[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Zebedee DuBois

Mascots are overwhelmingly mammals - usually predatory ones. Birds are probably second, followed by amphibians and reptiles. Predation is preferred for the implication that they will consume the opponent.
Vegetative ones like Stanford and Wichita State are very rare.

Still there are a lot of life forms that are not represented, some very predatory ones. Some that I would have thought ThaVirus would have listed.

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2...o_replace.html

What, then, will be next for North Dakota? The university has established a “Nickname and Logo Process Recommendation Task Force,” which may in turn appoint yet another committee to help select a new name this year.

In my opinion, universities have often not done a good job of replacing Native American nicknames and logos. Fearful of controversy and hamstrung by committee decision-making processes, they have often selected names and marks that are bland, generic, uninspiring, and lacking in distinctiveness.

Birds are a typical choice. Of Division I schools that dropped Native American nicknames, 39 percent subsequently adopted bird mascots. By comparison, among other Division I schools, only 15 percent have bird mascots.

Colors are also popular in post–Native American nicknames. Fully half feature some reference to color, compared with just 7 percent of other schools’ nicknames.

Sometimes, birds and colors are combined, as in the case of the Miami RedHawks, Seattle Redhawks, Southeast Missouri State Redhawks, and Marquette Golden Eagles. UND would do well to avoid these clichés by selecting a name that is distinctive and memorable.

Logos can be very important to universities, and not just for their symbolic value; just ask the University of Texas, which makes more than $10 million a year by licensing its Longhorn mark. In designing a new logo, North Dakota would be wise to avoid a visual trend that has been plaguing college sports in recent years: the “mean mascot” logo. While mascots have long been depicted in aggressive postures that imply competitiveness, college mascot logos of late have adopted a succession of dour grimaces and pained expressions that seem to suggest that athletic competition could never involve an ounce of fun.



And this parade of gruff forest creatures, pissed-off men in hats, and angry birds doesn’t just connote joylessness, but may also signify insignificance: While 54 percent of schools in the NCAA’s “Power Five” conferences, the true big-time schools of college sports, have mean-mascot logos, fully 73 percent of the other Division I universities, the more small-time schools, do. And 19 percent of the Power Five have smiling, happy mascot logos, compared with just 5 percent of the smaller schools. In some sense, a mean mascot may be a sign of being small-time: The more prominent college athletic programs are more likely to have the confidence to go with a less “intimidating,” more relatable, happy mascot.



I submit that if UND wishes to be perceived as a powerful sports program, it should avoid a logo with a cranky mascot and instead opt for one that suggests confidence, positivity, and fun.

The most fertile ground for creative, fun sports nicknames and logos currently exists around minor league baseball teams. These organizations, compared with universities, are relatively unencumbered by tradition and the need for solemnity. They seem to pick names and logos that will draw fans and sell T-shirts through attractive design and good humor.