The Sicatoka

Right there in bold is the crux of this conversation. And right there is why I'm suspicious of a Fargo representative bringing it.

1. It says "Sioux" in the endzones of Alerus Center. That is the same as a logo in the eyes of the NCAA. 2. The sanctions are against the school, not its facilities. As it stands now, UND, if it keeps "Sioux", would not be allowed to host even if they spraypainted the end zones green* in The Al. 3. The net effect would be wholesale banning from UND's home fields as UND would not be allowed to host as the "Sioux". * comment here about turf being same as school colors ala Boise State and EWU.

Derek wears #3. Brad wears #33.

I watched some of the Red Menace of the West versus Goldie this weekend on the channel surf. They just didn't seem to have energy. They were disinterested against the border battle rival. I see UND, DU, UMD, and UNO in the top four. UM has the best schedule to finish fifth (MTU, @BSU). I suspect CC and UW will be battling it out at Kohl the last weekend for the last home ice and probably the right to host a CC/UW opening round playoff series.

Actually, ... I believe if what you say happens (UND 39 pts), and CC gets a point or more at home v. UMD (making UMD's max 39), and UNO/DU split or UNO gets 3 points max (making DU's max 39 and UNO's max 38 or 39) ... ... well, figure out what to watch Sunday afternoon ... Basically, most simply, hope for CC getting at least a point and a DU/UNO split (or UNO with W&T). But it all hinges on UND sweeping. Control what's yours to control boys. Then go for a skate.

I thought Brad (33) was in SC. Older brother Derek (3) is the "gold standard".

They were, ... Friday night by Gophers.

I would too, but haven't figured out of what calibre cannon for that situation.

Wait a minute here: At the SCSU mens game the official was sure SCSU had scored off the cross bar. He pointed. Yet he reviewed and the replay showed the entire puck didn't cross the line. No goal. At the UM womens game the official was sure UM had scored off a crease scrum. He pointed. Yet this guy doesn't review a melee in the crease? I could see the kick on the overhead replay on cable. So could 2888 in the rink. C'mon. Seriously. If you have the technology in place, use it. What kind of monkeys are running the WCHA and its officials? What's that you say? Bruce McLeod and Greg Shepherd? Nevermind ...

You gave a great answer. Allow me to give the shorter version. MONEY. Another DI member means slicing the revenue pie another way. And we can't that that because the NCAA is really all about mone... ,er, ... {mind control kicks in} ... I mean the student-athlete ...

If memory serves, there was some question back in August 2005 (when this policy came out) as to the NCAA Executive Committee having authority to make this moniker policy. Only later did the full NCAA legislative assembly (meaning all members) vote to actually give the power the Executive Committee claimed to it. Seems folks overstepping what is in constitutions (be it the NCAA or State of ND) is an ongoing theme in this.

Aren't Leigh Jeanotte and his crew the experts on that?

Because I've been a student of the tactics of the politically correct since a $5 million donation was given to UND to support hockey in the late 1980s. It's the same group using the same (all too predictable) tactics. I'll say it again folks: If it's going to change, demand, DEMAND, to be part of a truly open and transparent process or you'll get caught with some pablum like "Spirit" or "Whooping Cranes". Control what is yours to control. Like they keep telling us ... We are North Dakota ... so we control what's ours to control and we pick the new moniker, not some mystery process.

If there's even one of those done.

Here's what we know: At some undetermined time, UND will select "...a new identity around which the entire University of North Dakota community can rally..." "The specific approach to choosing a new nickname and logo has not yet been developed." "President Kelley will decide when and how to implement the process and, ultimately, will choose the University’s new nickname and logo." Does what we know fill you with great hope that your opinion will matter?

But, you admit, it is a possibility. It would be nice if UND was treated equally and equitably compared to Florida State, Utah, and Central Michigan, where in each case only the support of one (nearest) tribe was required.

No. The NCAA has another option: Kick UND out of its organization.

And I'm still suspicious of Carlson. He's a Fargo guy. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if his mindset set is "If it hurts UND (like NCAA sanctions or worse), it helps NDSU." And step back from the NCAA for a second. Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires Team X, Y, or Z to schedule UND. UND could face scheduling problems because X, Y, and Z all have someone else in mind for that date (or some other convenient excuse not to schedule a team called "Fighting Sioux").

You "Spirit" conspiracy theorists out there, you may be onto something:

Isn't it clever how UND avoids answering this question? It only says that when UND decides to choose a new nickname, it will tell you about the process it used. It doesn't say that anyone outside of UND will be part of that process. " ... the process ... is implemented ... will be announced to UND students, staff, faculty, alumni, and friends." They'll tell us the process after it's been decided. Dare I translate that? I'll try ... ...when we want your opinion, we'll give it to you.

Well, here it comes, or at least the first stepping stone on the path: http://nickname.und.edu/logo/?page_id=503 So, who decides what a " ... manner that is respectful ... " is?

Someone will end their season on four game road winning streak. That is all.

OK, I'm not Perry Mason. Heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So which of these is accurate?

So what exactly does the Legislature expect to accomplish with this? First, does the Legislature expect the NCAA to back down when it's told the ND State Legislature of ND has made "Fighting Sioux" state law? Seriously? The NCAA is so full of itself that it'll scoff at the folks in Bismark. Book it. And I'm really confused by the bolded sentence. " ... shall consider ... "? Hey, if you're doing this, it'd better be for more than "shall consider". And mksioux is right: The anti-trust angle was already dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement. There is one angle in this that hasn't been tried, and should have been long ago: First Amendment. The NCAA is a "public actor" when it comes to intercollegiate athetlics (as there is no governmental intercollegiate regulating body). Try as it will to claim it is a private organization it is still made up of many, many public entities receiving state and federal funding. How will judges view a conglomeration of public entities trying to stifle free speech? At this point, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry ...