82SiouxGuy

You will have to tell Dale Lennon that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Lennon is one of the people that said the nickname issue was hurting UND with recruits before the name was dropped. He said that he saw it when talking to recruits that he was also interested in recruiting. It sounds like you would be surprised by how effective it is to go negative in recruiting, just like it is in politics.

The tribes never had the rights to the logo. It was commissioned by UND. It was created by a member of a different tribe. It is a piece of art owned by the University of North Dakota and they have absolutely no reason to turn it over to anyone else.

Most of the merchandise still in stores with the Fighting Sioux name on it was produced before the nickname was officially dropped. All licensing contracts ended on a specific date, and many stores like the Sioux Shop and Scheels ordered large amounts of merchandise before that date. They still have some of that merchandise and are allowed to sell it as long as they have it. They are not allowed to order more merchandise. As a part of the settlement agreement with the NCAA, UND must maintain the trademark for the nickname or they could assign it to a tribe. They have been maintaining the trademark by selling very limited quantities of specialized shirts, like a couple of dozen per year. They have not lasted in stores for any significant length of time. They make very little money with this arrangement, probably only a couple of hundred dollars per year. I'm pretty sure that both sides had reasons they wanted UND to control the trademark.

I've gone through that list before. I didn't check every name, but I'm pretty sure I checked more than half. Some schools could get away with Tribe, I think it would be a tough sell at a school where there was an active group opposing the NA nickname.

Please go through the list and find them. The only other school I have been able to identify that plays actual college athletics without a nickname is Hollins University. They are a small, private women's college in Virginia with about 800 students. They compete at the NCAA Division III level. They have only had athletics for a limited period of time compared to most colleges. They never had a nickname of any kind, and never had a nickname that got them put on any kind of restricted list. All other schools I have looked at that don't have an athletic nickname don't actually have athletics. Most of them are law schools, art schools, med schools or some other specialty schools.

There are a lot of different scholarships available out there, and that is true of most schools. Some are tied to heritage like being NA, Norwegian, whatever. The tribes do have their own scholarships. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has some scholarships. Some are based on grades, sports, the field of study you want to pursue, and a lot of other reasons. Income, or lack of income, is a major factor in qualifying for a lot of scholarships and grants. The scholarships can range from a few dollars to full tuition. Just because your friend is 1/16th of some tribe doesn't mean that her tuition was covered because of that heritage. Or it could have been a reason. But the same thing can be said about a lot of students who aren't NA. I have nieces and nephews in college right now, all of them getting some kind of scholarship. None of them are NA. I've also known NA students who weren't getting much for scholarships, if any at all. All NA students getting their tuition paid for is a myth.

According to many of the unscientific polls done before this week, Roughriders often outperformed no nickname. For example, there was a poll done in this forum when it was down to 7 choices. Roughriders had 42 percent of the vote and North Dakota had 27. That would make Roughriders a bigger unifying choice than North Dakota according to your logic. Just because people like different nicknames also doesn't mean that their major support is picking a new nickname rather than going without. So even the fact that an unscientific poll has no nickname as the largest plurality out of 6 options doesn't mean that it would lead if the options were any nickname versus no nickname. The vocal group of no nickname supporters made a public fuss this week when they thought that option was going away, another example of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Your calling it a unifying group doesn't make it so. But either way, unscientific polls have very little meaning. You can't make decisions based on unscientific polls. That's just making it up as you go. And whether you want to discuss it or not, a significant portion of the no nickname group are actually just looking for a way to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname alive. Some realize that it probably won't come back officially, some actually believe that it will come back. The thing they have in common is that they can't let the name go and will do whatever they can to keep it alive. As jdub noted, this could lead to further issues for UND in the future. You asked a question about the NA programs being tied in some way to the old nickname. That question has been answered by the University many times. There were no official ties between increasing NA programs and the Fighting Sioux nickname. Maybe there should have been, maybe it would have led to better relations with the tribes. North Dakota has a fairly significant number of NA tribes and population for the size of the state. UND saw that as an opportunity and chose to try to develop it. I haven't seen any data lately, but I would be at least somewhat surprised if UND didn't have more NA students than any other school in the region. A significant reason for that would be the NA programs at UND. Also, most of the NA programs were built by a small group of individuals that went after and got federal dollars. The programs didn't cost UND a lot of money. Yet they brought students that were paying tuition. The Fighting Sioux nickname (actually just Sioux when most of the programs were originally developed) may have been an contributing reason that some administrators supported the programs, but the people that thought of and built the programs were not doing it to support the nickname. Losing the nickname should have no effect on the programs.

History shows us that UND will not remain without a nickname for any length of time. I don't believe that a private Division III women's college of 800 students is a good role model for a school like UND. A nickname will be created. The vacuum will be filled in some way. One way is organically, as you mentioned. But that doesn't guarantee a quality name. Some organic names are good, some are very weak. And as I said, you lose all control by playing roulette with the choosing of a nickname. You can end up with a very weak image just as easily as a good one. You could end up using Banana Slugs, a name first chosen by 3 students for a club team at the University of California-Santa Cruz, or Billikens, first used by a sportwriter because a coach looked like a charm doll. Based on reactions to this process it is pretty obvious that people would not be fond of a similar name being used at UND. As far as being unique by going as just North Dakota, I disagree. Every school uses their school name or a shortened form of their school name. That is all UND would be doing by going as North Dakota. And that doesn't make UND unique. The nickname is the additional piece that makes each school unique. Going without a nickname isn't going to help UND build a brand or image. A really good logo may help, but logos are temporary. Even the best logos are altered or changed periodically. The nickname is a very important piece of the puzzle. As far as your point about the different teams using different gear, that has always been true at UND. The hockey program made very liberal use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo in recent years (until it was dropped). The football team didn't use either very extensively. The football team has used the interlocking ND on its helmets for years. They also have used North Dakota on their jerseys for years. Over the years, other teams have used school name, nickname, neither, and going back even further, Nodaks on uniforms. Use of just North Dakota and the interlocking ND has been much more standard for the teams during the past 3 seasons than in any other period in UND history. Most of the students wouldn't know that because most of them didn't pay much attention to what UND sports uniforms looked like going back through history. The contract being discussed with Adidas may help give a little more uniform look to the program, but that isn't even guaranteed. And as far as your belief that going as just North Dakota is somehow a unifying point, I disagree completely with your premise. Disagreement has been just as vocal lately as when the school was discussing dropping the Fighting Sioux nickname. It hasn't unified the groups, it has created a bigger wedge. Online polls like the one done by the Herald are not credible in any way. And getting signatures for an online petition isn't exactly a scientific tool. All it proves is that there is a group of people that are willing to go to that web site. They may or may not be knowledgeable about the subject. They may or may not have the best interests of the University at heart. A large portion of that group might be NDSU fans just trying to cause more trouble for UND, a lot of NDSU fans would love that. They could be people from anywhere on the planet. Plus it doesn't tell you what anyone else thinks about the idea, including the other 700,000 people that live in the state of North Dakota. Is there another meaningless petition for people that want a new nickname?

Here are a few thoughts on your subject. First, if you read these forums I think that you will see a lot of people arguing that UND has not had a lot of athletic success during the past decade. It is a constant complaint in almost every forum and in almost every sport. You are correct that not having a nickname is rather unique. There is a women's Division III school that doesn't use a nickname, that is the only college or university with an athletic program that we have been able to identify other than UND. Why does everyone else have a nickname? There are probably multiple reasons, but the fact that every other school in the NCAA and the NAIA, along with pretty much all other amateur and professional teams, have nicknames must mean that they are important. And marketing people can only work with the material available to them. Having a blank for a nickname gives them fewer tools to work with, which makes the job more difficult. Sports nicknames were created because both sports writers and fans wanted to use something besides the formal name of the team. If you read the history of team nicknames you will see that a lot of sports nicknames were created by sports writers needing variety in their writing. How many times can they use North Dakota in a story? Even when UND had a nickname (both Sioux and Flickertails) you would sometimes see Green and White or Nodaks or some other reference. Having a formal nickname limits the number of other names or references that are used. Other nicknames were created by fans. Some times they were simple references to the location, the uniforms, the people on the team, etc. Names sometimes started with a few people, caught on with more, and were often adopted by sports writers before the schools or teams formally adopted them. Some of these names changed several times before arriving at the names we currently know. My favorite example is the Brooklyn-Los Angeles Dodgers. They used Grays, Grooms, Bridegrooms, Superbas, Robins, Trolley Dodgers and Dodgers as nicknames, sometimes at the same time. They didn't officially become the Dodgers until 1932, the team was started in 1883. Still other names were chosen by the school or team. The advantage is that you can pick the image you want to portray. Letting others choose a name for you leaves that image up to others. It isn't always the image you want. And as we have seen, changing a nickname is not easy. Not having a nickname leaves a vacuum. Something is going to fill that vacuum. If UND doesn't choose a nickname something else will be used. It may not be flattering to the school. That could easily lead to other issues for UND to address. Choosing a new nickname gives the school some control. What do you yell when you are cheering for your team? At UND we are familiar with yells like "Here we go Sioux", "Sioux, Yeah, Yeah", "Let's go Sioux". What are fans supposed to yell if they don't have a nickname to use? "Let's go North Dakota"? It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. "Let's go"? That doesn't even specify a team. Not having a nickname limits cheers and chants that are easy and familiar for fans. It limits the creativity of the fanbase, because no one is going to do much creatively with North Dakota. Marketing is a major consideration. There are something like 347 schools in Division I athletics. All of them market using the name of the school (which is all you are doing if you don't have a nickname). But they also use a nickname that helps provide some differentiation from the other 346 schools. Combine the name of the school with a nickname and a logo and you have a specific school and image. It can be done without a nickname, but it is more difficult and probably not as effective. The logo is another story. The athletic department needs a new logo whether they have a new nickname or not. The interlocking ND is a good secondary logo for UND. But most people associate it with Notre Dame, which dramatically reduces the effectiveness for UND. A new logo is a must moving forward for UND. The marketing is important for at least a couple of reasons. Money is one. Selling merchandise with the school name and logo is worth money to the athletic department. In UND's case it used to be worth $300,000-500,000 before the name issue became so large. There was a spike when it became apparent that the name was going away. Sales have been much lower the last year or so. The merchandise without a nickname (just North Dakota or UND) has always been available, and has never been a big seller. That merchandise will remain available whether UND picks a nickname or not. But it probably will never be a big revenue source for the school. My conservative estimate is that a new nickname and logo are worth $100,000-200,000 per year to the athletic department. That could be more if they find the right combination. The other major reason that marketing is important is awareness or branding. One of the reasons that athletics are important to schools, and a major reason for competing in Division I, is to market your school or brand. I mentioned the 300 plus schools in Division I. There are even more schools in Division II, Division III and in the NAIA. There are probably more than 1,000 schools with athletic progarms. We already have a problem with people as close as Minneapolis confusing UND and NDSU. Using a nickname and creating a brand helps with that. Not having a nickname doesn't help with branding at all. To sum this up a little bit, there are many reasons to have a nickname for the athletic programs at UND. They were originally created for identification purposes, and that is still important. They help create an identity and a brand. They help make money. Having a blank space where the nickname normally goes does not help the school. And that doesn't get into those that use an old nickname to fill the space and whether that is potentially a problem for the school or not. Going without a nickname is a bad idea for UND for many reasons.

Very little of the exposure I have seen about UND not having a nickname would be what I consider positive.

Wow, you had to reply to the same quote twice. Jayson has plenty of real work to do that can be positive for UND. Constantly having to explain why UND doesn't have a nickname is a waste of his time. Even 5 or 10 minutes per week adds up to quite a few hours during a year. Broadcasters talking about UND not having a nickname is not good press for the school. UND isn't some how going to punish the NCAA by not having a nickname. I would rather that Jayson spend his time doing things that bring good press to UND when possible, not waste time discussing such a petty issue. Yet he can't ignore it when broadcasters bring it up. If UND is playing in the game the broadcasters are going to be talking about UND, feed them information on all of the good things the students are doing rather than having them talk about how UND is the only school that hasn't managed to get a nickname for the team. This is just a small example of the many reasons why going without a nickname is a bad idea.

To add to this, the 2 student-athletes play for the football and volleyball teams. They belong to 2 of the higher profile teams on campus not playing on ice. One of those is the largest single team on campus.

Maybe because South Dakota is the Coyote State. How about the University of Illinois Fighting Illini?

How often do people talk about how the University of Minnesota became the Gophers? Or how Saint Louis University became the Billikens? Or how Miami of Ohio became the Redhawks (unless the subject is schools changing nicknames)? The origin of nicknames is rarely discussed on the air. But UND going without a nickname is mentioned during just about every broadcast not done by Midcontinent or the UND network.

I grew up in North Dakota, not far from Grand Forks. I graduated from UND in 1982. I lived in the Twin Cities for several years. I returned to live in Grand Forks quite a few years ago. I've heard NoDaks for pretty much all of my life. I rarely heard it used in a bad way. The only ones that used it in a bad way would have used any term to describe North Dakota residents in a bad way. I think it is a very boring sports nickname, but it is in no way offensive.

So you think that it is a good use of his time talking about the lack of a nickname instead of talking about the athletes and teams.

UND would be the only school in Division I without a nickname. Everyone is used to seeing schools with nicknames. Do you really believe that they wouldn't talk about it, especially broadcasters that only do 1 or 2 UND games in a year?

You also aren't with him during the prep time for the broadcasts. That is the time when Jayson talks to the broadcasters and production staff to educate them about the players, teams, and school. That is the time when the broadcast team learns all of the tidbits that they later talk about on air. How much of that valuable prep time is taken up by questions about the nickname when that time could be used to educate the broadcasters about the athletes and the teams? It might only be 20 seconds or a minute on the air, but it could be 10 minutes, or 30 minutes or more during the prep time.

And yet there are 2 student-athletes on the committee who are supposed to be representing the student-athletes who voted to get rid of the no nickname option. Sounds like the student-athlete representatives on the committee agree with Jayson. You are totally clueless if you actually believe that anyone can "ensure" what comes out of another person's mouth. Jayson can, and does, provide the media with proper pronunciations. He can't force them to say the names in a specific way, even if he was sitting beside them and talking in their ear.

One student voted to keep North Dakota as an option. It wasn't one of the student-athletes. There are 4 students on the committee, 2 of them are actually student-athletes. It appears that 3 out of 4 students on the committee, including both student-athletes, voted to not include North Dakota. You suggested that they should listen to the student-athletes on the committee? Part of Jayson's message is related to his job. He is saying that not having a nickname is taking attention away from the student-athletes and the athletic programs because the media takes time to discuss not having a nickname rather than talking about the athletes and teams. And maybe you should learn how to spell Jayson before telling him how to do his job.

Vegas is all about "image". Controversy hurts the image they were trying to portray. It doesn't matter whether he did anything wrong or not to Vegas, he had some controversy attached to him so they did the only thing they could, they gave him a fine.

Don't you understand, Little Johnny went to NDSU so he obviously knows more than everyone else. Especially people from places like Washington, DC and Las Vegas, people that were trained to investigate. Especially about things that happened around the time he was born. After all, he learned them from BSville. BSville innuendo is the most powerful proof of all in his mind.

I disagree, I think it would have been a similar level. Maybe even more since school was in session and a group of students would have been in place to make a fuss. Many of the people that are complaining so loudly haven't actually been paying attention during the process. All they heard was that continuing to go without a nickname is off the table. They were going to get upset whenever it was announced. You can tell that a lot of people haven't been paying attention because so many seem to still feel that Fighting Sioux will somehow make a come back.

No one who supports going without a nickname as a "cooling off period" has ever defined how long would be enough. Would 5 years be enough? 10 years? 25 years? For many, never isn't long enough.

Logos change all of the time. Whatever logo is chosen now will probably be changed within the next 10-20 years, no matter how popular it is. If it isn't popular it will probably be changed before that. At least 5 different logos were used with the Sioux/Fighting Sioux nickname during my lifetime.