NoiseInsideMyHead

Countless sports franchises successfully market retro names, logos, and gear simultaneously with their current brand. In fact, with some teams (looking at you, MLB), I defy anyone to tell the old from the new. Why so little faith in UND?

If they want to be able to enforce the trademark against the most likely sources of infringement (i.e., apparel, because that's what people want and that's what sells), it would be best to be using the trademark in that field, no?

Don't forget the multiple Targets, one of which even has an escalator just for carts.

I'm gonna miss those big birds flying low overhead. When all you have to look at are CRJs and a couple of Allegiant MD-whatevers, it's downright depressing.

Click bait for the Herald, newspaper revenues what they are.

But what is the relevance of any of that to the relationship between parent and child? The good parents are the ones that don't bring any of the marital baggage in. UND can still love the Hawks even if the Sioux are over at Christmas, Easter, and every other week during the summer.

How is this any different from marrying, having kids, divorcing, re-marrying, and having more kids? Not to say that some folks don't screw it up royally, but are you suggesting that it is completely impossible to be a loving parent to both sets of kids?

Hmmm...of all the places for a grass-roots movement in support of the Fighting Hawks, I figured Denver would be high on the list.

Lots of upholstery-clad fans in Omaha.

http://www.fansedge.com/Illinois_Fighting_Illini_Mens

If by "run of the mill" you mean collegiate athletic logos, then yeah. Because that's what they are, collegiate athletic logos. Yes, friends, collegiate athletic logos tend to look an awful lot like collegiate athletic logos. And everyone needs to brace themselves because UND is going to get…a collegiate athletic logo. Because that's what UND asked for and that's what UND needs, a collegiate athletic logo. I am worried that too many people here honestly believe that lightning can strike twice. It can't. No big city design firm can do it, no student or local can do it, and not even Ben Brien can do it. Even if somebody -- anybody -- COULD do something that is truly great, we might not even realize it for a while, because the bar has been set too high, and people have unrealistic expectations. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride as a UND fan/alum/supporter, because if you are looking only at the next UND logo with one eye trained on the last, you almost certainly won't like the view.

One tough league.

Safe bet, as the logo itself won't be unwrapped until May at the earliest, but it's a long season. Would you wager the same that new gear won't make an appearance some time before it's over?

Probably sooner than you think. The University will of course claim that cost and lead time are both critical factors, but I predict that if they can come up with a decent graphic identity (primary/secondary logos, typeface), then money and a willing and able manufacturer will both miraculously be found in short order. Anything less than a winning look in the minds of a few power brokers, and the budget cuts will turn out 'far worse than expected,' causing the athletic department to make some 'difficult choices' that 'prolong the useable life of existing inventory' and, regrettably, 'defer implementation.' Kind of a nice position where the coaches and leadership have veto power courtesy of the sluggish economy. But even that will be short-lived, unless for some reason they really stocked up on "North Dakota" sweaters.

They're ba-ack. http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/und-hockey/3943998-join-sports-chat-herald-reporters-starting-230-pm

Sold stuff left behind by Kelleys.

When a straight hawk has way too much abstractness for one gender, he is a Fighting Hawk.

Not when the conference they are attending is right there at the pricey hotel, and not when the meal per diem is pre-established. Budget lodging + cab fare is still cheaper than the urban hotel convention center, but employers generally don't push it. An employee on per diem (e.g., $X for breakfast, $XX for lunch, $XXX for dinner) who eats on the cheap simply pockets the difference. Bottom line is that employers often pay REGARDLESS of whether the employees are frugal and whether there were opportunities for savings. Nothing made up about that.

A recap: Now, if I were a betting man...

What others - especially those NOT operating under the maligned NDUS policy - may have done is completely irrelevant to the discussion. If you look hard enough, you'll find someone who backpacked to the coast and hitched a ride on a tramp steamer to India. Some people are cheap; some are just naturally humble; some recognize that there are can be value in upgrading goods and services. The worst are the ones who will forego niceties and then spend the rest of their lives boasting about it and judging others. Some people make only one trip at an all you can eat buffet. Maybe they weren't hungry, or they would have been embarrassed or ashamed. Does that make everyone else a glutton? What if the two-tripper didn't like to carry as much on his plate, or hadn't eaten all day, or all week? Maybe the three-tripper wanted to try different entrees, or sides. Bottom line, they all paid the same admission, under the same rules, and management left the choice up to them.

I agree..."Get over it" is the most mature sentiment I have seen expressed on this topic. It just happens to be my own.

Au contraire, have you reached out to his boss? Have you reached out to the district attorney? They are your servants. You have as much influence as Rob Port or anybody else. The question is, how much do you really care?

Boo hoo. It's my money, too. Do you think only private sector employees travel for work? The taxpayer argument sounds pretty weak...where is the outrage about all the other waste, excess, and failures to realize savings that permeate state and local government?

One was retired. Probably not working much.

But that's exactly the point...every employee stays at a $300 hotel when a $79 hotel would do, and every employee eats a $40 meal when a $7 meal would do. Multiply that by all of the rank and file employees traveling on the company dime, and then you've got something to talk about (I guarantee it's more than $7k). If you're not willing to call out the entire system for what it is, then your crusade is reduced to a petty witch hunt. The biggest problem here, perhaps, is that people only get up in arms when the controversy du jour is served up to them on a platter by the likes of Rob Port in the furtherance of some agenda.