ScottM

That change might force the NC$$ to revisit the hypocrisy enshrined in its concept of "amateurism".

Here's my suggestion ...

"University lawyers", you mean like the esteemed Julie "I've never practiced law a day in my life, but I'm a general counsel" Evans? She's probably more interested in covering her ass than actually representing a client aggressively. Situations like this call for unbiased legal representation, not half-baked, spineless reasoning by people drawing their paychecks from the state. UND's hired outside firms before, ala the NC$$ litigation, so I don't see why they don't follow the same tack now.

I'd respond to your idotic rants directly if you had the common sense to actually quote something I wrote. As a practical matter, I've been in this fight for over two decades since the time Kendal Baker tried to drop the name over a summer session. Where the !@#$ were you, and the rest of your crying homies, including Spirt Lake? Moreover, as has been more than adequately established, North Dakota doesn't apply outside its borders, why are the petitioners NOT making this an election year issue for North Dakota's congressional delegation? If they were truly serious about politicizing it they'd move for federal action. Their lack of action in that regard leads me to believe that the current roster of moniker supporters and petition signees are only out to hamstring UND. Put your f***ing money and votes where your big mouths are.

In my own opinion, if the AG had any more stones than he has common sense, his first tack on behalf of the Board would be to attack the constitutionality of the legislation. However, as I've noted in other threads, Stenjhem is hopelessly conflicted on this matter as he agreed to the settlement, and has to represent possibly opposing parts of North Dakota government. He should have moved on this that as soon as the bill was signed last summer since the legislation and the petition crap go to the Board's very foundation as a constitutionally empowered entity. He probably should have appointed special counsel to represent the various parties at the state level. Having dealt with the esteemed AG when he was in private practice, I can't say I'm surprised by his inaction and incompetence. Nobody's interests are being served by his ineptitude, except those who seek to harm UND by wrapping themselves in the name issue, and very often the Flag. The original legislation has no penalty provisions, nor does it contain any state or private rights of action. If UND and the board were my clients, I'd tell them to ignore it and then go to court to get an immediate injunction against it in order to litigate its legitimacy. By moving first you can establish the terms of the initial fight and seize the proverbial 'high ground". IMHO, I think the Alumni Association will need to take action one way or another since there seems to be an institutional paralysis on this matter, and it's not going away anytime soon. I could see the Association openly opposing any voter-driven moves this year. I seriously doubt the SL litigation goes anywhere, and if it succeeds in the next 3-5 years, including appeals, it runs right into North Dakota law. I've never heard of any attorney prosecuting a civil action while also directing legislative/constitutional actions that may be contrary to the interests of his clients.

Don't confuse these guys with facts. They don't give a damn about the university, but only about its discarded moniker.

Really? Somehow I think their concerns went beyond a team's moniker ... Why not trot out Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine while you're at it.

"Right or wrong", UND athletics is handicapped if it is forced to readopt the Sioux moniker. And no about academic histrionics, petitions or state legislation will change that. If the petititoners are serious about this, why are they not making this an election issue for the Members of Congress who are up for re-election this fall? Surely they can't be so stupid as to presume that some state law with no force outside of North Dakota's borders will convince the NC$$ to reconsider their position. Therefore, I can only presume this lack of courage on their part supports the premise they are really seeking to harm UND athletics.

Go back into the threads on this forum topic from 2002 on ... most of Sioux moniker fans we see now were missing then.

I'm glad the 'su fans on this thread are so fond of childrens' stories. it matches their "intellects" perfectly.

He's just another proud 'su fan willing to handicap UND's athletic programs.

And certainly not a fan of the university.

None of that is relevant to the 'su fanbase supporting this crap.

Some papers, like The Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc. have set up pay-sites that seem to be doing pretty well. Even the Strib has a pay-site. But smaller papers are probably going under if they can't develop a reasonable alternative to paper delivery and advertising. Web delivery is the wave of the future, and it may explain why the larger cable companies, and Amazon and Google, are developing greater internet cotent and delivery systems.. Even that myopic boob, Gary Bettman, saw that future for the NHL. I see no reason why UND and/or the NCHC should not be moving in that direction.

That's actually pretty funny. I like lawyer jokes, because there's a basis of truth in them. Here's one for you ... Two lawyers are walking into the office one fine Monday morning. The first lawyer tells her partner "I got a dog for my kids this weekend." The second lawyer replies "Really? Good trade."

Perhaps he attended 'su ...

We'll see it their altruism affects their bottom line ...

As if I need yet another "reason" to drink beer in July ...

Bloomberg is reporting that Maturi is stepping down at Minnesota. I guess "his job is done" ... whatever it was.

I looked at them before I got a Blu-Ray with streaming capability, and I really liked them, but wanted a more versatile product. If UND wants to improve its "product", or what it still controls of its product, it should consider investing in making its webcast product more of a dedicated service like Hulu, Netflix, etc. Streaming content is the "holy grail" that Amazon, Apple, Google, NewsCorp, etc. are all vying for, and it scares the hell out of the networks.

We're more committed to fighting for the university.

Lighten up, Francis.

That's actually good to know. Given how desperate cable companies and networks are to maintain control of content, it may make sense for UND to invest in its own "product" and market it accordingly. The technology isn't always the greatest right now, but the idea of catching a UND game streaming to an iPad while waiting for a plane has some potential from a fanbase marketing standpoint.

UND is the only school in the league that has all of its home games broadcast nationally. So UND gave that up, "for the good of the league" and will probably get nothing in return. Moreover, without a "Plan B" for national broadcasts for games that are not picked up by CBS, what good does that do anybody, especially a league needing exposure? Did UND and/or the league maintain the rights to stream their own home games not carrried by CBS, or did they negotiate that away too from their position of strength?

Notre Dame has been in bed with NBC for decades through its football deal. Adding hockey and the slavering devotion to ND's hockey greatness on NBC Sports (fka Versus) was a no-brainer for them. It also made sense since the HE teams are concentrated in or near larger media markets. As far the Golden Domers ... HE and ND bascially deserve each other. I would be curious why CBS could preclude UND, or any other team, from beaming its own home games if CBS was showing another game. It's not as if most UND fans would tune in to watch UMD play UNO anyway. Given the different broadcast mediums available, and those on the horizon, I'd like to think "the National" would have created an "out" for certain games rather than effectively imposing a "blackout". Then again, given its nascent start, I'm not overly impressed by our new "super conference".