The Sicatoka

Wanless can suppose and speculate all he wants. I'll go with reality: The NCAA has put entire states (Mississippi, South Carolina) on some ruthless sanctions. They have done it. They can do it. They will do it. Squashing UND doesn't merit a second thought to them. And the Big Sky will not accept damaged goods (a program under sanctions) for the long haul. No one would.

The best hope is that the NDSC tosses out both Carlson's Folly and the repeal law along with it. That would eliminate the need for a vote in June. Then it's just one message ... maybe.

I was told the term is "Fargoners".

In-state status quo you mean. In the rest of the world, the reality has changed. UND lives both in and out of the state.

Ponder the following: Al Carlson vows to fight to keep a law that the Legislature itself decided needed to be repealed and did repeal overwhelmingly. How does that even make sense? It only makes sense from the standpoint that it triggered the constitutional crisis that Al wanted all along.

The SBoHE (part of the executive branch) has been granted certain administrative powers and authorities under the State constitution. Other branches of government can't violate those powers. The NDSC will determine if that has happened. As far as drastic consequences, yes, there may be. We may end up back in the overly political realm where the Legislature micromanages the NDUS campuses. That gives Al Carlson and Rob Port extreme priapism when they ponder it.

At risk of repeating iramurphy and ScottM, all that matters is the signed settlement agreement between the State of ND (by and through the SBHE and UND) and the NCAA. In that it says get approval from the TRIBAL COUNCILS (not a vote, Council approval) at SL and SR or face sanctions ... and also be subject to the "best practices" portion of the agreement. Best practices? What's that? That's where in addition to sanctions (no hosting post-season, no name, no logo at NCAA events) the NCAA can sabotage and subvert you with the membership by reminding the members (continually) that you're under sanction and not in the favor or good graces of the NCAA home office and that schools following "best practices" have "we don't schedule teams under sanction" policies ... like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. It's clear that message has been delivered to the Big Sky by the NCAA. (And the Big Sky gets a big check from the NCAA MBB tournament annually, bigger than anything UND can deliver to them.) It's insideous. It's the NCAA. And it's the way it is. And it can't be changed unless you take over control of the NCAA.

Those pesky, pesky facts ...

Others think it's the ND SBoHE. The NDSC will decide. Why? Their party. Their rules. As arbitrary and capricous as they may be. They. Don't. Care. That's the message they gave directly to Al Carlson et al this summer, in person. Their party. Their rules. No. Wait. That's not wholly accurate. UND is part of the NCAA, so its our rules. When the full NCAA voted on the issue (to give the NCAA Executive Committee power to create and enforce this policy) UND and a few others voted "no" but a vast majority of the membership voted "yes".

Why would UND choose to play with one arm tied behind its back? Being on sanctions is playing (be it on the court, trying to schedule, or trying to recruit) with one arm tied behind your back.

Seriously? Who?

You're focused on hockey. Ask Coach Mussman and his staff what recruits ask about. It's conference and playoffs.

I'm guessing the SBoHE didn't challenge Carlson's Folly as the time it was passed because the Legislature was voting on budgets and expenditures at the time.

Good question. But wouldn't the SBoHE and UND be in the best position to do a cost comparison analysis between "no logo" and its impact versus "on NCAA sanctions"? Surely the Supreme Court wouldn't try to do such an analysis.

I would hope in challenging the constitutionality of Carlson's Folly the SBoHE would also challenge the constitutionality of the law repealing it. If the Legislature didn't have the power to make the first law (Carlson's Folly) surely they didn't have the power to make the second law (repeal of Carlson's Folly and the "cooling off" requirement).

I think you mean Faison, O'Keefe, Kelley, but who the heck is Dahl?

Choosing Path A or Path B in the settlement is not violation of the settlement as long as the one who chose the path had the power to make the choice.

I believe it's 4 of 5 to overturn (declare unconstitutional) a state law.

The SBoHE is suing on a State issue in State court. SL is suing in Federal court. Different process. Different rules.

For those of you who haven't read Tim O'Keefe's letter:

I'm surprised one of the media jackals ( © Jesse Ventura ) isn't live blogging on it.

Anyone have video of the MacWilliam hit on Hendrickson that Brad Schlossman mentioned in his blog?

I'm not a lawyer, but there's some interesting reading here under "The Contract Clause Since Blaisdell". "Succinctly, there is more scrutiny when the government modifies a contract to alter its own obligations."

Section 18. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed. The response to I.18 will be that the contract is not impaired, meaning that it can be folllowed through (under the 'sanctions' portion). So the question I have is this: Is a contract impared if it gives two options and only one is impaired?

I was going to ask how Hoeven created an oil reserve but I figured the answer involved Budweiser and a late-night visit to Taco Bell.