, LSU, FSU, Iowa, and Maryland in the top 10 also.

Seems DU and CC are headed for OT, OK?