The Sicatoka

Alerus already made some significant moves. Yes, the turf remains to be resolved. I'd expect that to happen with the MVFC transition in 2020. http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4324402-und-ramping-branding-alerus-center

Jones probably couldn't say anything anyway until spring semester is ov... nevermind.

I wonder if the NCAA has taken notice of this adventure in playing surface logos yet. You'd hate for an "inspection team" from the NCAA offices show up at REA and look to verify that REA is living up to the settlement agreement that they signed. You know folks like that would find some itty-bitty little thing that's not fully to the agreement and then push.

And this from the man who finally broke down from Nike and went with the department wide Adidas deal. http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4446387-emails-show-kennedy-engelstad-feud-centered-logo-betty

Oh no. That's more like a top twenty or top ten rule.

I've been reached out to by headhunters and potential employers. It's never taken my focus away from the job already in hand. It'd better not, or you run the risk of having neither.

Are you implying that Kennedy is working for someone/something else's best interests? I'd say the REA Board is giving the appearance of looking out for themselves (as Hodgson said, their mindset won't change), and forgetting their charter.

Must ... resist ... use of ... O word ...

Who knows best what is in UND's best interest?

Oh please, please do. (I'z gotzta see this ... )

Yeah, I guess not. But I do recall a conversation about Hyslop long ago with a former AD and how they mentioned that academics covets that dirt and that Athletics would need to find new homes first. http://blogs.und.edu/und-today/2018/01/masters-of-planning/

Yet somehow it's on the shoulder patch ... And it was the official nickname in April 2016 ...

You know what's missing on that ice? The team from the University of North Dakota.

You see their primary letter mark (not word mark) logos in all but one case (Denver).

This will slay some of you: I prefer the ND Hawks logo (B) to the flame logo (C+). The flame logo has never done it for me. It's mashed together, the U seems lowercase because of the interaction with the N, and the font for the D seems a size small compared to the "UN". That said, if UND had picked "Prairie Fire" as a new nickname I reserved the right to re-evaluate.

So SDSU uses their institutional (academic) logo at center court ... Are you saying you want the UND flame logo at center court?

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?