ScottM

Carlson is a truly delusional egomaniac. "They're out to get me, man!"

In all fairness, I don't think the Board's early thinking was helped by the wishy-washy performance of its attorney: The Attorney General. If he had come out and drew a line in the sand about this legislation early on, or acted to cut it off by getting a TRO, writ of mandamus, etc. to protect the consitutional purview of the Board I doubt the Board and/or UND would be in this soup.

They may enjoy watching UND et al. twist and squirm a bit, but I would suspect most thoughtful 'SU fans see Carlson's bill as nothing but cynical power grab that could set a trend that would imapct 'SU in some way later. He detests the fact the Board is constitutionally insulated from the legislature's politicking and used the name-issue as a way to possibly chip away at that wall.

If you think the accomplishments and traditions of generations of student-athletes had anything to do with the name/logo, you are sadly mistaken. They may have worn "Sioux" on their jersey, sweater, etc., but there is no mystical connection between that name and what they did on the ice, field or court. Somehow you seem to imply that dropping the name/logo would diminish the victories and titles won by the athletes. If your "love" of the Sioux name/logo colors your feelings about the school, its athletes and alumni, I feel sorry for anybody who would consider you a "friend".

So you will no longer darken these boards, or comment on UND athletics, when the name/logo retire?

The Devils filed for arbitration to lock ZPar in for one more season while they work on a long-term deal.

Allowing the Sioux name/logo to be held hostage to the whims of tribal politics never sat well with me. Even if both SR and SL gave their written approval today, there's nothing to prevent them from pulling at some later date, for any reason. Then again, I suppose some people appear willing to allow UND to be "extorted" to simply preserve the name/logo.

If he does that, and wins, his first order of business should be to have a "heart to heart" with the NC$$ in the form of a subpoena.

Logical? No. Channeling Clueless Al Carlson? Yes. UND and/or the Board would be laughed out of court if they tried to re-open a settlement agreement where the NC$$ had not breached the contract. No amount of "rose colored" legislating will change that. Moreover as the North Dakota Constitution explicity states: Section 18. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed. I wish I was still in private practice, as I probably would have hit my goal of 2400 billable hours by now.

Arguably, the school could decide to remove the Sioux name/logo from the teams' gear, and in official publications, which may avoid the NC$$ sanctions and comply with the law since there would be no "official" discontinuation. There would still be Sioux gear sold to the general public, but the teams would not wear it in competition or be referred to as the Fighting Sioux in an official context. At the very least, it may forestall some adverse action by the NC$$ and the BCS until Clueless Al's Crazy Train is ridden off the books. There would still be "use", at least for purposes of intellectual property protection, but the teams would not be presented as Fighting Sioux. The "best" solution is still to repeal the damn bill entirely, and retire the name, so there is some certainty for the school, its student-athletes and other affected stakeholders. Timing is so critical now, and the legislative, the BCS and NC$$ calendars are not synched.

But ... but, maybe if he could just have a "heart to heart" with them over tea and cookies, I'm sure they'd see the light. After all, Clueless Al managed to convince an entire legislature, that was effectively MIA on this issue previously, to drive UND athletics into a ditch. Maybe he can turn the school into a two-year vo-tech next session ...

In related news, Al Carlson further confirms that he is a delusional idiot.

The NC$$, and its bastardized attempts at social engineering.

Agreed. Nice letter, Mac.

I would suspect only the Board has standing to move against the law since its powers are enumerated in the NoDak constitution. Arguably, the AG could do the same on his own by going to court and getting a declaratory judgment against the law on constitutional grounds. I really think Shaft, Stenjhem et al. need to pull some of the top legislators, including those who supported the law like Carlson, into an "informal" meeting at some bar or restaurant and tell them they need to repeal the law in the next session or a special sesssion for the reasons that are becoming abdudantly clear from the NC$$, and the BSC. Timing and certainty are becoming critical. While some may see this as "cut and run", so is giving over the destiny of your school's name/logo to unpredictable, and unreliable, tribal politics.

The road to hell is paved with "good intentions", -Samuel Johnson, Karl Marx, etc. And UND may be traveling Carlson Highway very soon ... In any event, Carlson had no "good intentions". He's pissed the State Board of Higher Education runs the show, not him. And if he's truly oblivious to the damage his legislation could have caused, and is causing, the residents of Fargo should be embarrassed that he represents them.

Carlson needs to put down that bong for once.

I figure he's off to 'su.

And yet so many on this board thought Carlson was the "second coming" a few months ago ...

Joke or not, it's the NC$$'s game, and they write the rules, not some cynical legislator in flyover country.

Minnesota and Wisco need UND about as much as the Big Sky conference does. "The Law of Unintended Consequences" resulting from this idiotic legislation is just starting to move.

No, what happens is the state, the Board and/or UND get laughed out of court on a summary judgment motion, probably sanctioned for bringing a frivolous complaint and look like complete rubes on a national stage for failing to grasp the concept of a "settlement" signed in Grand Forks County. And if you think the new law created any new "cause of action" not contemplated by the settlement, including some laughable First Amendment claim, you're a bigger fool than Al Carlson.

Not really related to the name/logo issue, but stories like this make me wonder why name/logo issues are such a big deal for "activists" while other matters tend to take a back seat. Linky

SCCC Aviation program crashes ... Strib

The AG's office is hopelessly conflicted. On one hand they represented the Board in its litigation with the NC$$ and agreed to the "settlement". On the other, they have a duty to represent the state's interests as required by the new law. In the interim, the AG has openly opined about the state's chances in reopening litigation with the NC$$. As well, he has opined to some degree about the constitutionality of the statute as it impacts the Board. Frankly, I think the state should/will need to hire a completely independent attorney or law professor to give the legislature a clean opinion about the law, and whether it is constitutional. If these were private parties the respective attorneys would have either removed themselves or got the parties to waive any conflict.