ScottM

They probably won't believe our new "reality" until the women's hockey team actually plays its "home" playoff games in Fargo ... or more likely if the men's team has to hit the road too if they end up with a home berth. And even then, they'll still probably keep clinging to the moniker and waiting for some vain "salvation" from SL, or Bismarck.

And let the hockey program give up legendary rivalries with Minnesota and Wisconsin, and possibly other schools, too.

Why do you care? You're only concerned about the moniker, not the school or its athletic programs.

I tend to view the constitutional amendment as the weaker of the two measures due to its bland, nondescriptive text, and more easy to finesse than Carlson's Folly. it also runs headlong into the Board's own constitutional authority.

Which may create the proverbial "constitutional crisis" since the powers of the Board may butt up against the a new provision of the state constitution. But that latter provision is so wishy-washy, it leaves more room for "interpretation" than Clueless Al's legislation.

I suspect President Clifford would have probably followed the same tacks as Kelley, and done what was in the school's best interests, regardless of his and our devotion to the Sioux name. And Kelley is doing what is required by law, that is rehanging the Sioux moniker around the school's neck and taking those consequences as they appear.

Or maybe not ... especially the B1G schools.

Those three never raised their voices against the NC$$ when it really mattered, so I doubt they would have lifted a finger when dealing with SR or SL. Empty suits on this issue.

SR and SL had until 2010 to give their consent based on the terms of the settlement. Neither did so. Accordingly, UND is now under sanctions for maintaining the Sioux moniker according to the terms of said settlement. Not sure why people cannot (or will not) grasp that simple fact.

I'd start with the premise that Carlson's Folly is unconstitutional on its face at the North Dakota level, because the Board is empowered to run the enumerated schools as it sees fit in most cases. The primary reason for that insulation is to keep idiots like Carlson from politicizing the higher education system more than they have. The US Constitution is always a good trump card, but I doubt the court would go there unless it was the only argument presented. If the AG sues on behalf of the Board, who defends the state?

do each and everything necessary and proper for the efficient and economic administration of said state educational institutions. I do like that provision,

Wow. I remember Steve from law school. We didn't always see eye-to-eye, but he had the courage of his beliefs.

Not a bad measure of revenge for our "friends" at 'su ...

Typical of the "save the Sioux nickname at any cost crowd", they have no skin in the game that is UND and could care less how the moniker impacts the university or its student-athletes. They're merely trying to "make a point" and politicize the whole issue. Carlson, Soderstrom, Hennen, et. al. don't give one flying damn about the school or its students.

But they can feel the pride of wearing their beer stained Sioux jerseys in a half-full REA as UND plays Minot State or St. John's to round out the schedule.

That's no "compromise". Put 'em on the road and let the full effect of the sanctions be seen.

What is Frank's "handle" on siouxsports.com ... Fetch, Dave, ksixpack?

Meh, I bet I can find a better "kill switch" on Ebay. BTW, have you filed your TPS reports with the new coversheet yet?

Well, if there was some way you could put your own money where your mouth is with regard to your hypothesis, I'd be more than willing to test it. As it is, the people who will bear brunt of any sanctions are student-athletes currently on campus, and those who may be looking at UND. As for your second hypothesis, you really need to stop drinking Night Train before you post here.

People like you make the rest of us look bad with all of your fancy, schmancy "productivity" ...

He probably gets his "facts" from SAB ... not nearly as entertaining though.

See it all the time ... whenever I read SAB, read some of the comments on this forum or go to my local Hooters. Then I laugh, and thank the stars people like that exist since they afford me a pretty decent life.

To date, UND has contributed nothing to the BSC, not even an entry fee. And UND may be bringing potential baggage with the Sioux moniker, especially if the NC$$ decides to "counsel them".

More importantly, Carlson's Folly infringes on the Board's express constitutional authority to oversee higher education institutions in the state, which includes binding it and the state to certain agreements, e.g., the settlement they were party to.

And you were where in this fight 6-7 years ago?