The Sicatoka

Rightly or wrongly, that is the world we live in.

What you're forgetting, or unwilling to admit, is one of those nations (at least what mattered -- the tribal council) was just flat out never going to approve the use of the name.

Yes. What I'm pointing out is that first the Legislature tried to mandate "You must keep name" (Al Carlson, "Sioux Forever") followed up with retire and cool off. Kelley et al balked at "you must keep"; however, when later it was "you must do nothing" nary a peep from him. If being forced to do X is not in the scope of power and should be fought, being forced to do Y is not in the scope of power and should be fought as well. They never fought the second time.

"What if" scenarios are wonderful for conjecture; however, we live and act in the world as it is.

Welcome to the 140 character world where a hash tag is considered a thoughtful and compelling argument.

Now that you mention that ... Kelley's "do nothing" strategy, is it to freeze the Sioux nickname proponents out of the process of selecting a new nickname? The "no nickname" crowd happily aided and abetted Kelley by sticking to the idea that no nickname is the best approach. So when UND gets around to selecting a nickname that only a PC liberal can love, they'll have only themselves to blame -- not that they'll admit it. The clue here came when UND was willing to take the legislature to court when it wanted to force the school to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname, but acquiescing and rolled over when the legislature mandated a time period for no name. UND and the SBoHE squealed like stuck pigs and screamed about the legislature exceeding its constitutional authority when it tried to make them do something they don't want to do, but they totally folded when the legislature "forced" them to do what they wanted all along, namely, do nothing.

A wise adviser has pointed out to me that: Jeanotte's concern was (in addition to "win") that if UND didn't give its fans a new identity for which to cheer, they would tend to cling to the identity they had; time has proven him correct. Schafer's point was that UND shouldn't "transition from something to nothing." He recognized the importance of the university having a recognizable brand for its athletic teams. Others at UND in athletics and student recruiting -- not just recruiting athletes -- told Kelley the same thing during the one and only meeting of that "transition" committee. Kelley believed, as Tim O'Keefe and Al Olson did at the time, that those who lost the nickname needed an appropriate amount of time to grieve for their loss, but their advice was in the minority. The diversity of opinions urging Kelley to adopt a new nickname coming from so many different areas (from Jeanotte to Schafer) should have been a clue and a red flag about appropriate action and direction the leader of the university should have taken. He chose the "do nothing" approach.

If MarkMac is out for any period of time, the minutes will probably go to Nick Schmaltz. Hey Nick: There are no freshmen in March.

First, FCS is what it is: the Football Championship Subdivision, not to be confused with the Football Bowl Subdivision (and the Bowl Championship Series). UND plays for the FCS title just as NDSU does. To degrade the FCS title is to degrade something that UND fans do covet. Now, to the point that 'jdub' was trying to make: NDSU is still using the "third prong" of the Title IX compliance methodology. Some (Hammersmith) will gladly try to justify it; however, very few NCAA schools are still using that "interests and abilities" approach. Most NCAA schools are using the "substantially proportional" test as that's most defensible if challenged in the courts. Background: The I&A is survey based. The survey methods and results are what have been challenged at other schools. The defense is that it takes the most effort; but, if the result allows for a 2:1 ratio (66/33 or more) is that what "equity" legislation intended? It does seem interesting that the NDSU sports line-up hasn't changed in quite a while, even through the regional demographics change that jdub points out (in bold). Apparently their survey methods haven't picked up on that yet.

With this we agree. He failed to lead on the key issue of his era. And he had a historic opportunity to lead and be a leader. As the cool kids (used to) say: Epic. Fail.

You can chant "Sioux Forever" and still accept that a change is the reality.

Both schools are at about a 54 men/46 women general undergraduate population ratio; yet, NDSU's athletics participant ratio is 69 men/31 women.

Now, what I found in doing that: I had to use YouTube XML tags manually. Remember, here it's [ youtube ] and [ /youtube ] but without the extra spaces. Make sure you have a WWW link and not a mobile "m.youtube.com" link if you're coming off a portable device. And yes, make sure it's http:// not https://

OK, so I hacked Mafia's iPod and brought in his #1 play just for him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPYZpwSpKmA

OK. You got me. I should've said "47 public with both a medical and a law school". Here's the list/link: http://und.edu/discover/about-und.cfm Or, if you want to try your hand at guessing them: http://www.sporcle.com/games/jonesjeffum/medlawunis

One of the first committees* Kelley formed (way back when, say circa 2009) had both Leigh Jeanotte and Ed Schafer on it. Talk about the "Odd Couple" of ND politics. Where is gets truly odd is that Schafer and Jeanotte agreed in that meeting: Neither could believe they weren't there to pick a new name and start the process to move forward, away from this bleeding, sucking chest wound. Now, each had reasons to want to pick a new name (Jeanotte: to finally "win"; Schafer: to keep what we're wallowing in now from happening); but, each agreed it was time to pick and move. At the time you'd have had a prominent UND alumnus and former governor and a lead of the "antis" both working to a common end. The guy who was paralyzed at the thought of making a decision, defending it, and leading? Dr. Robert O. Kelley. When you're president of a major university, one of just 47 with both a medical and a law school, you're paid to make decisions and take the heat for them. You're not there to orchestrate committee memberships. *It's tough to remember them all and keep them all straight.

The handwriting was on the wall in 2007. Standing Rock (council) wasn't going to change. If Kelley had been leading from the front would some of these other folks (looking at Al Carlson) felt the need to drag things out?

The settlement agreement was signed in October 2007. Dr. Kelley became president of UND on July 1, 2008. The name was gone before he got here. He's had six and a half years to take us beyond the agreement and all we have to show from his (alleged) leadership is committees (and bills from the committees).

After hanging in limbo for the better part of a decade. That's not leadership. And, regarding May (end of this semester), we will have to see. I'm betting against because it'll require action other than committee forming.

A leader does not lead by forming a committee, and another, and another, and then still not get to a decision.

Pretty clear message from the State House.

I guess I'd call that a clarification of intent.

The sign should say "Fire the NCAA".

We're all just a short lawn mower toss away from the next headline. Everyone should remember that. Everyone.

Fire anyone who can't spell "Grant Paranica" ... out of a cannon.