The Whistler

Yep, maybe the powers that be just don't want the public to have any control of our property.

Forget it, he's rolling. And it ain't over now. Because when the going gets tough...............

Prior to the infernalnet I didn't follow how a new player was supposed to be. You'd make your judgments based on how they were playing. That brings up Lee Goren who didn't have a good first year(mono?). Would he have been a bust at that point?

No defections would certainly change the parity situation in college hockey. For the most part there's only a few schools that get hurt year after year with early defections. I think it's great for those players that leave early and have a successful year in the NHL, (ie. Toews, Zajac.) What I don't understand is the clubs paying top dollar for a player to play in the minor leagues for a season or two (ie: Zach Parise who was signed for the strike year. (Of course he had to take the money that was on the table.))

We want to be very careful that we don't meddle.

I can't support anything that remotely smells like a payoff. I find that as wrong as making threats to pull programs in place to help Indians. Clarification: I would maybe accept a reasonable royalty fee on logo'd merchandise sales as it's now a reality that the AG and BOHE turned over ownership of the Sioux name and logo to those two tribes.

It was in the Herald Friday I believe that he thought that the Governor and himself should be the negotiators.

I'm curious to know exactly why you think this was a change in public policy. Like the NCAA the state government is supposed to follow certain rules and certainly allow for public input. In effect a publicly owned asset worth millions of dollars was just given away with no accountability. On the other hand the Attorney General is more than merely a lawyer that happened to be representing the University. Seeing how he's directly elected by the voters he is a power in his own right and does not technically have anyone over his head except for the voters. Of course the lines blur if he feels he's acting for the Board of Higher Education? I would counter though that he's supposed to be representing the people of North Dakota.

Perhaps you missed the smileys.

Pretend?

Clearly spending a million dollars and getting nearly to the starting line speaks volumes to incompetence. If money was the sole object we shouldn't have spent that money. Ah the old debate what we don't know technique.

Solid hardnosed hockey player. Very sad.

Closer to normal anyhow.

It can be statistically proved that Jean-Philippe Lamoureux gets a shutout in 80% of his games.

I hope Lammy can get back on track after a weekend where his GA average was a full point above what it was going in. LOL I see it's risen to a very UnLammylike 0.43.

It should not have been. Incompetence.

This is great, it allows me to nurse my conspiricy theories if I wish to. As much fun as that is I'll stick to assuming incompetence on the part of the Attorney General and the Governor's appointee's. But as was said the train is out of the station. We cannot get this agreement rescinded. It's likely the tribes won't change their minds. It's gone and the incompetents in Bismarck gave it away. Great point. Wish I 'd said that. Dagies said: First of all winning isn't a small thing. It would certainly have bought us as much time as the Stenejhem surrender bought us. Secondly a well designed case would have us winning the case with prejudice. I talked to an attorney with a far more steller private practice than our AG had. This was his take on the matter.

One can always hope, but I'm taking the tribes at their word. I really don't think we should be chided for doing so.

Well we do know from the UND polling a few years back that 80% of the state wanted to keep the name. So I don't find these numbers that far off of the mark. I always thought that majority ruled. In this case there is nothing like a majority, not even on the reservations, that wanted to see the Sioux name retired.

We did not fight We got to the point where we were ready to fight and then gave up. The NCAA got what they wanted and we gave it to them. It's like the Rocky movies ending an half hour before the movie's over. Or we could have won and kept the logo. As it is we spent a million and got nothing. You could have hired me and I would have caved in for half that much money.

I respectfully disagree. I will not personally wear another UND logo, but I'll continue to support the teams. Where I disagree is that we should have a new logo so that the younger folks can build their own traditions.

I didn't vote. But those numbers are striking.

A. The case would have stayed in North Dakota. The North Dakota Supreme Court is very efficient often seeing cases within 6-8 months of having a case submitted. Must be all of those UND grads up there. B. A properly done case would have concerned the matter with not only had the NCAA acted against their bylaws but is the logo itself hostile and abusive. Winning on that count would bar the NCAA from changing their policy again. C. If we lose we lose. I can live with that. As it is now we lost without fighting. Stenejhem seems proud that the NCAA is going to put on a disclaimer that we are not hostile and abusive on their website. But if that's the case then we should keep the name, right?