The Sicatoka

I was one of those people in 2005 saying the NCAA overstepped their bounds. Why? I'd read the bylaws. I communicated with the then administration of UND (Kupchella and Harmeson) about it. They agreed. They pushed back at the NCAA. What happened? The NCAA changed their rules so they weren't breaking them any longer. But now, seeing that and experiencing that, I see that the NCAA plays fast and loose with the rules to their benefit. Worse? The general membership has given approval and power to the Board of Governors (formerly called the Executive Committee) to keep on doing it.

You're in, but wrestle amongst yourselves?

The broadcast rights are owned by Clear Channel Grand Forks. WDAY-AM in Fargo is an affiliate station to the UND Athletics broadcasting network. So, a local to GF station, group, has the rights; and, a station in NDSU's backyard (NDSU's former rights holder) broadcasts UND as a radio affiliate now. Clear Channel Grand Forks really had no one to do UND Football play-by-play so they looked outside. Jack Michaels had the gig as he's outside the primary Grand Forks market. He just gave it up. Pat Sweeney is now available to fill that role as he's no longer working for/at WDAZ, a competitor to CCGF. (Yes, in media realms WDAZ being part of Forum Comm is a competitor to CCGF.)

The Legislature needs to approve new facilities of any sort because even if it is built with private funds it'll be owned and maintained by the University and as such, a new ongoing State expense.

Three words: "Plunder the lox!"

For the lawyer types out there: You have a client. The senior managing partner of your firm walks into your office and says, "Drop that client of yours immediately. We don't do business with that industry any longer. If you keep the client, the sanction you face is dismissal. If you choose to drop them, you have two weeks to find and to transition to a new client that complies with this new firm policy." In two weeks, oh junior associate, when asked, you tell the senior managing partner, "I dropped my client." When asked who your 'new' client is you reply, "I don't have one." So what will senior managing partner do; what happens next? They may ask, "Have you tried?" And if you say yes and can prove it you may get some additional leeway. But if your response is, "No, and I'm not going to; I'm happy without a client" will you be surprised if you don't face sanction (dismissal) for not following the "find and transition to a new client" agreement you made?

If dropping the old name was enough, why is there language included specific to UND about transitioning to a new nickname and logo. Yes, that does mean UND is unique in the NCAA: We're the only ones with a settlement agreement that includes having a mandate to transition to a new nickname and logo.

Don't say that. That says the NCAA would be a grudge-holding group of backstabbers. Surely Marco Hunt on the ice in Boston, the Marco Hunt UND got kicked out of NCHC officiating, the Marco Hunt that was angry about it and had a grudge against UND, surely that was a fluke, a mere coincidence. The NCAA forgot all about that history and by pure randomness put Marco Hunt on the ice. Nothing more. Move along.

In light of that revelation ... it's cruel ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ePIZugahFc

I suspect bin's take may be correct: Midwest Comm'n may need Jack to help out during Scott Miller's battle.

When I think "Harvard" I think medicine or law. When I think Harvard Athletics I think Crimson. Same story for Princeton, Yale, OK, most of the Ivys, and Stanford. Throw Duke in there as well. When I think of the school name, what they are known for academically comes to mind; toss in the word "Athletics" and the nickname comes to mind. That's for the schools that I know something about their history and academics. You say "U of Tulsa" I'll say "Golden Hurricanes" and that's all I know. Recent good case in point: All I knew about U of Akron until recently is that they play in the MAC and they are the Zips. I'm a technology guy and I didn't know that Akron is effectively "Ohio Polytechnic University". All I knew about Akron was "Zips". So in light of that, I guess my point is -- nicknames do matter because sometimes it's all people know.

I believe the standard ratio is one ugly strip mall for every ten ugly cookie-cutter three-story apartment buildings. That seems to hold statewide.

C'mon man, keep the board G-rated!

In honor of Bugs Bunny's 75th birthday (today), a montage of his finest moments: http://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2015/07/24/orig-lisas-desk-bugs-bunny.cnn Oh my goodness! Pure and wholesome Bugs Bunny said and did those things. So yes, times change. Like the lady at the end of the video says, " ... just like you would forgive your grandpa for saying something embarrassing, Bugs Bunny we forgive you." And TR would be your grandpa's grandpa.

I never know with you. A smiley for tone would help.

It's always fun to compare the pre-season lists to the post-season lists.

They could've used you ... as long as you were properly "tuned" (with a couple-thir-teen-four-teen Bud Light Limes in ya ).

It was an after standard work hours rally (5 pm), wasn't it. I guess I'm not going to buy that take.

For the audience playing along at home: If you had to guess at the break down of the "no nickname" camp .... __% really sincerely mean no nickname and won't use the old name __% want no nickname so they can de facto the old one into the void __% want no nickname because they believe they can get the old nickname back some day

Ahh ... but it was supposed to be a "no nickname" rally, aimed at just those folks (like you as you say), but somehow it got overwhelmed by the "old nickname forever" point of view. What does that say about what is reality.

Using absolute characterizations of the other POV is setting yourself up to be shown wrong, as has been shown here time and again. Having said that, the "we don't need a nickname" rally last Friday lost some credibility when many of its speakers brought up the old moniker. If we don't need a moniker why bring up the old one at all. It just served to better make a case for the "no nickname is just de facto old nickname" argument. Now I'm sure there were some there sincere in wanting no nickname; but they became harder to find because of the others.

Food for thought: When did the NCAA jump into the nickname fray? Dare I say after they knew their preferred outcome wasn't going to happen. What do you believe the NCAA's desired outcome of this is. And if that doesn't happen?

OK, so I broke down and read the Addendum. I see two key portions: On page 1, it only stipulates that "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo" On page 2, item 3: "It is further agreed that on the date of signing this agreement, the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy, if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment." (emphasis added) That says the Settlement Agreement still rules and as such the NCAA can define the word "new" from the Settlement Agreement how and when it chooses. It seems the ND AG got us off the list for a while with this addendum; but, what stops the NCAA from highlighting the word "new" and saying what's your new nickname? Or just define a new policy ("Thoust shalt have a nickname.") whenever it chooses.

Isn't an addendum an addendum to a document and the original document stands as original and governing? Otherwise, wouldn't you create a new settlement agreement that voided the old and defined the new settlement terms? I'm no lawyer and I don't carry a legal dictionary with me, but this is what I can find: Addendum. " ... an addition to a completed written document. Most commonly this is a proposed change or explanation (such as a list of goods to be included) in a contract, or some point that has been subject of negotiation after the contract was originally proposed by one party." This addendum seems like a list of definitions after the original document was written that were subject of negotiation (what can stay, what must go).

I'd guess ... both. Neither wants really wants it in the hands of a third party where neither would be able to control it. The only remotely palatable third party to either side would be a tribe, and honestly, a tribe would probably mess up doing what they have to (periodically use it in commercial trade) to maintain it. A little harsh on the tribes? Meh, probably. But if you pay attention to tribal politics you can see where I'm coming from.