The Sicatoka

Are we sure? I'd like to see the filing and exactly what they are challenging.

That's what I've been asking: If Carlson's Folly is unconstitutional, the repeal would be unconstitutional as if you don't have the power to make, you don't have the power to unmake. And if you have neither make nor unmake power do you even have the power to put a hold on the folks who do have make/unmake power?

" ... playing Russian roulette, but she loads all six ..." -- Billy Gibbons, Dusty Hill, and Frank Beard Now I'll have ZZ Top tunes running through my head the rest of the day.

So maybe they're saying if Carlson's Folly and the repeal of it laws are both striken, there's nothing to vote on in June.

Could they be referencing a "contracts clause" challenge to the proposed state constitutional amendment process? Or if the NDSC rules that the first law didn't exist and correspondingly the second law didn't exist, there's nothing to vote on in June. Or both?

Could that be a pre-emptive strike against the November ballot initiative (the proposed constitutional amendment) using Article I, Section 18 (contracts clause), by the SBoHE?

After Al Carlson's visit I figured the NCAA would be instituting this "exit policy" for UND moniker visitors clueless about the settlement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaQUjbc2-YU

And the filing has happened ... http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/351219/

That would slam things shut.

So apparently we need Roebuck to speak out to end the contract-leverage conspiracy theories.

If you were flying alone in your private Mitsubishi Zero I'd say go for it. However, this flight has passengers not looking to fly this thing into the ground.

You're really, truly expecting Mark Emmert and his minions to change their position. That expectation makes buying the winning PowerBall ticket look like a sure thing.

Surely his contract is up also.

Only if we can start calling you "Cartman".

Fuk-ushima'd.

Are you saying no one could honestly be that ( dense / obstenent / illogical )?

Sure, but there are some pretty conservative folks on that list also. So let's leave politics out of this. This is about looking out for UND or wanting to see it suffer under NCAA sanctions.

I'd say more like the kid that saw others burn their hand on the burner but just had to smell their own flesh on it too.

To me, still, O'Keefe is the most telling. He's UND through and through. He has a unique perspective. He can see into the inner workings but is beholden to no one in those workings. And he's in contact with key alumni. And he's reached the conclusion that the moniker has moved to the "net negative" category and should go. Lennon straight up stating what he's heard from recruits moves this into a whole new realm of the dangers to UND Athletics.

Some like Blais. Some like Gino. Some like Hak. I like that the Leinie's comes in sampler packs. And all those opinions mean exactly diddly-squat (except for mine).

You forgot to list everyone who "outcoached" him.

Examples of Hak being outcoahced by Red: http://www.uscho.com/box/mens-hockey/2006/03/24/michigan-vs-north-dakota/ http://www.uscho.com/box/mens-hockey/2007/03/24/north-dakota-vs-michigan/ But Red must be a genius because during the Frozen Four against UND, he told his goalie not to let any pucks in and that's what happened. I'll bet Red also told his team to outscore the Sioux to guarantee the win. The man's IQ must be through the roof.

"... gone like a freight train, gone like yesterday, gone like a soldier in the Civil War, bang, bang, ... she's gone ... " But she (Standing Rock) left us.

Wisconsin follows NCAA "best practices" when scheduling. That means Wisconsin won't schedule teams under NCAA sanction. FSU is not under sanction. UND is.

Implicit in this question is the belief that Hak was pressured. I know people who deal with Faison daily. Pressure tactics is not how Brian operates. Remember: he has to have a working relationship with his coaches. Ultimatum tactics don't make for good relationships. And as far as Hak, his convictions are the hockey program (his program) first, then the rest. Something, something precious, has become a detriment, a net negative, to the program. As precious as it may be, the program comes first, even for Hak. If you didn't hear Schlossman on "Dizzo's Den" last night you missed Brad saying that he's never heard Hak say something he didn't believe in and that Hak would say nothing before saying something he didn't believe in.