The Sicatoka

About a year ago I heard Faison say to do an indoor facilty "right" would be $19-20 million.

Seems the NCAA is in a game of "who's more Indian" that Spirit Lake can't win. The NCAA took as good enough the opinions of the Florida Seminole Nation, the Utah Ute Nation, and one Chippewa tribe in Michigan. And honestly, they took Standing Rock's opinion over that of Spirit Lake. The NCAA has just said the opinion and tribal council ruling of a soverign nation, the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation, is something that can be completely disregarded by them. The NCAA has just put Spirit Lake at the bottom of the list of who to listen to, and it's not just this issue as tribes both for and against Indian monikers rank ahead of Spirit Lake on who the NCAA will listen to. And honestly, they've put Spirit Lake in a position where this could be used as precedent to ignore Spirit Lake soverign rulings and and opinions in the future. Congratulations NCAA, if your goal was to undercut Spirit Lake's authority, you've succeeded resoundingly.

I've put out enough notions for possible monikers in other threads. I won't repeat myself here. PS - Whoever had "less than 2.5 hours" for the meeting length with the NCAA ... oh, wait ... everyone with a clue knew the meeting would last less than 2.5 hours.

Allow me to say it again: "L'Etoile du Nord" -- "Star of the North" is the state motto of Minnesota. Why would North Dakota use that.

Here's some good advice: We can't read minds. Setting context for things like this would be good. We're left to assume this is in reference to Di Puma, but who knows.

MWF are down days and TR are up days this week. You're either a day ahead or a day behind.

No, they are not Sioux. They are each unique tribes (although one speaks a Siouxan-based language). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandan,_Hidatsa,_and_Arikara_Nation

They point to the Fryberg study as evidentiary? ROTFLMFAO ... has that circa 2002 "study" been peer reviewed yet?

State Sen. Bob Stenehjem (RIP) is replaced by State Sen. David Hogue, R-Minot, a UND Law School graduate, in Indianapolis, Indiana, tomorrow. Also:

A lot can happen over time and circumstances can change in a lot of ways. Where will Steve Johnson, or Chad Johnson, or Luke Johnson be in two or three years? If you can tell me that, please tell me what the stock market will do today also.

"Hat trick" Jesus? You think Jesus plays forward? Uh, no. He's a goalie. How do I know? ... Jesus saves. And Reverend Grimaldi scores on the rebound.

My swing. {bah-dump-bump ... TING!}

Better odds on Friday: - Al Carlson convincing the NCAA to change its position - me getting a hole in one.

I have no problem with the corners being off and giving up 10 yards on a play ... as long as the team is attempting to disrupt the launching end of the pass. Last year it was like every blitz package disappeared from the book. I like it when opposing QBs leave Alerus Center knowing how many lights are on the ceiling (because they've had time on their back to count them ).

There are three phases to every pass: - the launch - the transit - the receipt Interrupt any one of the three and the pass is unsuccessful. Honestly, not many passes are disrupted in transit (meaning knocked down in flight). So normally you're left to disrupt the receipt or the launch. To disrupt the receipt you have to be, well, you have to be close enough to the receiver to disrupt (separate ball from) him. So you're left with the launch. If you don't do much to interrupt the launch you're left with offensive errors being the only thing working in the defense's favor. And if as a defense you're depending on offensive errors you're really not controlling what's yours to control, specifically, interruptions to the launcher.

OK, so with no rush and the corners up the receivers bust by the coverage and score. Instead, with no rush and the corners off the receivers catch the under routes and probably get tackled. In one system one play and it's done; in the other approach you force the other team to execute six to nine successful plays before scoring, and maybe the other team can't pull it off and punts. I know which approach I'd take with a young, inexperienced group.

As goes the sack count, so goes the secondary coverage. I didn't see much pressure on opposing quarterbacks and as such they had time to stand back, look down field, survey, study, contemplate, have coffee and a danish, check their Facebook account, relook, resurvey, and then fire to the receiver that came open (because no secondary can cover for that long).

Carry permit: REVOKED.

Excuses are like {bleep}: Everyone has one and it's usually full of {bleep}.

Just remember that NDSU suffered a Freudian slip (showing who they wish they really were) when they named their mascot ... ThUNDar ...

That's just as low of a blow as the other.

You can call me a lot of bad things, but you need to take that one back.

See all the bad things the Fighting Sioux moniker causes.

... because there's no guarantee a first-round draft pick will stay in college more than two years to begin with.

It's probably too "trendy and now" ... but ... Dagger (Not bad, but I like "Green Reaper" better.)