ScottM

If you can link Kelley, the Board, the NC$$ and the BSC to the Trilateral Commission, Area 57, the Mayan Calendar, the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds and the Queen of England, I think your hypothesis will have undeniable merit.

None of this means squat to the NC$$, and they are the only game in town.

Like they say, "Money talks and bulls**t walks." If UND were a "big name" school, I'm sure the NC$$ would have treated it the same way FSU and Utah were treated. But then again, their states' Members of Congress also raised their voices and the NC$$ cowered obediently.

Quite the indictment of Paterno, and big time college sports. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-27/paterno-put-his-penn-state-money-above-disclosure-of-child-abuse.html

Well, it's apparent that Israel imported "overage Canadians" to establish its own Pride on Ice.

Agreed. Given the uncertainty of litigation, especially some of the claims in the SL action, I wouldn't hold my breath on the NC$$ backing down because of unfavorable media attention. The NC$$ has been excoriated in a variety of mediums for any number of reasons and it still keeps marching to its own drummer. Unless something happens at the federal level, the NC$$ will not change its ways, or back off UND. The only people who may be able to open the NC$$'s "black box" are sent by the people of North Dakota for 2 or 6 year terms to Congress, and they've done nothing ...

Oy vey ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577094442294814390.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

I'd rather it get picked up by a few Members of Congress, and we'd probably get a better result. At the very least, the NC$$ might be forced to defend its overall hypocrisy, poor enforcement of its own rules, the academic performance of student athletes, its anti-competitive business practices, etc. Perhaps now would be a good time for NoDak's delegation to get off their collective a$$es ...

It would have been even better if SL had pulled the trigger on their litigation 3-4 years ago. At the very least, this type of attention may have made the NC$$ treat UND with the same standard they did FSU, Utah, etc.

It's funny, because it's true. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/tim-tebow-drink-tebrew-sunday-sipper-hits-tap-colorado-brewery-article-1.992318

I don't really buy some grand conspiracy involving Buffett. However, I think I provided the answer to the "why" in the Keystone decision in my earlier reply, and it had nothing to do with national security. And we wonder why our allies sometimes doubt our veracity and fortitude ...

I'd believe Obama pandering to his base more than some conspiracy involving Buffett, but whatever gets the OWS crowd through the night.

More "well-meaning" idiocy.

Something to play with your friends and family ...

Actually a number of those who opposed XL were Nebraska farmers and ranchers (red staters) worried about potential effects to their aquifer. The "politics" were not just confined to DC's "Prius set".

Heh. When I was in Chicago a couple of months ago I saw a girl wearing a "Jesus Toews" t-shirt.

You got that right ...

An opinion piece talking about US energy security with a few nods towards North Dakota. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204449804577068932026951376.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

As much as people like to praise Tebow, and he is a very good QB, I'd submit much of the blame for the other teams' losses rests with the fact they played "prevent defense" and watched the clock in the last few minutes. Chicago was a perfect example. Instead of playing the D that got them close to victory, they sat on their heels and allowed Tebow and Co. to stay around and eat into their margin. When Denver has a kicker who can hit 70 yards in practice, you are playing a pretty dangerous game hoping Denver won't get into the red zone.

While scholarships are a good start, it doesn't prevent the state from losing its educated workforce. Not everybody wants work in the oil patch, on a farm, in the mines, etc. Providing the infrastructure for a more diversified economy might generate better returns over time, given the cyclical nature of some the current economic drivers.

Not mention they would alienate a good deal of paying alums and others who will still be wearing Sioux gear for decades.

Reality? More like "reality distortion field" from some quarters. The settlement was signed before Kelley set foot on campus. Therefore, the name was dying off, unless SR and SL agreed to save it. SL shows up after the fight is over and launches into some half-assed claim about "discrimination". Clueless Al for his own political gain turns the issue into a political football which could have had a dramatic, negative impact on the school. Then we hear from the Clueless Choir on this board who think the name is larger than the school and openly talked about going NAIA, staying at D2, staying in the GW, passing an initiative, thought the issue was "political", mused about suing the NC$$ (again) etc., all so they could continue to wear their stained, worn out Sioux gear and not give a damn about what happened to the school. As I said, I doubt Tom Clifford could have done much more than Kelley with the same facts, save express his own personal pride in the name, but the result would probably be the same.

Fight with what? The name was effectively dying when he took office. He signed on to do what's best for the school, not fight a futile battle with the NC$$ as UND was moving to D1. We saw some of the potential issues that arose after Clueless Al joined the fray.

I think Kelley signed on to a thankless task. I won't bag on him for trying to do what's best for the school over the long-term. Even Tom Clifford would have probably had difficulty protecting the school with the same facts. The nickname went on life-support as soon as the ink hit the settlement with the NC$$.