These are more good examples where these types of changes have been made or should be. It's not always easy to determine, I'm just trying to get people to move away from the instinctive, defensive reaction to say "but we meant no offense!" and try to think about issues of autonomy and self-determination. And that's only a first step, more thought is needed beyond that.
My concern is when a voice is not heard or not given enough weight when it should be. The reaction of "but we meant no offense" can be mirrored by an extreme level of offense by a contradictory party.
In the case of North Dakota, The NCAA declared the mascot "hostile and abusive" and demanded it be change. When the NCAA pushed for the mascot to be change, the movement to keep the mascot was was lead by the local Sioux reservations. One would think support from local groups being represented in the mascot would be sufficient to have the issue dropped, but the weight of the NCAA was too large and the the name was eventually changed.
The same would have occurred at Florida State, as the NCAA also deemed their name "hostile and abusive" but the higher profile nature of the university and the stronger economic weight of the Seminole tribe staved off the transition.
Its hard to say that how UND used the Fighting Sioux was any more hostile and abusive compared to how FSU uses the Seminole. The same way its hard to say that FSU is more respectful of the Seminole than UND was of the Fighting Sioux. It does appear that if the names truly are intended to honor the native people to the region, and the native people did not object to the use of the name for the university that both should have been able to keep the name. The Sioux don't have the same public perception or economic weight as the Seminole, by removing their name from the university I wouldn't be surprised if both those factors have only gotten worse.