DamStrait
-
Posts
1,698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by DamStrait
-
-
I see the continuing support for keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname as relentless, and believe that going without a nickname is just a continuation of that effort. I think that both can harm the University. The University is important to me so I continue to do what I can to protect it. So yeah, I'm going to be relentless during this process.
I think it's possible for others to care just as much for the university as you do and favor having no nickname - but that's just me.
-
The majority doesn't always have all of the information, and aren't always paying attention to the entire issue. Not all of the majority may have the best interests of the institution at the top of the list. That's why you hire (elect) people to run the government. That's why you hire people to run institutions like UND.That's why this wasn't a completely democratic process. They brought in a committee of people that represented the major stakeholders in the University. That committee decided that going without a nickname was not best for the University. I agree with them. The committee studied the issue for many hours, much longer than a lot of people that weren't part of the committee. The committee members were much better informed than the majority of people.
I believe that too many of the people that are supporting going forward without a nickname are doing so based on emotion, not facts. They are doing so based on what they want, not what is best for the University. They are still too attached to the old nickname, whether they still believe the name can come back or not. I also find it interesting that they think they know better than the 1,100 other NCAA members that have nicknames. There are reasons that nicknames were chosen or developed at every NCAA school in the country other than Hollins University, a small women's only school. Decisions like this need to be made based on facts, not emotions.
You are nothing if not relentless - unconvincingly so, but relentless nonetheless.
-
I agree that you can't draw definite conclusions from the reactions on social media. In the post I mentioned social media I was using his own arguments against the poster. He has talked about all of the support for no nickname on social media, yet tried to say that only a small part of the people that want to go without a nickname are doing it to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname alive. So I pointed out that most of the people on social media that are trying to keep the no nickname option are also posting Fighting Sioux Forever or something else about keeping the Fighting Sioux name.
I base my opinion that less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND want to go with no nickname on the total information I have available to me. I base it on what I've seen and heard from all sources. It is my opinion. From all of my experience and reading, a strong majority of the public are ready to move on from this whole nickname debate. One of the problems with keeping it in a vote is that the vote right now would be 6 ways. No nickname could possibly get a plurality under these conditions, which would help keep it alive. Besides, elections are like sporting events, the best option (or team) doesn't always win. If people aren't all excited about a single nickname choice, they may not vote in the election. At the same time, the group promoting no nickname could get all of their supporters to vote. So apathy for a specific nickname could throw the vote to the no nicknames even though a large majority want something chosen.
Most of all, keeping no nickname as an option clouds the entire issue. A lot of the people that are supporting the no nickname option are not going to drop their support of the Fighting Sioux nickname or their opposition to any new nickname whether no nickname loses in an election or not. I have outlined some of the reasons that having a nickname are important. Going without a nickname shouldn't even be an option. This process should be about what is best for the University and the athletic department, going without a nickname is not what is best for either. Even the nickname choice committee agreed with that position after spending many hours working on the process. It is time to drop that option and make a decision between the actual nickname choices.
I understand your clarification on the social media aspect. Thanks
Otherwise, I have put into bold what I consider to be the key portions of the rest of your post - I've always loved the argument "damn the will of the majority - I know what is best" - it does have the unfortunate side effect of opening one up to the criticism of acting like a pompous ass, however.
-
Online, non-scientific polls have no reliability at all. Most of those polls allow someone to vote as many times as they want. That alone makes those polls null and void. The average person doesn't take part in those polls, often only the ones that are most vocal take part in them. The group that wants no nickname thought they were losing that option, so they are naturally more likely to take part in such a poll.
About the same validity as trying to draw conclusions from posts on social media, wouldn't you say?
I am very sure that the actual group supporting no nickname is much less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND.Based on what, might I ask? If you truly believe this, then you should be amongst those screaming the loudest to have the "no nickname" option included in the final ballot - having it voted down is the surest way to have it dismissed with the least amount of blow-back.
-
1
-
-
If the "no nickname" option makes the final ballot and wins, and IF and when the NCAA et al were to make a stink, then the next most popular option could at that point be adopted quickly and without additional fuss.
-
Also, for those that are adamant that UND pick a new nickname, as Brad Schlossman has said, the best way to get past no nickname is to have it on the final ballot, and then have it voted down.
-
As Dave St. Peter said recently, "I thought there was something incredibly powerful and unique about having the words 'North Dakota' stand alone without a nickname." I think it can be made to be even more so with a clever marketing campaign. Wisconsin, adds a modified Budweiser jingle to the end of one of their school songs ("Varsity", I believe - but I could be mistaken), to wit, "When you've said Wisconsin, you've said it all." If UND were to continue without a nickname and do the same (When you've said North Dakota, you've said it all), it would actually have meaning and fit far better. I'd like to have a marketing plan along the lines of the following: Famous alums or persons associated with the university used in short video messages. Some examples:
- Show Jimmy Kleinsasser saying " When you've said North Dakota, you've said it all", then folds his massive arms in front of him in a defiant pose.
- Have Howard Walker, who you know is still rockin' a fu manchu and looking evil, say "North Dakota - wanna fight about it?"
- Matt Greene, "Just North Dakota, baby".
- Dave Hakstol and his stare - no sound, just the words "North Dakota", then go to a black screen where first the words "It's no good turning away" appear, followed by "You know he's still there".
Others along these same lines are possible, using those such as Dave Osborn, T.J. Oshie, Zach Parise, Jonathan Toews, Commie, perhaps even the heretofore useless Phil Jackson could finally make himself useful. In this way I believe we can make not having a nickname interesting, create a following, and ultimately turn a weakness into a strength.
-
1
-
Based on social media alone it is plain to see what the majority of the alumni, students, athletes and fans prefer the North Dakota option... well, at least it's plain to see for those who do not have their blinders on. Several on this site and the committee clearly have theirs firmly attached. Once again the majority of UND fan's wishes will be effed over by a small vocal minority.
Not enough info to say that it is a majority, but that and "Roughriders" seemed to garner quite a bit of popular support and for that reason both should have made the final round. Now all we'll know is that a lot of people feel as if they haven't been listened to at all - again (or should it be "still").
-
Weird how you didn't bother to correct those who keep saying "no nickname" was the most popular option, which is also nothing more than an opinion.
I took Jim's post to mean that that was what was said at the committee, which other sources seem to corroborate (that is was stated, not that the statement was true).
-
UND was forced to give up the Fighting Sioux nickname because Standing Rock would not allow the tribe to vote on the issue. Most intelligent people believed that a vote by the tribal members would have been in favor of keeping the name. In today's society the majority no longer matter. What do they know ? The fact that a small minority can dictate what happens just rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
A similar thing is now happening in deciding what to do about a new nickname. Arguably a majority of UND fans would like to continue without a nickname but a small group thinks it knows what is best for all and will not allow that option to be put to a vote. What are they afraid of ? The same thing that Standing Rock was afraid would happen, that the vote would not go the way they wanted.
Pretty much exactly how I see it - for the record, I would have been just as upset if Roughriders were to be eliminated from contention, as that too seems to have a lot of popular support, but it seems not many of the Roughrider supporters see the heavy-handedness of how things have played out - a case of " well that's someone else's ox that was just gored, not mine, so what's the problem?".
-
It still baffles me how Roughriders can easily be the favorite among people on this site, at the Herald, and the people of Grand Forks, but ranks below Sundogs with this committee...
Yes - it should have given pause to those that were quick to laud these very same people that eliminated the no nickname option.
-
They discussed it. And no nickname is still off the list.
One of these five will be UND new nickname.
And correction. No nickname isn't a fan favorite.
Your opinion - absolutely nothing more.
-
I think that the results of a final vote weigh very heavily on whether on the number of names being voted on. If it is North Dakota or Roughriders, I think Roughriders wins because it would basically be a vote between selecting a new nickname or not having a nickname. I beleieve those results would lean towards people wanting to move on and selecting a new nickname. However, if 3 names are on the final vote, the 3rd name like North Stars would split the "We want a new nickname" vote and the "we don't want a new nickname" vote would win and just "North Dakota" would come out on top. A comparison would be what Ross Perot did to the presidential election in 1992.
That being said, I am hoping that "North Dakota" will not be an option for the final vote and the vote can actually be a vote for a new nickname as opposed to a vote where no nickname is an option.
Yes, because if it were between only "no nickname" and "Roughriders", and "no nickname" was to win, it would be a shame if the majority actually had a say - for the very first and only time throughout this whole sorry exercise.
-
Has any college hockey team went undefeated ? - I doubt it but who was the closest - I guess another way to ask is who had the best record ever ?
Cornell, 1970.
-
What does that have to do with the "no nickname" crowd continually tossing around that the claim that a large majority doesn't want a nickname with absolutely nothing to back it up? I don't disagree on what your saying, its was (as I clearly stated) unscientific and who knows how accurate. But those championing Rob Port's article and talking points using the same polls to claim that "no nickname" seems to pass muster to most when its convenient.
I took your post to mean that you feel I object to the statement that more want any nickname than want to go without, but was somehow "okay" with those claiming a majority want no nickname. I repeated the key sentence of my post to show that I am not "okay" with that assertion either.
-
2
-
-
But somehow we keep hearing that the majority wants "no nickname" with nothing to back it up and that seems to be OK.
Key sentence repeated for your benefit: "The only thing that can be concluded from your referenced poll is than not very many people that participated in it like "Spirit" or "Sundogs" or perhaps even "Fighting Green", or felt passionately enough about them to vote for them repeatedly - at least compared to some of the other options available in the poll".
-
OK, looks like I will have to do the math for some people on here. No nickname (or North Dakota in the poll) got 33.64% of the total votes. The other 6 got 66.36% vote combined. So a logical conclussion would be that 66.36% of people favored either Roughriders, Nodaks, Green Hawks, Fighting Hawks, North Stars or Sundogs. The poll didn't ask simply nickname or no nickname, but it is fair to make the conclusion based on the numbers.
Your condescension not withstanding, The bolded statement above is not supported by the facts. There is simply absolutely nothing to suggest that if those that chose a particular name had to choose another because their original choice was no longer available, that they would choose a different nickname over "no nickname". The only thing that can be concluded from your referenced poll is than not very many people that participated in it like "Spirit" or "Sundogs" or perhaps even "Fighting Green", or felt passionately enough about them to vote for them repeatedly - at least compared to some of the other options available in the poll.
-
1
-
-
http://www.inforum.com/news/3767454-inforum-poll-finds-und-fans-want-north-dakota
If 33.64% of the people voted to have no nickname and just be 'North Dakota', do some quick math and tell me me what percentage voted for a differenct nickname. I'll save you some time and just let you know that it is MORE than 33.64%
That poll was not conducted in such a way that can support the statement "any nickname is favored over no nickname" - even if multiple voting was not possible (and it was). What was said above was that if the final options were "Sundogs" (which satisfies the "any nickname" category) and "no nickname", then "Sundogs" would prove to be more popular. I think that unlikely, but because participants were allowed to vote multiple times, it's impossible to say with any certainty. Also those responding to a newspaper website poll do not necessarily provide an accurate cross-section of those that will be allowed to vote on the issue, or even of the overall population.
-
Huh? What or who's comments are you basing that off of? Dave St. Peter indicated that he was open to the idea but also didn't say he was against having one. That's all that I've seen. But somehow "all the big alumni" want "no nickname"?
All the recent polls, though very unscientific and with no actual degree of accuracy, have indicated that people prefer Roughriders over "no nickname" and any nickname over "no nickname" (GF Herald, Forum, SiouxSports).
Uhh.... No.
-
This isn't direct at you specifically, but there is no possible way you could convince me and many others that that anyone who is still advocating for the Fighting Sioux nickname has UND's best interests in mind. I have no issues with people having different opinions but the crap that is out there on social media is mainly uneducated garbage. I take issue with people that claim they will quit donating money to UND (when most don't do so in the first place) or people that are going switch their loyalty because of nickname. I'd love to hear the explanation of how those people have UND's best interest in mind.
You seem to be equating everyone that is advocating continuing without a nickname as advocating the Fighting Sioux nickname, and therefore are all claiming to quit donating or switch their loyalty - this is not the case. I believe because you don't agree with continuing without a nickname, you have tended to lump all who hold that opinion into least flattering segment of that entire group. Those that are advocating returning to the Fighting Sioux nickname are at best uninformed.
-
1
-
-
Here you have people explaining why they think choosing "no nickname" is a terrible, short-sighted decision and could actually tell you why UND is where they are. Seems to be more logical than people who don't appear listed on the Champions Club list threatening to rethink their season tickets or the guy who said he'll go back to rooting for Minnesota or just bring back Fighting Sioux, nothing will happen, etc, etc, etc. Typing Fighting Sioux Forever isn't going to bring back the old nickname and logo, but that message apparently hasn't been spread on the internet yet.
The unfortunate part of this is the large majority of people now wanting to move on were those fighting to keep Fighting Sioux when there was still a chance but are now labeled as not caring about history, tradition, etc. and it couldn't be further from the truth. People have a hard time differentiating between that and realizing that most of those people looking out for what is best for the University of North Dakota, its athletic department and student athletes.
You may not be aware, but you have a real knack for coming off as obnoxiously self-righteous. Just because someone may hold an opinion that differs from yours does not mean they care any less for UND or its best interests.
-
3
-
3
-
-
There should be a quiz to be able to vote on UND's nickname.
You'd have to be able to explain why and how we got here to pass the quiz and vote.
I like your thinking, but I fear that it is all too likely that the answers will quickly be spread on the internet, resulting in this approach becoming completely undermined as well.
-
Recommendation from Mick Garry of the Argus Leader http://www.argusleader.com/story/mickgarry/2015/06/18/und-fighting-sioux-nicknames-north-dakota-college-sports/28958187/
Mick Garry should not think of quitting his day job to go into marketing - actually, he doesn't appear to be very good at his day job either - perhaps he should just be thankful that someone has taken pity upon him and is willing to give him a paycheck for absolutely nothing in return.
-
Ummm....I'm not the one wilting here.....sssoooo your response doesn't really make any sense....just so you know....Geez, Buck Up Butter Cup. You need more to worry about, wow.
The case for North Dakota as a standalone name (not a Sioux endorsemen
in UND Nickname
Posted
I don't know, I'm not one of them. Why don't you ask those that are?