The Sicatoka

That's not "reported". That's an opinion piece by Brad. Tom Miller did an opinion piece (other opinion) as well.

Agree. Initially I just went for iramurphy's post; I'm going back to page 1 on it and re-reading. I love being right. I hate being right.

Too many did nothing. Too many did not enough. "We are where we are and we all should accept responsibility for where we are and quit blaming others. ... We who wanted the name didn't do enough to keep the name over the last 50 years." -- iramurphy

Way too soon? The statewide vote was June of 2012. We were under a legislated "cooling off period" until January 2015. Three years is not enough?

They were engaged, but that is a different 'they', not the 'they' bemoaning the current circumstance. Today's twitter-azzi, where were they in 2000-2006, when a real difference could be made?

There will be a void filled by "Green and White" or "Big Green" or some other less than flattering space filler. The SFAL said as much.

Touche.

Deal with the original cause, and never have to deal with secondary effects.

My definition of early is on or about August 5, 2005. And honestly, that should maybe say December of 2000. Who was engaged and trying to fight the fight? Why, a man many here disparaged. (I might need to create one of those "Miss me yet?" memes with his image.)

Really? You really believe that the university can control how media refers to UND? The Sioux Falls Argus-Leader has already shown you to be incorrect.

Again, were you paying attention to the charter and commission of that committee? http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3801860-undnorth-dakota-out-committee-forwards-5-nicknames-public-vote

Trademarked by UrbanDictionary.com already.

I just read some of the 140 character responses to the statement by @UNDSID yesterday: "We need more cooling off time!" Really? Since the 2012 statewide vote, or since the 2011 settlement agreement, or since the 2005 NCAA policy? Apparently you weren't paying attention. "The committee was a sham!" The committee was commissioned with a task published on UND.edu. Did you not read what that was? Apparently you weren't paying attention. This is reaching the point of people who get upset after the tax increase or rate increase hits their wallet ... after they were sent the information about the assessment district or rate increase hearings that they just ignored and assumed someone else would take care. Welcome to Civics 101: Get engaged early or don't complain about the outcome.

I love folks that huff and puff and bluster on social media, but when you ask them what tangible actions have they taken you get nothing in response.

Those two statements contradict each other: - Title IX is supposed to eliminate discrimination (be anti discriminatory). That's its selling point. - Yet, you call it 'ridiculous'. Why mention its selling point if it's ridiculous?

Like I said elsewhere, about a decade behind.

If it comes back (which it won't) it doesn't get a bye to the final round.

The "problems trademarking" concern makes me chuckle when I see things like this: Lots of college and professional Pirates there that don't seem to have issues. (Seton Hall and East Carolina from the NCAA; Tampa Bay from the NFL; 'cutch and the MLB Pirate Parrot.) "Plunder the lox!"

Some see the old name as a living, breathing thing. Why not look at it that way: The old name had a "diagnosis" or "a condition" since the 1960s. The condition kept degrading because it was really never treated. It was going through relapse and remission through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. It had a serious life-threatening flare in 2000. It got a terminal diagnosis on August 5, 2005. Various treatment options were explored, albeit long after initial diagnosis. It got put on life support (settlement agreement). It finally passed away.

Yes, but is it. Until something else fills the void, it will by default.

That's from http://und.edu/university-public-affairs/nickname/ Please explain how a blank space (no nickname) is a "permanent nickname".

If your boss told you, "I need a list of vendors for a project. Write each acceptable vendor you find on a separate piece of paper and give me all the pieces of paper when you're done," what would happen if you handed the boss five pages with vendor names on them and one blank page? The committee followed its charter: recommend nicknames.

The two important pieces of information are 282 men, and 129 women. Those two numbers speak for themselves, and are valid. (And you deny neither as you have the data.) Do you deny that 68% is one of the ten highest male/female ratios in Division I (347 schools)? This is where "third prong" compliance conversation comes in. That's fine. This is where one could say you should compare the M/W athlete ratio to the general campus M/W ratio. That's fine also. But 68% remains 68% thoughout those other conversations. Ask your mother, your sister, your daughter, your wife, your girlfriend, your aunt, your neice, if 68% sounds like "equity" to them.

Somewhere back a page or two Jim Dahl said that "Fighting Hawks" is more worthy of a smaller college. I 100% agree. It's weak and not worthy of a "University of < state >". And to point, for your review: "Dickinson State Blue Hawks". Yes, a classic example of everything wrong with the "Hawks" motif. It's: - consultant template "<adjective > Hawks" - it replaced some thing Native related ("Savages") - and it's on a DII state system college North Dakota doesn't need more Hawks. It has Dickinson State ... and (American Association baseball) Fargo-Moorhead Red Hawks.