Pez also brought up a great point about the Marketing failure of this attempt because they didn't have something in line to replace it, more of a "this is OBVIOUSLY the most racist abhorrent name possible for a rivalry game, but do you have ideas you want to vote on because we just know we can't call it this anymore."
Credit to you for making this point much better than I did. And to add to what you've said, a key component of crisis management within corporate communications is "shortening the news cycle." When negative news coverage is iminent, the goal is to get it out of the news as quickly as possible (hence Friday night news dumps).
Not having a replacement ready to go (or even a formal process and timeline for a replacement) allowed this to fester and become a lingering annoyance to the fanbase. It's actually kind of remarkable that the bright minds at UofO and Nike allowed this to happen.
It's no secret that I'm liberal-minded. And while I'm definitely not a wokey-woke, I am often sympathetic with the thinking behind "woke" actions. I never opposed changing the name of the Civil War.
But sometimes it's ok to step back and realize that some things went too far and that not everything should be cancelled simply because some people might have been offended. Also, in cases like this, it should also be ok for folks who might be offended to come to terms with why they shouldn't be. There are levels to everything in life. If we're grading controversial sports terms on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being "yes, change it yesterday," I'd give the name "Washington Redskins" a 10 and the "Civil War" a solid 2. I think we should be able to live with a 2.
