The Sicatoka

From that view it's fine; I fear that someone will bring one issue as a "litmus test".

You folks must not have seen that new "Tractor Supply Company" commercial running on Midco Cable systems: "There is no such thing as a free puppy."

I thought we already had the Diggler gospel tune: "How Great Thou Art"

That's not a good game to start playing. Why? Where's the Aero representation? There are many students in the School of Aero, more than 3% of campus. Now change Aero to Engineering and say the same thing. Now change Engineering to "student athlete". There are 500 of those on campus (>3%).

Shouldn't that be in the "Fighting Sioux Facts" thread in the hockey forum?

Where have I said any of this is irrevokably true or irrevokably false? What I have said is, "Is this really the right place for this conversation?" Just because you have been told something does not give you license to spread it all about in the public square. A little decorum, please. As far as "reporters", we found out about the problem between Potts and Chapman after Chapman took a professional, behind closed doors, possible personnel problem and made it public (by hiring an attorney). Folks, that's how it's supposed to work. Let the pros do their jobs.

Those two don't align. Why repeat any part at all? Isn't repeating any part, even the nuance, of the conversation publicly breaking the trust of a person who values principles and trust? Put another way: If Dale or Dave was reading this would they be happy with people invoking their names here in this manner? They haven't gone on the record, which means either (a) there is no problem and no comment is a professional answer, or (b) they are handling it as the professionals they are (behind closed doors). Let them be professionals; try to follow their lead and act similarly. Relax, go have a beer and some pizza at The Moon (ya can't have a beer at the Red Pepper), and let the pros handle this because all that's going on here is tarnishing people (like Buning, and unfortunately Lennon and Hakstol by association by invoking their names). This won't get solved here. Let the pros do things right.

Are you sure you can say that?

I didn't say you did. I was having a "Captain Obvious" moment. And if there is a problem I expect (demand) the right people to handle it professionally. Not doing so shines poorly on all.

Because it was a late edit by me:

Repetition doesn't make it correct.

Because someone, who should've chosen to be more professional, broke the trust of a confidential conversation. This whisper campaign only serves to compound the broken trust and lack of professionalism. Folks, we're talking about someone's performance and livelihood here. Who wants their last performance review debated on-line? If there's stuff in the public square that's readily pointed to, please do. If there are concerns best left to be managed through a managerial chain of command, let that closed-door chain work. If you aren't sure which is which, think about what you would and would not want debated here from your last work review.

Then respect those "highly influential people" enough to allow them to handle this professionally. If they believe "working behind closed doors" is the appropriate and professional approach, why is anyone disrespecting that choice and dragging what others wanted kept in confidence or private out into a public forum like this?

Is this a signal that VB has been designated as the womens sport for the two-year (rather than five year) transition time?

So few when so many "experts" © Sid Hartman, 1492, 2007, are available? That's cheap. Ottawa should go for it.

Where's the classic line, "This is only for NCAA championships; you can do whatever you want for your other games. We control championships and what goes on there" line from the home office in Indianapolis, Indiana? I'm just giddy waiting to hear that one.

Could the solution be somewhere in between, kind of like the policy here regarding quoting articles: - An excerpt and a link: Fine. - Copy/Paste the whole thing: Not Fine. Put into this live game context: - Full play-by-play blogging: Not Fine. - Summaries of the on-going action: Fine Examples? Choice A: Ramonez singled to left and advance to second on the bobble by the left fielder. Ramonez to third on the ground-out to second by Ramunez. Raminez flew out to center too shallow for Ramonez to score. Ramanez was struck out on three pitches to end the inning and leave Ramonez at third. End of seventh inning. : Not Fine. Choice B: Team R got a runner to third with one out a hit, an error, and a fielder's choice but couldn't plate the run. On to the eighth.

A very good question indeed. In that same thought: Is Buning doing what is expected of him by "300 Twamley"?

I enjoy baseball but the climate and facilities issues faced by UND led me to ....

Based on current pattern, you have to die to get a number retired. With that in mind, I hope we don't retire any more any time soon.

Craig Bohl?

That wasn't him interviewing in front of an MSU Fighting Bobcats banner yesterday? Or am I misinterpreting what "actively" means.

So if MSU hires Lennon does UND go after Mike Van Diest?

Will a Montana school only hire a Montana guy? Or will they hire the best available.

I like how it drips with irony.