CAS4127

Ya, some of those words fit!!

6 home games is our ideal schedule-->no question about that. Gene Taylor would not risk the wrath that would come upon him if we scheduled lower than FCS. It's just not worth it. That said, I have no problem with your proposed No/Sodak games. Works for me.

That might actually be an understatement. It would be cataclysmic in nature for Bisonville if we were to lose. Think of it though. We are coming off a National Championship, you guys are just coming out of transition and (not rubbing anthing in here) it would be your first FB game without the Sioux nickname between arch-rivals from Nodak. The hype that would build from the day it was announced to kickoff would be incredible and the game day atmophere would be huge!!! It's perfect when you think about it!!! I just hope like hell we wouldn't lose, but, hey, AGS right??!!!

After reading several of "Fetch's" posts, I think you guys might be getting played here. Could be wrong, but, from and outsider looking in, that's how it appears to me.

Me TOO!!! Let's party!!!!! That S of Mimes game really sucks for you guys. And, to answer a question posed-->NDSU will not, I repeat, WILL NOT schedule a team less than FCS-->not gonna happen. We would go with 10 games. It would suck, but there is no way we schedule DII or lower.

Digging what??!!! I'll say this and then I am done here: If you don't think the word or meaning of "program" stated in the context HB allegedly used it includes the schedule/level of competition a team plays, then I am going to have to reconsider whether any hockey fans have brains-->and it strikes me from what I read here on this board than most do. You're just making it hard for me to go all in on that!!

And "program" has nothing to do with competition-->got it-->thanks, but ou still haven't given me anything. BTW, and FYI, linking a hockey pick link doesn't explain what Herb Brooks meant!!

@BBaker: You said: "Oh come one, have you bothered to consider that what you said was entirely speculation and, therefore, not grounded in truth nor fact?" in response to me saying this: "Have you bothered to consider that Brooks likely said that in large part because of the level of competition UND plays coupled with facilities and coaching??!!!" Well, then, then give me some truth and fact as to the basis of Brooks' statement?Mine seems pretty plausible-->your's gave me nothing. And I am talking about the reason or reasons Brooks would have said that. Let's hear the truth and fact, as I am sure you heard it right from his mouth prior to him passing away!!!

Have you bothered to consider that Brooks likely said that in large part because of the level of competition UND plays coupled with facilities and coaching??!!! Now, if neither UofM or Wisky is on the schedule, and possibly other teams, what does that do to the level of UND's competition year in and year out??!!! Maybe results in UND not being the best place to prepare for the NHL ya think??!!!! Just my non-hockey .02.

The ND Supreme Court will be addressing Carlson's law relative to the ND Constitution, not the settlement agreement. That's arguable. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, UND was to have obtained tribal approval by November 30, 2010-->that didn't happen. The name was to be retired by August 15, 2011 if approval was not obtained. In short, I think it was "game over" as of November 30, 2010 as far as the NCAA was or is concerned.

IMO, if the ND Supreme Court decides Carlson's law is unconstitutional, they will write a relatively simple opinion in order to avoid many of the issues being discussed-->sort of an "outcome determatative" ruling. But, who effin knows given what we have seen to date from most involved . . . . . . . . .

At the posts above concerning Carlson/Repeal Law. What sucks is that all of this makes the end result, whatever it ends up being, seem quite far away!! Having this issue overwith would be good for all involved, regardless of the ultimate outcome IMO>

So, here is someting to ponder, and perhaps make you do a couple of these . Say the law currently in effect (Carlson's Law) because of the petition is ruled unconstitutional. Suppose also that the repeal vote fails. That results in the repeal bill being the law (if the repeal vote prevails we have no law on the subject). Well, the repeal bill tells UND that it can't implement a new nickname for 3 years (cooling off period is what they described it as). When I saw that, I thought it was just a smoke-and-mirror thing to allow UND additional time to see if it couldn't get approval from SR. Also, at the time the repeal bill was passed, SR had initiated its lawsuit against the NCAA, or at least had indicated it was going to do so. One has to wonder what will happen in that three years, don't ya??!! Also, the repeal law is directing--or telling if you will--UND what it can and can't do for 3 years. Does that not also violate the constitution? We will have to see whether the ND Supreme Court writes a broad opinion, or whether it will be tailored specifically to Carlson's law. Either way, the SBoHE and or UND may end up having to challenge the repeal law if UND wants to impliment a new nickname sooner than 3 years. You see, the ND Supreme Court technically can not address specifically a law (the repeal law) that is not in effect. Now, if Carlson's law is found unconstitutional, perhaps people want to vote "Yes" on the repeal petition ballot question. That way, there will be no law on the books directing UND to do anything with the nickname, and UND would be free to implement a new nickname at any time. The above is how I analyze things anyway . . . . . . . .

There are some wrenches to the equation tho, Scott. For example, and as it appears you may know, a decision on the constitutionality of the statute must first be made at the District Court level, and that decision could then be appealed to ND Supreme Court, provided it is a "final" decision and not interlocutory. At that point, yes, the matter could be expedited to the ND Supreme court, PROVIDED the loser at the district court wants to appeal. Say the District Court judge rules the law unconstitutional. The State doesn't have to appeal that decision. Also, and what really messes things up (or at least could) is that the ND Attorney General is required to defend the constitutionality of laws. Yes, I said that. Wayne S and his office have to defend the law if the SBoHE or someone else with standing challenges. Now, he/his office could just capitulate and agree it is unconsitutional, but, again, what an effing mess to even have to be involved in. Also, I am intrigued about the SBoHE discussing with Wayne/the AG's office the constitutionality of the law and or what it should do now that the petitions have been filed. He/his office actually have a conflict of interest-->see above on defending laws. See what numbnuts Carlson did here??!!!

I don't think I articulated clearly what I was trying say. What I meant to say is that there are people out there that believe the NCAA must step aside if Carlson's law is put back in place because it is a state law voted on by the people of the state (that's what they think this petition thing is about), not that the NCAA will step aside because of the statewide vote. In other words, they have no clue about what is actually going on. Now, add what you just posted, and do the math-->there are thousands of misinformed people out there, whether under my example, yours, both, or a combination of both and others. My guess is that we will either get a court ruling or AG opinion prior to June holding/stating that Carlson's law is unconstitutional, just as many of us have stated since the day it was enacted. I don't think the issue will get before the North Dakota Supreme Court before June unless there is some expedited procedure that can be used. What a waste of time, human resources and money tho . . . . . . . .

The misinformation out there is what I would be concerned about. I have heard from no less than 5 people who believe if the state law is reinstated, the NCAA will step aside. Like others have said (paraphrasing), people like us who read/participate in fanboards are informed-->the same is not true for the general public, especially those that don't follow things closely.

Based upon my review of UND's recruits over the last several years, your class this year looks better (perhaps much better) than past years, and it appears, to me anyway, that your classes have gotten better as the transition years went by. That said-- and only time will tell this--whether the players you have been recruiting are ready for BSC play and a full slate of FCS games remains the question. NDSU learned the answer to that question the hard way!

Sorry, Darrell, but I just didn't feel your proposal was a even a considerable option. Also, when I did that, I didn't realize you were not a petition supporter--->that puts things in a perspective for me a bit.

I don't recall the term "dumb people" being used!! Also, I didn't realize there were "enforcers" on this board!! Lastly, I wouldn't catergorize all petition supporters as being "less smart people"; rather, I think it is a mixed bag, including those who don't subsribe to the PC BS, those who are simply enamored witht the "name", those that don't think it will be overly detrimental to UND athletics, and those who are delusional because their emotions are overwhelming their ability to otherwise think lucidly. Me personally, I think it would be devestating to all of UND athletics if the BSC were to in fact jettison UND. Will they? Not sure? Would I want to take the chance? No; but to each their own!!

Knock, knock-->McFly!!! I posted this: "I really don't know where to begin" as part of my reply. Remember the old saying, "It's not what you read, its what you understand and remember" (othewise known as reading comprehension and retainment)?? Wait . . . . . don't answer that, I already know!!! See also my response to Hambone's post about one of yours.

I think it would take one of those "less smart people" others are talking about to even think of this . . . . . . . . . .

Also, Hambone, the suggestion that recruits don't care about home PO games is just wrong. I can state from personal experience that home PO games are very much anticipated and enjoyed by players. Also, why do you think teams in the PO attempt to schedule top recruit visits during PO runs??? Nope, recruits/potential players could care less about home PO games, and they neither do nor mean mean anything to the institution, town or program-->nothin'--zero!!

I really don't know where to begin, but I will start with your suggestion that the BSC wants UND so much, and that one of the base reasons for that is that our ND economy is doing well. WTF would that have to do with it?? U are delusional-->fact!!!

Apparently you don't read your own-->just sayin'!!!

The only thing defending that post is its length!!!! I mean, is he that dimwitted to believe what he posted??!! SRSLY??!! Wow!!