The Sicatoka

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.

Go Cavalry!

Someone going to go tell these folks about DI-AA vs. FCS?

The last shovel full of dirt onto the NCC's coffin.

Maybe Ottawa is busy with something else this week .... quack-quack ....

Why the encumbering names? Why not call them what they are: 85 or 63. And everyone playing either 85 or 63 plays "13" (MBB) or "18" (hockey) or whatever.

Rylan Kaip used to have headaches. Now he gives them all to opponents.

Why are you talking about an April 2007 Saturday night in St. Louis?

If I can play that as an over/under I'll take the under.

Even Ralph realized ultimately that his belief in Gino was exceeded by his belief in the UND program. A particular favorite coach with the alumni is important but the program matters more, and all the more during a transition to DI. I'm hearing about this "conflict" but I'm not reading about it in the media. Back in the day there was a GFH story about Wanless, the conflicts he caused, and the good things he'd done. Where's the equivalent today? I need some context before I'm buying into all of this completely. Can I believe it? Sure. When will I buy in completely? When it's cold facts out there on display. I need some help with those. For example: Where was Buning if not at the football alumni gathering? In his office in Hyslop? At an NCAA meeting? On vacation? Chained in the basement of Twamley to prevent him from doing something silly? I need some help with context. Buning's not a puppet but Ralston (because her husband is a VP) might be? So is Buning "free-lancing" or "cowboying" the problem? Or is Buning doing what he's being told the problem? Or is Ralston being manipulated the problem? And why would "300 Twamley" bother with Ralston (indirect channel) if they had Buning doing what they are directing (direct channel)? And if Buning isn't doing what the commander-in-chief wants how could he still be around? I need more context and content; and I'm wondering if this quote doesn't fit here also: