The Sicatoka

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.

To the green part: No. (The answer is what you say: " ... enable him to take a shot at the SBoHE.") To the red part: EPIC FAIL by him.

Wouldn't Tim just stop by Dave's house to visit his grandkids and talk to Dave?

The GF Herald articles from last week mentioned that O'Keefe would be contacting via email various leaders around the state (at the state, county, city, and town levels) with his message about how we've reached the point where the Sioux moniker is a detriment and needs to go. Has anyone received one of those yet and is willing to share?

I haven't given UND leadership a pass on every issue. See Caleb Warner matter, and many others. Bullying? Seriously? If statements of fact or opinion is bullying then we have a major problem. (PS - Love your passive aggressive tactic. ) And I can state quite assuredly, no Bison fan, no fan, has been banned from here for being "condescending" (by your usage) or for commenting in each topic.

I agree with you 100%. However, people need to lay off Kelley and Faison. When there was still a chance to save the name the man in the best position to negotiate with the Tribes and the NCAA was conspicuously absent in person, but maybe not action: John Hoeven.

Why are people so upset with Kelley and Faison? The power, the decisions, were never theirs. The ND SBoHE took control of the issue in 2000 (and many of us cheered then). When it came time to deal with the NCAA the SBoHE gave Kupchella power to sue the NCAA but then the SBoHE took over the negotiations when the SBoHE decided to settle out of court. Then-chancellor Goetz led the settlement negotiations for the Board with AG Stenejhem representing the State as a whole. And whose marching orders were those two under? Well, Goetz had been then-Governor Hoeven's chief of staff and Hoeven and Stenejhem were both Rs. Basically, the then-Governor of ND, John Hoeven, had Goetz and Stenejhem settle. And now Senator Hoeven, a man who could launch Congressional (Federal) hearings about the NCAA and its possible status as a monopoly (anti-trust) is mysteriously silent, again. So leave Faison, Kelley, and even Kupchella out of this. It was taken out of their hands. Go see the man who could've made a difference. Hoeven. John Hoeven. The Dartmouth Indi... ,er , I mean Dartmouth Big Green alumnus. Any questions?