The Sicatoka

I hear a chant coming the lads way ... something like ... "sucks to BU ... U-no?"

And now speaking as a guy who serves on a board that also files a Form 990, if you don't follow your organizational documents, your charter, your policies, you stand to risk losing tax exempt status because you failed to act in good faith to the documents that got you tax exempt status in the first place.

Um ... no. The REA paperwork spells out that it is to be run to the benefit of UND and specifically UND Athletics.

OK, completely and totally unscientific, but, look at the results in the poll in this thread (246 votes at this time). It's a dead split ABC vs DE; 123 vs 123. And that's calling Ds a failing grade. Go pass/fail, ABCD vs E it's 157 vs 89 (64%). Gravity started working just two months after initial roll-out.

He only had to market to your mom.

stoney, You keep saying majority. The only scientifically proven majority to speak on this issue was when the state-wide electorate said the name and logo had to go (with something like 66% of the vote). After that we have a plethora of pluralities: - the no-nicknamers who are really FSF in NN clothes - the open FSF crowd - true no-nicknamers and there are a few - the "happy it's over; I can live with this" crowd (admittedly that's me) - the "this logo/nickname is < disparagement here > -- let's have a do-over" crowd To claim a majority view right now might be a bit presumptuous. .

No, the answer is in the FOIA emails Port uncovered, specifically from Hodgson to Kennedy (20 Apr 2018). In there, regarding what is going on the courts, in reference to the REA Board Hodgson says: " ... I don't believe that mindset will change." Meaning they (the REA Board) do not want the new name or logo. That said, absorb the following: There is a small group making a decision for all, in this case, it's the REA Board, regarding logos. More importantly, MRK has a reasonable point: He says it's better for UND with the logo on the surfaces; the agreements say the facility is to be run for UND's benefit; yet, this appears that the board is going with their mindset and as Hodgson says, " ... I don't believe that mindset will change."

This problem KEM created for herself ("it's not about the logo!" but her own emails to MRK say it is) looks all the worse in light of her ongoing spat over a $14M donation to her alma mater (UNLV).

MBB and WBB (and I believe VB) have really embraced the new name and logo. Knowing that, why would REA and KEM be against putting a logo they embrace on the surface they use?

Calm down folks. Keep it G-rated.

Hammer's link: http://ndus.edu/uploads/resources/8832/summary-und-hpc-phase-ii-fundraising.pdf Words that caught my eye: That reads like a lot of WIN to me: - Finally finish the HPC. - The academic side of UND has long wanted the Hyslop space for a new building. My guess is they want a new STEM building on that dirt. I bet I was first clued in on this concept a decade ago. Plus, it's the perfect spot on the SE corner of campus at the overpass. It'd be another grand arrival point to campus along with the new Med building and Clifford/CAS. - Take $27M of deferred maintenance off the books? Win.

Seldom does something posted stop me in my tracks. That did. Six. Years.

REA is fighting gravity on this one. Every day that goes by is another day away from the old name and logo and another day with the new. Ask GF Central.

Dude, I thought all of Grand Forks, especially UND, was anathema to you. Yet you admit you were there? You have a kid graduate or something last weekend?

@RobPort How'd I just know you lurk these-here parts.

I'd say KEM's credibility in this whole matter just took a massive hit with that. She says "not about logo"; her emails say otherwise. There's a word for that ...

Kind of a junk-punch to ol' Mike: He finally got a new logo despite an Engelstad (Ralph). Now that he's got it, he can't get it because of an Engelstad (KEM).

The argument REA missed is the easiest one: From REA's POV I'd have said ... Dear President Kennedy, The new hawk logo is not fully recognized and identified with UND yet. In the interim we plan to leave the wordmark at the center of playing surfaces and continue use of the hawk around it until the two become synonymous. We will leave the wordmark at center ice and will put the hawk behind the nets for the coming season and make a decision after that.

I wonder how Mike Jacobs is going to feel now that this is about not moving forward with a new nickname and logo on the playing surfaces. That's something he lobbied long and hard for and it seems even now he's not getting it ... because of another Engelstad no less! Irony is truly a harsh mistress, eh Mike?

@Hammersmith: It's a "pizza math" problem. Anything you put "around" the football field adds square footage faster than linearly, see the "r-squared" in the pizza problem.

Pull Washington out of that and see how it looks.

Note I didn't talk politics or political; I talked about where folks openly reside on the spectrum. Subtle, yet finite, difference.

You won't say it; I will. Jacobs tends (<-- I'm being polite) to be politically a D; Kennedy is a former R from MN in the US House. Their philosophies tend to clash.

Yes, Schloss limited his statement to a small window of the season. Full season numbers are here: http://collegehockeystats.net/1718/teamstats/ndkm

Hard to disagree with it.