Chewey
-
Posts
1,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Chewey
-
-
If the NCAA enforces rules on speech in a forum that has public ties, they become a state actor = problems.
-
You're right. The bluff is by the "no nickname" folks: We're fine without a nickname (but we'll keep wearing the old nickname).
The NCAA (per Goon, and now GFH) seems more than willing to call that bluff with their "no nickname is fine if you're serious; but, if we hear complaints about hearing too much of the old nickname we're coming back at you" stance.
I'm willing to say the NCAA is not bluffing on that. Why? It's the same approach they took last time, namely, you can have any nickname you want, but if it's the wrong one in our minds we're coming at you.
So, if we have a nickname and people still cheer "Go Sioux", which they will for years to come, and the NCAA "hears about it", they'll sanction UND. If we don't have a nickname and people still cheer "Go Sioux", which they will for years to come, and the NCAA "hears about it", they'll sanction UND.
-
From which direction? The unhappy side will always make those claims.
From the NA side who supported the former nickname and logo and who want to stay "North Dakota", of course. Namely, the 90% (or at least 70%) of those who are not in the Leigh Jeanotte crowd. The 10% to 30% who screamed, protested, lied and repeatedly injected incendiary invective into the process without restraint at every turn were met with passive acquiescence. Seems counterproductive to cave to the first but not do anything as to the other, much larger, group. The "Sioux Were Silenced/North Dakota Forever" crowd has gained considerable momentum and traction largely because of the university's own conduct. The university's own conduct lends weight and credibility to the ongoing claim that the Sioux were silenced and are continuing to be silenced.
-
How would you do that? Who decides who participates? There is no way to get all of the right people involved anymore than getting the name right. A small committee assigned with the task and given a couple of months would have worked better. You didn't answer the question posed to you. What name do you want? How about the Barons? Oil barons, land Barons you decide. Satchel Paige once pitched for the Bismarck Barons. Doesn't matter to me. Oilers, Bombers, Flyers, Roughnecks, Drillers. Design a great logo and we are in business. How much more time do you need? I should say how many more years do you need? Give us a name. It has been how many years? I have no issues with people protesting or disagreeing but what is the purpose? What does it accomplish? Who am I to say you are wrong? Who are you to say I am wrong? I just believe there are more good reasons to move this along than delay any further.
As I've said before, I'd prefer to remain "North Dakota" in perpetuity because once you've had the best and once you've rejected a gift that was meant to be for generations and once you've insulted generations of native people any replacement adds to the insult. Pretty much anything you mentioned, however, is better than the pablum the university paid $300K or so to a consulting firm for. The real issue is that there is a significant number of people who want to stay "North Dakota". The real issue is that there is another significant number of people who want a new nickname "just to get it over with for closure" but who also acknowledge that the process was exceedingly clumsy and that the expensive result was/is horrible. The real issue is that the vast majorities of SL and SR supported the old nickname and logo have not been involved in the selection process. The only NA with any kind of involvement is the anti-nickname "plant" on the committee. Weren't these some of the people the university claimed to respect and honor when it was trying to retain the nickname and logo? The real issue is that the process and its results have been forced and the process itself has been tainted by the shameless spreading of falsehoods and propaganda by the university and the Herald. How stupid do Kelley, Peter Johnson et al think people are that they create false inferences and foment propaganda such as the latest Herald article? The best they can come up with is some garbage that the NCAA will sanction us if someone "reports" someone else for yelling "Fighting Sioux" at games - something that's been happening for years now, post-nickname surrender? That's going nowhere just like the whole meme about how retaining just "North Dakota" violates the surrender agreement.
All of the above is not conducive to closure. What happened was a consummate, immutable moral wrong and the university exacerbated it. Moving along for the sake of moving along and continuing to blunder forward will only perpetuate the matter. What should happen is that the university and the NCAA should retract the latest irresponsible assertion about "consequences" for free expression and Peter Johnson and Kelley should identify that for what it really is - conveniently timed, irrational and reactionary verbiage. North Dakota should be one of the options simply because it is supported by a significant segment of "stakeholders"; gauging the input of "stakeholders" was one of the purposes of the process. IF North Dakota is selected, so what? It's the will of a majority of the "stakeholders". Maybe a new agreement with the NCAA involving all of the stakeholders, including those, particularly the NA's, who support "North Dakota", could be derived providing the # of years after which the process to select a new nickname must be commenced. This was a significant ambiguity in the surrender agreement.
I don't know Kelley and I've never met him. I'm sure he's a nice enough guy. This has obviously been a difficult issue. He and Johnson, et al have handled the matter clumsily and they have tainted it with antics like the recent Herald article. Somewhat paradoxically, I would say that they and everyone else have learned that: 1.) The process has been a mess and has been bereft on any authenticity; 2.) Even though the process has been a mess, a significant number of stakeholders want to stay "North Dakota"; 3.) Because a significant number of stakeholders want, as per one of the stated purposes of the process, to stay "North Dakota" it should be included as an option.
-
2
-
1
-
-
So what is your idea for an acceptable replacement name?
Let's start with an authentic, transparent and truly participation-inclusive process that is free from cynical fear-mongering and self-serving propagandizing. If the result is that things stay North Dakota for some time longer, so be it. If it takes some time longer to transition away from 80+ years of a nickname and logo loved by pretty much everyone, so be it. Eventually transitioning to a replacement in that fashion will get UND a lot more closure than forcing an idiotic replacement that is the by-product of Kelley's perfunctory sham. The selection of a replacement nickname that is the result of simple negative inertia (i.e. we spent a bunch of money and had all of these committees so we must come out with something) of an erroneous course will not only NOT effect closure but will have the opposite effect.
-
2
-
-
Exactly.
Ask Dale Lennon. Even Hakstol knew that it was time.
Right now our men's hockey team is bulletproof. But, Hackstol was around during the downslide. If that happens again, it could get ugly fast. Even for the hockey team.
It got ugly for football. I'd have liked to be a fly on the wall during some of Coach Bohl's home recruiting visits.
So, the football team sucks because the nickname issue is hampering recruiting. It's not because UND recently transitioned to D-1. It's not because NDSU is simply better and has been for quite some time, just like the 70's, 80's and up until about 1993 when UND finally beat NDSU. It's not because UND was stupid in not transitioning up with NDSU in 2004 and, thereby, setting itself back in recruiting, money, etc. at least 10 years. It couldn't be because 3 or 4 other similarly sized schools who are also now D-1 recruit from the same area. It couldn't be because NDSU and UND had a mutually initiated and mutually maintained pissing contest which has prevented them from playing each other for years and which, largely because of UND's own lack of perspective and foresight, has impacted UND much more negatively. Nah, none of that matters. All the coaches from opposing schools, et al talk about with potential recruits and their parents is the nickname. The championships, # of players playing in the NFL, years-long dominance over rivals don't matter at all. This is bluster and fear-mongering and it is intended to provide Kelley with "cover" as he says "because the NCAA said 'X', I can't allow 'North Dakota' to be an option. Sorry, I'd really like to but...."
Loving the Fighting Sioux nickname, wearing Fighting Sioux attire to games, yelling Fighting Sioux at the end of the National Anthem (which, by the way is the next "hostile and abusive" target for the emotional glass-jaws of the PC episcopacy), thinking that ALL of the proffered replacement nicknames completely SUCK, thinking that the process of selecting the idiotic replacement nicknames was, at best, farcical and, at worst, completely duplicitous and an absolute waste of taxpayer resources, wanting to honor tradition and the native peoples who gave the previous nickname and not further insult them (hold Kelley, Peter Johnson, et al to the words/intentions they issued when the nickname was retired) by choosing a horse$#!+ replacement is not tantamount to either having some fantasy that the nickname will come back or executing steps to actualize that fantasy.
Kelley, et al initiated and maintained the joke of the inauthentic nickname selection process with this committee and that committee in an entirely half-assed fashion to see what the "stakeholders" want. It's no surprise that it has always been viewed as a sham and a waste of money. Even the sham though showed that the majority want to stay just "North Dakota" and the fact that the Committee/Kelley took it out of the list of options only validates that reality. If one thinks that initiating and maintaining a sham process, selecting a horrible nickname and excluding "North Dakota" (the clear favorite) from the options is going to put the issue to rest, one does not have a psychological grasp of how errors piled upon errors only causes a catastrophic error in judgment to metastasize into something much worse, causes the entrenchment and augmentation and proliferation of opposing views and completely eviscerates the offending parties of any credibility (See the Vietnam War).
When/if a legitimate replacement nickname is chosen, as opposed to one being ripped off from a local high school, a little-known and ridiculous weather phenomenon, (insert inane adjective here) "hawks", etc., when such nickname is actually the product of a legitimate, authentic, transparent, process that accomplishes the goals set forth in the inane verbiage of Kelley, et al about respecting tradition and native peoples, when all of the stakeholders (including the native americans who were insulted by UND and the NCAA) have had a good faith opportunity to participate and be heard and when that replacement name is supported by the "stakeholders", only then will things truly move forward.
My wife and kids and I will be enthusiastically participating in the gathering on the 22nd and, yes, we'll all be wearing "Fighting Sioux" attire and, yes, we'll be adding our voices with everyone else in letting Kelley, Johnson, know that the process has been a joke and that the replacement nicknames constitute unacceptable effluvium from that joke. No, we won't be saying or thinking that the Fighting Sioux nickname should or will come back. Is it any wonder that the proffered nicknames are the natural by-products of such a ham-fisted process?
-
6
-
2
-
-
When it comes to publicly funded/affiliated schools and venues, they sure are. This is just the sort of issue that would provide even more rope for the NCAA to hang itself. Outside the Kohl Center or the Mariucci or the Ralph, which is presently privately owned but leased by a publicly funded institution are "free speech zones" but inside thou shalt not go there?
-
3818902-sioux-chants-could-mean-consequences-und
Well, now it's super-official that not adopting a nickname will not and does not violate the surrender agreement per the NCAA itself - something we've ALWAYS known. This is nothing more than scare tactics meant to dissuade and it's timing alone could not make the whole thing more transparent. Good luck trying to limit free speech. Not going to happen. When this sort of story comes out, it provides validation and encouragement vis-a-vis the reality that the vast majority of people what to stay just "North Dakota" and that Kelley et al will do anything, even continue to engage in scare tactics, to frustrate it. In reality, such stories and such tactics only add momentum and strength to it. The school is not violating the surrender agreement if people cheer this or that or wear this or that.
A here's a Herald story as to CM Sioux's last point in 3, 2, 1.......
-
1
-
-
I guess I don't know how you define the sky falling but the number of negatives associated with going forward with "no nickname" continues to grow, regardless of how small or unrealistic some may perceive them to be. They are real. People on the committee admitted it. People that work for UND, including in the athletic department, admit it. Players and coaches admit it. There are real consequences and issues that "no nickname" brings that the five options that are officially left don't. Why voluntarily put any of those in play when there is a simple solution to it? So that people can selfishly hold on to an inanimate object? Or because they somehow think it will be "sticking it" to the NCAA, when in reality they are only putting the University of North Dakota at a disadvantage, regardless of how small or large it may end up being? The biggest issue is that "no nickname" does not resolve the nickname issue one bit. It is what the committee came to understand in their hours of work and why it was eliminated. It will continue to waste time, resources and money that could be much better spent elsewhere.
"Players and coaches admit it"? "People on the committee admitted it"? You mean like Karl and Commodore and the other athletes, former and present, who
want to be North Dakota. The argument that the surrender agreement doesn't allow for "North Dakota" has been shown to have been a complete sham. The
"marketing" angle makes no sense as well since marketing a horrible nickname is not going to generate any more revenue than what's presently the case.
Could the motivation possibly be that people who support North Dakota just don't want a nickname - any one of the 5 - that completely sucks? The positions
that not having a nickname because once you've had the best no other will do or that not having a nickname is completely allowed by the surrender agreement or that it's inappropriate to have a horrible nickname - any nickname - just to "move on" are not tantamount to harboring a sentiment to "stick it to the NCAA". I can't stand the NCAA, admittedly, but the NCAA has been shooting itself in the foot just fine without my having to make sure that it knows that I want to stick it to the NCAA. The present nickname selections suck. Inflicting one of them on everyone is not going to cause people to just "move on";
it will not foster a sense of "healing". The committee/Kelley should give the people a voice; that's what they said they'd do. You don't give
the people a voice by taking the most popular option off of the table and then indicate that the public must express its voice regarding a bunch of
wet noodles. Not giving the people a true voice - the ability to select North Dakota, a choice that Kelley and some on the committee may not like -
guarantees that the issue will fester for a very long time. At least with the PC crowd, the unabashed and unchanging sentiment of "we don't care if people move on, we just want something other than Fighting Sioux" has been explicit. I can respect that though I disagree with it. There at least is an
authenticity with respect to that point of view. The position that having a nickname will help people move on eventually is not realistic, especially
when the options have been dictated rather than voluntarily selected. Is the intent of committee/Kelley to adopt an option that satisfies the committee/
Kelley? Or, is the intent to pursue a protocol that addresses the concerns of ALL of the stakeholders(as they said), including "North Dakota" supporters?
-
1
-
-
North Dakota is just fine as a nickname. Didn't we give up the nickname because people were defining us? We were associated with Nazis because of Ralph
and his party. We were associated genocidal maniacs because of the nickname. We were defined as bigots and of emotionally assaulting kids because of the nickname and logo. NDSU fans have always defined us in less than flattering ways. People are going to define us how they wish regardless of whether there is a nickname. Selecting a new nickname is going to do exactly squat for revenue. First, a whole lot of people are going to be upset that North Dakota
was not even considered and that a new horse$#!# nickname has been inflicted upon them. Second, many of those who aren't pissed are still going to
begrudgingly acknowledge that the new nickname sucks and not purchase anything. Third, there will be a segment who is indifferent to the nickname because
of its common use by other schools so they will likely not purchase much either.
Do we think of "Crimson" when we think of Harvard? Do we think of "Bears" when we think of Brown. Do we think of "Flames" when we think of the University of Illinois at Chicago? When we see a Denver fan with Denver attire, doesn't the attire say "Denver" or "DU"? I don't think I've ever seen a jersey or
sweatshirt with "Pioneers" on it. If the sentiment of moving forward, "healing", "full participation" is genuine, Kelley will have to let the people
choose what they want.
-
1
-
-
They all suck really bad. Here's to attending the protests on Friday and in August. Brad's right. The process was/is a sham. At least a lot of people weren't so naive to think that it was legitimate in the first place.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Not surprising coming from a federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton. This was entirely predictable.
-
So the playbook from Spirit Lake now involves painting Teddy R. as a racist. Classy move. Sioux Forever, right?
Welcome to the world of hyper political correctness. Andrew Jackson owned slaves (as did many during that time) and killed lots of Native Americans so he can't be on the 20 dollar bill anymore. Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" makes reference to the "barbaric yawp" of Native Americans so we can't read that anymore. Mark Twain's "Huck Finn" makes reference to Huck's best friend "Jim" with the "N" word so we can't read that anymore. It's crazy; it's just as crazy as the uproar over the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo. TR did, in fact, say/write those things so choosing him as a mascot would probably have protest implications. I don't think "Roughriders" should be chosen as the nickname either but what TR may have written or said is of little consequence one way or another. Unfortunately, at the time, I bet 90% of the people said or wrote what he said or wrote or worse.
-
1
-
-
Lately the Herald has been publishing too many letters to the editor from people who support sundogs.
For example, one of the letter was from a u of Minnesota alum who lives in Grafton. So I got off my butt and submitted a letter last night so hopefully it gets published. If it doesn't, here is is for everyone of this forum: (special thanks to RD17 for doing the research on the institutions that usetheir state motto)
What the heck is a sundog?
I will begin this by conveying my dissatisfaction with how this entire nickname process has played out thus far. Do we really need pay consultants to help us pick a new nickname? The old saying about consultants goes something like this: “A consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time, and then keeps the watch.”
Now to my main point: Sundogs. This is a weather phenomenon that does happen in North Dakota, among other cold weather states. Sure it is kind of cool to see, but is this a name that merits the nickname of the states flagship university UND? Some have said this represents Grand Forks. This is not the University of Grand Forks so let’s think bigger than that. To me the answer is a resounding no. I do not want my U’s nickname to be a weather phenomenon. I definitely do not want the logo to be some sort of rainbow.
There are many state universities that use their states motto as a nickname. Of the seven names the committee and consultants deemed “popular”, there is one that does stick out. Roughriders. Which happens to be one of North Dakota’s state mottos.
A common argument is that RRHS is the Roughriders. Hazen High School is the bison, the exact same name as another major university in the state. I can live with that. Here is a list of state universities that use their state motto as their mascot:
Razorback State (Arkansas)
The Bear State (California)
Buffalo Plains State (Colorado)
Blue Hen State (Delaware)
Alligator State (Florida)
Hoosier State (Indiana)
Hawkeye State (Iowa)
Jayhawk State (Kansas)
Terrapin State (Maryland)
Wolverine State (Michigan)
Cornhusker State (Nebraska)
Tar Heel State (North Carolina)
Buckeye State (Ohio)
Sooner State (Oklahoma)
Coyote State (South Dakota)
Volunteer State (Tennessee)
Mountain State (West Virginia)
Badger State (Wisconsin)
Cowboy State (Wyoming)
I love the Fighting Sioux nickname and will continue to identify as such for quite some time, and I am happy that in the past UND was respectful enough to only use a logo. However, we must move on for uncontrollable reasons and there are not enough pages in this fine publication to explain how we got here. If we have to pick a new nickname please pick something that I don’t have to explain every time someone asks:
“What the heck is a sundog?”
That's a very good letter. As this process goes forward, be prepared to see every sniveling, whining progressive write letters to the editor about how great "Sundogs" would be.
-
1
-
-
Even "Rawhiders" would be better than any of the present choices, except staying just "North Dakota". It would commemorate the ranching and driving of huge cattle herds that's historically occurred in ND.
-
5 guys to wear the "A"? Really? That's 6 total? I can't imagine why they chose so many.
-
mksioux and I are pretty much exactly on the same page. I'd prefer a good, new nickname over no nickname, but no nickname is better than a bad nickname. I feel that someone HAS checked with the NCAA to find out if going without is acceptable, and my guess is no one associated with UND is willing to publicize that blessing because of the groundswell (real or perceived) of public opinion that may have derailed the nickname selection process. And I think mksioux has an even more compelling argument to support that opinion than I do.
Absolutely correct.
-
If Kelley and the Committee want closure, healing, transparency, involve all of the stakeholders, etc., then they should truly allow the people to make the choice. This is the only way that any licity, legitimacy, credibility can be ascribed to a process that, to-date, has been largely viewed as a cluster#@#.
-
3
-
-
Just want to make sure I understand your stance: You are basically saying the only nickname that should ever be acceptable to be used at the University of North Dakota is Fighting Sioux and if that isn't possible there should never be another one chosen?
That's the option I would prefer. However, the broader point for which I'm advocating is to allow the people to freely do what they want to do. Don't obfuscate things with paying $300k to a group to gather list of names that a drunkard stumbling out of Whitey's could generate, engage in scare tactics, engage in puerile invective, offer public statements that show a lack of an ability to appreciate nuances and complexities (see inane statments by 2 of the committee members that staying North Dakota will mean staying Fighting Sioux), offer misinformation about marketing, offer misinformation about how other schools/fans will identify UND, offer self-serving statements about NCAA unpredictability, etc. In support of retaining "North Dakota, the same rhetoric regarding the loss of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname could be employed. A few of the widely circulated platitudes proffered when the debate to retire the nickname/logo was raging were: 1.) players/recruits don't play for a nickname/logo; 2.) players choose successful programs and another nickname and logo will catch on eventually; 3.) nicknames and logos really are distant or at least highly secondary considerations; 4.) Recruits/other schools will brand or define UND as "racist" and use that against UND in recruiting if it's retained. Now, we hear rhetoric that UND must choose a nickname. The fact that various parties in favor of selecting a new nickname and logo have resorted to all of this really shows both the weakness of the idea and the lack of overall support for it. It shows desperation. Ideas should stand or fall on their own merits; the merits pro or con may change over time.
At St. John's University, they have the Johnnies. People have identified St. Johns teams as "the J's", "the Rats", "the cloistered monks", etc. The "Rat Pack" that shows up in ridiculous attire to football and basketball games and performs ridiculous stunts/cheers has been an important part of the school's tradition and history. The St. Thomas "Tommies" have "Ol' Tom" or "Zany Tom" the Tomcat as a mascot. The Augsburg "Auggies" have a bald eagle as a mascot. The St. Olaf "Oles" have a dragon that looks like a lion as a mascot. The Gusties of Gustavus have a lion as a mascot. The fact that there has not been any true nicknames has not resulted in any of these schools being defined by other parties. Recruits trying to choose between Bethel, St. Thomas or St. John's don't choose Bethel and reject the other two because Bethel's teams are known as "The Royals".
-
The NCAA is the only one that knows for certain what will be acceptable and what will not. They have made the rules and moved the goalposts where ever they have for the last 5+ years.
Do you know for certain that not officially choosing a new nickname will be accepted by the NCAA?
The NCAA could come in and say "Fighting Sioux" is ok again, at some point. The NCAA could come in and say that "Roughriders" is not acceptable because of the indecencies perpetrated on the Latino fighters at that time and that the present day Latino community is offended. The unpredictability argument is another arrow in the quiver as to why things should just stay "North Dakota". Logic justifying the selection of a nickname becomes a bit contorted when one says that we must have a nickname so as to appease the NCAA who may right now be ok with "North Dakota" but, at some future point, may change its tune and not be ok with just "North Dakota" or with "Roughriders" etc. That argument is circular. The school should seize the day and explicitly say that it's not choosing a nickname and state why (the Fighting Sioux nickname was the best, respect for the people who gave it to the school, etc.). Some lame nickname replacement may not be as marketable or as appealing to future recruits are some on here surmise. Ideas, passion, success, respect for tradition, deference to historical significance sell.
-
2
-
-
Didn't Brand want all the logos at the Ralph gone but never took a tour of it, and Emmert after taking a tour of the Ralph said most of the logos are okay due to cost.
This is point in fact as to SiouxVolley's point about Brand vs. Emmert. I have to give the NCAA some credit here because when Emmert or whomever saw what would need to be done to eradicate the Ralph of the images embedded in granite, etc., they thought better of it and relented. Myles Brand and Walter Harrison didn't care and they wanted the stuff removed regardless, if memory serves me correctly. Brand was a died in the wool leftist and left a pattern of disaster in his wake wherever he went, including and most notoriously Indiana/Bobby Knight. Indiana's BB program has been shite ever since he left, except for one or two years where the successor had success with Knight's recruits. Brand had it in for ND all along and ND's federal political weasels like Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy, Hoeven etc. didn't do squat. The voice of one of them would have been all that was necessary to make it go away. The sleaziness was to be expected from the first three as they had been feeding at the public trough virtually from day one following college graduation. Hoever, however, was a complete disappointment.
-
I still don't see why "Roughnecks" wasn't in the list. That's got at least as much relevance with the state as Roughriders and it's not a copycat of a local high school name. But, I guess, a school located in the east can't have a mascot from the western part of the state unless it involves a former President and a school in the east already uses it.
-
-"Saying we're going to be North Dakota to me means saying we're going to stay the Fighting Sioux" - Nickname committee, Chelsea Moser
-Majority of public wanted North Dakota as nickname but many are just mad about Sioux logo retirement. - Nickname committee member Carla Christofferson
-“I like North Dakota because we're indefinitely the Sioux,” said another UND student
I will cheer for North Dakota and continue to donate regardless of what nickname, if any, is chosen. To be clear, however, ALL of the nickname options (not including the no nickname) run the gamut from completely embarrassing to completely insipid to completely being "Team Xerox". What's especially galling is that the university/taxpayers/students paid in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with such a list of complete bombs. I want the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo to come back but that is not going to happen (at least for a very long time after extreme political correctness has been eradicated out of post-secondary education - and it looks like the economy and the student loan crisis will effect a healing adjustment in what is now a completely rotting edifice - see Bernie Sanders' campaign call for free college as evidence of this).
There is a misperception being tendered by many that those who want to stay "North Dakota" simply want to buy time for the "Fighting Sioux" name to come back. That is not necessarily the case for most though I'm sure there are some who do want that. Remaining "North Dakota" is the best option because all of the other nicknames are complete duds. It is the best option because when you've had the best, nothing else will do. It is the best option because retaining it gives deference and respect to the rich tradition and history and generosity of the Sioux people who's name was ripped away by completely racist and heavy-handed tactics employed by the NCAA. This was one of the goals of Kelley and the committee, wasn't it? Their words need to mean something. Or, will their words just be the latest expedient example of how flimsy and empty the white man's word is? Note to Kelley: Posting a few flags in the Ralph and employing some empty rhetoric that makes one want to vomit will do nothing. This is the best option because it gives reverence to the storied history of UND's athletic franchise. It is the best option because it does not violate any terms of any surrender agreement and I've stated ad nauseam as to why that is.
Now that both the marketing argument and the purported violation of the surrender agreement argument have been debunked (my opinion), we see the transitioning to the equally weak argument that other people will define us if we don't have a new nickname. Hasn't everyone on this board and in the media and in Twamley Hall been belaboring the point that the athletic teams and the school and the students are so great that they define themselves? What's with the obsession with labels? We have a label; it's "North Dakota". So scriveners in the media are going to start getting carpal tunnel syndrome from having to type "North Dakota" and will, to protect themselves and to sate their unquenchable, compulsive obsession with labels, start typing "Green and White", "Nodaks", "Green", "UND", etc.? If Minnesota fans want to "define" us as the "?s", if Wisconsin fans want to identify us as "the Green and White", if Denver fans want to identify us as the "Nodaks", who cares? Let people explore their creative muse however they wish.
As to the 3 points you mentioned, who cares? Just because someone is mad about being ripped of the best nickname in sport does not mean that said sentiment is the only reason for wanting to stay just "North Dakota". Remaining "North Dakota" does not mean that things stay the "Fighting Sioux". The first two points are representative of of a knee-jerk, perfunctory, presumptive and infantile mind-set that should have no place either on the committee or in the debate itself. It is a mind-set that does not appreciate nuances or complexities and it is fed, sustained and self-soothed by venting its own concocted justifications. The drooling by a 10 month old on a teething ring or the random giggling by a 10 month old at the sound of a rattle would be just as compelling and would probably be more relevant.
As to the third point, who cares? One's opinions and personal associations do not violate any surrender agreement. If the committee wants the process to have any relevance at all, it will look at the latest GF Herald poll put the scare tactics and petty, juvenile ramblings and empty arguments regarding labels aside and make "North Dakota" one of the final options.
-
I like this idea. Very good points about tying in to the Sioux logos in the Ralph.
Good points, indeed. We could be the "Baton Rouge" (red baton "tomahawk") or the "Tomahawks". That's not a native nickname and the pioneers used them for fighting, too. As long as there's no feathers attached to the logo, no problem.
NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname
in UND Nickname
Posted
Exactly. It's one of the options that a significant # of the "stakeholders" want. It should be on the ballot, accordingly. I find it remarkable how some on this board think the selection of a nickname to move forward simply for the sake of moving forward is going to resolve the issue, especially where the most popular option (arguably) is purposefully withheld from consideration. As I've said, I'd prefer to stay "North Dakota" in perpetuity. However, many of the proposed names that were summarily dropped were far better than the 5 deadbeats that have been retained.