Sodacker
-
Posts
196 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sodacker
-
-
I really don't understand how people could still be angry about this other than they want the winner to be Roughriders no matter if that's what the majority wants.
-
Consulting firm is long gone... this is all UND feeling its way in the dark.
Fail by UND for rushing another announcement with running it through proper channels.
-
It was pretty obvious that this was going to happen. Another fail in their consulting firm to not just announce this immediately and avoid this 3 window of nonsense.
-
I think it's important to look at this from a business prospective. UND is a big business. It is a major employer and revenue generator for ND. Consequently this is an important marketing, advertising and PR decision.
If someone from Missouri likes, hates or cares less for our name - fine, but every institution, business, etc. worth a damn cares deeply about their brand and the image it projects. Millions of $$$ are spent each year on logo designs for good reason.
I would go on about why I think RR is best for this, but were all just repeating ourselves now...
Well if the nickname is a business decision, why would we let people who vote purely on emotion decide it? Just let the business consultants decide it.
-
All these negative references to expensive consultants reinforce the notion that North Dakotans are a bunch of hayseeds. ' We don't cotton to yer types around here, mister. You best go on back where ye came from. And take yer fancy haircuts and collars with ye'.
They deserve their fair share of blame though. I don't blame them for allowing non North Dakota names, our committee should have snuffed those out early and been our voice there. But they should have given much better guidance on the process. Not foreseeing a possible tie for second place and then allowing Kelley to say this is for sure the last vote are completely on them I believe.
-
Well Nodaks means all North Dakotans...even those that go to other universities in the state. So how is that unique to UND again??
Well und is the flag ship for North Dakota and I don't believe any other sports team goes by Nodak, so it seems very unique.
Specific to UND/northDakota and unique as a school name. Hits the boxes for me personally. Roughriders is a good north Dakota name but I don't believe it's all that unique so I prefer Nodak over it.
-
I care deeply what other schools think of our name, and our state. A big reason why I feel so strongly about this. UND is ND flagship institution, it projects an image to the county and the world (yes it has international reach). I certainly want the best image and logo projected to attract students, athletes, teachers, etc. and help UND and ND become even better.
If other people think less of our school because our sports teams are called nodaks or Roughrider or Hawks, that is there prerogative. I don't think less of Missouri cause their school has a lame Tigers name or less of Delaware cause they have a weird blue hen name. Anyone who does is small minded and really shouldn't effect our choice.
-
1
-
-
They will bother us about the nickname for the next couple years no matter what. But if we accept the name and full integrate it into Athletics, we'll just be another school with another name.
-
My problem with "Nodaks" is this: it's an obsolete postal abbreviation. It's neither imaginative nor creative.
I ddon't think a nickname needs to be imaginative. I think it should be unique and specific to the school it represents.
-
Honestly... Trying to explain it to others from other states and other schools about the nickname game is ridiculous. "Seriously.. Nodaks?!"... I can't help but agree with them.... Roughriders or Hawks. Just get it over with.
The problem is I couldn't care less what other schools think of our name. If we care wwhat they think why not let them vote on our name.
-
1
-
-
Nah. If you cared that much you'd say let's vote Nodak but you don't so I'll vote for the name I like best.
-
I suggested something similar yesterday, but the more I think about it, the more I think people might vote the name they perceive as the biggest threat to their choice last, whether that is how they actually feel or not.
It's wwhat they should have done when there were 5 selections. Give people the chance to vote for their top two choices and use that to narrow it down to a two name runoff.
-
Exactly what I wrote to Dr. Kelley on Sunday night. What are we teaching our students if we feel it is no problem to change the rules after the fact. (in this case after the vote).
Won't someone please think of the children!
-
Kelley sees Roughriders has the most votes next round without 50%.
Immediately declares another runoff vote between the top two.
The slope is very slippery now. And nobody knows where the bottom will be.
Big Mistake.
That's how it should be whether your favorite name gets it or not.
-
I couldn't disagree with you more. If he wanted flexibility, then he shouldn't have set forth a specific process. You can't just change the voting process after the results are in. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Sticking to the process would not have added to the problem whatsoever. NoDak supporters might have been disappointed, but their disappointment would have been limited to their fellow stakeholders for not voting for it more. Despite all the mistakes and complaints about how they got to the Final 5, if they had stuck to the process, at least people could say the voting process was fair and there would have been some level of legitimacy to the new nickname. All this decision has done is cause further division, more controversy, and eroded any legitimacy that was left.
Having people who don't kknow what they're doing make decisions in advanced and then not fixing problems when they arrive just doubles down the problem, it doesn't help it. Just because it will give some people the warm fuzzy feeling of following an ill conceived plan doesn't make it the right path to take.
The problem was them putting up unnecessary rules that there was a possibility they couldn't follow.
-
I guess I fail to see how he's damned if he sticks to the process that was laid out in black and white prior to the vote. If he wanted wiggle room for a close vote, he didn't have to say the top-2 finalists would go into a runoff. He could have said the top 2 or 3. But when you lay out a specific process, you need to stick to that process if you want to maintain any credibility.
Ya he is obviously over his head and has absolute no foresight. Giving himself these arbitrary and unnecessary rules exist just make him look more foolish. He of course doesn't learn from his mistakes because he is hard headed and incompetent and does it again with this upcoming vote and puts himself in another box saying he will announce a winner, when it is very premature to say that before seeing the results.
Kelly has mucked this up from the get and obviously doesn't even realize his incompetence. That doesn't mean adding a third vote or third selection is necessarily wrong.
-
1
-
-
Agreed. The whole point of the runoff was to get a name to 50%. Now that they've abandoned that principle, why not just declare Fighting Hawks the winner, as it had a clear lead over the other two? What's the point of seeing how the Sundogs and Northstars votes get distributed across the remaining three, but not seeing how the Nodaks votes would get distributed across Roughriders and Fighting Hawks.
That's why I think there will be a third vote if someone doesn't get 50 percent. It would have been easier to just announce fighting Hawks the winner and be done with it if that is the end game
-
If none of the 3 get 50% or more of the vote it will be a complete travesty then.
It truly will be. If one wins with 40 percent of the vote it will be a huge disservice to everyone.
I don't believe the nickname will last if there isn't 50 percent vote.
-
If the establishment is housed in the REA, then yes, you are correct.
Ah so there are different pockets of establishment. The one thing they all have in common though is that they want Roughriders out.
Seems logical.
-
All these changes are confusing me:
First the administration wanted Sundogs because it was the most PC and that is the only way it could have made the final cut
Then UND had already negotiated the rights to North Stars and the fix was in
Now they are pushing for Fighting Hawks because it was the likely choice pushed by the consultantsNo the establishment choice is nodaks, that's why they expanded it.
Anything other than Roughriders is the establishment choice because it's siouxsports.com pick. If they like it it means the University hates it and there is a big conspiracy to get it out.
-
2
-
-
I got confused. The third name thing threw me off and then didn't factor in they would have two different run-offs. Sorry everyone, hope you are all OK.
I'll let it slide
This time
-
1
-
-
Missed the part where the third option would be eliminated. Since they added it in on their own this time, I didn't know why anything would change next time.
So you assumed tthey would have multiple votes with the same 3 names?
-
Yes, we need a majority; however, in this arbitrary (based on original stated process) three-way race, it won't happen.
Worse? They've already said the most votes (majority not required) wins this round ...
Unless they change the rules ... again.
Well we know that are willing to change midstream so I am hopeful that they will if there is not a majority there will be another vote. The management of this is obviously terrible. They unnecessarily put themselves in these corners with absolute statements, and did it again yesterday.
They will look at the vote results and decide if they need another vote. As long as at the end a majority vote for a name and a possible winning name doesn't get kicked out prematurely I'll be happy. I have no confidence in the process makers and these people having any foresight so I am happy they are willing to adjust as necessary.
-
We need majority. If that happens this vote then I'll be content, if we don't get majority then we need another vote.
It's about getting the right name, not following an arbitrary process or keeping the number of votes to 2 or below. Allowing 5 names the last vote was a mistake and it will take extra elections to mitigate that mistake, but it is the right thing to do.
-
1
-
And then there were three....
in UND Nickname
Posted
Talk to someone who has more expertise in these elections aand public communication to not continually put themselves in poor situations but giving themselves arbitrary rules.