Chewey
-
Posts
1,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Chewey
-
-
If someone put up to vote on this board:
A nickname
vs.
No nickname
Wonder which would win? Here, I would guess "A nickname" would win.
The members of the SR and SL reservations who got hosed likely are not posting on this board. As the appointment of Russ on the committee indicates, they're "stakeholders". Let's include them in the vote on this board along with the supposedly uneducated "ditto heads" on Facebook and we'll see how close the vote will be. It would be "North Dakota" in a landslide. Most of the Facebook grunts that I know are certainly invested donation-wise. At least with this, there will be no 8-6 tribal council vote preventing tribal members from voting. If it winds up being a legitimate process, "North Dakota" will be one of the options and the university/Kelley won't be able to ignore a clear majority vote, a la SL 2009 either. If you want to be on the Ron His Horse is Thunder bandwagon, have no problem copying a local high school, have no problem with your team being named after a pack of condoms, assign credibility with a straight face to what's probably at least a $300K process to select something that any drunken frat boy across University Avenue could have chosen in the beginning, vote for Rough Riders.
-
The forcefull "Fighting Sioux" he belts out is a direct FU to Mark in Indy.
Excellent interview.
Ha, ha! Loved it!
-
I do wish the committee would come out and say "we don't mean North Dakota as a nickname; we mean 'no nickname'".
Why? "North Dakota" as a nickname would be in violation of the NCAA policy because Dakota is a tribe name and can not be used as a nickname. Yes, I'm harping on this point, but people need to know what the intention is, because I really don't believe they mean "North Dakota" as the nickname and should say so to be clear.
If they just chose "Dakota" you'd have a point. Putting redundancy aside, "North Dakota" would be fine as a nickname because it's a state. There is no "North Dakota" tribe. That said, they should clarify this to acknowledge what that option actually means.
-
2
-
-
I think Roughriders makes the top 3. It did receive the most votes. I would guess Roughriders, Sundogs and Nodaks make top 3. I can't see them keeping North Dakota as an option as that would probably run away with the vote.
They'll have to come up with some facially legitimate excuse to keep "North Dakota" off of the final 3. The hyperventilating group clarion call to have a nickname, I think, is a resounding acknowledgment that "North Dakota" would run away with it.
-
So there isn't going to be a vote? I would have actually been fine with that as I said from the start. form a committee and hire local consultants to pick a name, no public vote(sure, send out surveys to alum and students but that's it).....not pass the buck and turn it into a complete cluster f%$# that this has been.
Should have just had the committee formed, left out the wasted money on the consultants and brought in a few people locally with experience in the marketing business like UND alum Jason Loney of Scheels who has a little experience with Pro and College licensing and a couple key people from any of the following large regional companies whose job is to work with logos and designs like CI Apparel, S&S(Brad Ness is another alum), Lake Shirts, etc.(I left out a couple companies including mine). Narrow it down to 3 or 4 acceptable choices and have those companies go back to their marketing people and art staffs and come up with some concepts and ideas rather than pick a name and then say "welp lets see what we can come up with"
They gather the info, discuss it and announce a name and explain why they chose that name and it's over. Now they are going to end up with a name that the majority of people do not want since they dangled out the possibility of going by the current status quo of being The University of North Dakota and that is the most popular choice among the people who truly matter. Absolute transparency isn't always the best thing when you involve the general public due to the 7 out of 10 rule.
It is to be expected though when any government agency is tasked with something like this.
Agreed. Include "North Dakota" in the final list and let's see what's most popular. The committee was to gauge sentiment/input from "the stakeholders" and make determinations accordingly. Roughriders is an option for the "sky is falling" crowd. The final list, if the committee is truly serious about being transparent should be "North Dakota", Roughriders, Explorers/Cavalry. Sundogs should fail simply because it's what the PC crowd wants. It won't have a chance - hopefully - unless the vote is extended to the fall term and after certain PC profs have an opportunity to lecture everyone about how racist they'll be if they don't vote for it.
-
It's amazing what an utterly atrocious list of finalists will do to people.
"Atrocious" is a massive understatement.
-
The fact that there's a contract that says "new nickname" doesn't have jack squat to do with the fact that there is a policy that says no Native American nicknames. A breach of contract (for which there is a legal remedy) is not a violation of the policy (for which there are sanctions). Simple logic seems to escape the NCAA tinfoil hat types.
^^^^^^^This
Kelley would not be making public statements about the no nickname option unless it was an option. Someone on here said that the NCAA makes statements. Not objecting to the "cooling off period" was a statement. Not correcting Kelley/Karl was a statement. Devils and angels on peoples' shoulders and hair standing up on the back of someone's neck because one does not like "North Dakota" or because one does not like associations or connotations does not constitute a violation of any policy.
-
2
-
-
Do we know Kelley has contacted the NCAA and confirmed it? It wouldn't be the first time an academic misspoke or assumed themselves to be correct. (Suddenly you're believing Kelley, and I'm not; interesting role reversal.
)Do we know the NCAA would inject itself into the process? Or would they rather watch it play out and then execute as they see fit. They like the "final judge (jury, and executioner) role" and don't want to be seen as meddling (any further) as that would contradict their prior statement, "Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter*." That comes back around to the settlement agreement, namely: Does the NCAA see "no" nickname as a "new" nickname.
And yes, I want to hear it from the NCAA and them only, as they are the final judge (jury, and executioner).
I think the NCAA has already spoken. Namely, this issue was festering prior to the execution of the amendment to the surrender agreement regarding the imagery at the Ralph in September, 2012. The NCAA could have included a provision clarifying the matter and did not do so. If Kelley and Karl misspoke about the no nickname option, how quickly do you think Leigh Jeanotte and Erich Longie would have picked up the "bat phone" to the NCAA to complain? How quickly do you think other PC zealots on campus would have crawled over each other to confront them and contradict such statements publicly?
-
We have far more "we don't know" or "we can assume" than we have "we know".
- Is the NCAA cutting us a break to allow the process to play out without them enforcing the settlement agreement contract?
- How does the NCAA view the phrase "... to a new nickname and logo ..." with regard to no nickname?
What I do know: Choosing a new nickname and logo that is not "no nickname" and that is not "race, ethnicity, or national origin based" closes the issue.
As to your points, we do know that Kelley has come out and said that "North Dakota" is an option, we do know that Kelley would not say that if it wasn't an option (he is an educated person, after all), we do know that the NCAA has not contradicted Kelley as to public statements regarding the no nickname option. These are facts; it is not assuming anything at all. What you claim we don't know about the NCAA has been answered by what Kelley has publicly stated and by what the NCAA has not done.
-
You say that "no policy against offensive nickanmes and logos being violated". Are you sure, or is this more hyper-confident bluster (ala the Spirit Lake suit)? I ask this because the agreement is a contract.
Is one side choosing to not enforce the contract at this time? That is the right of a party to a contract.
For example, paying your rent is a contract. If you're late or miss a month your landlord can choose to give you some slack (goodwill on the landlord's part) or drop the hammer on you. Can we say definitively at this point that "no policy ... being violated" or are we running on the goodwill of the NCAA* (to allow this process to play out)?
You say one side is using "scare tactics". Dare I say you're providing facts that are not in evidence at this time (because we don't know if the NCAA sees us as in violation but is cutting slack for the process, and we don't know if "no nickname" is acceptable under the settlement in their eyes).
*I can't believe I just typed that phrase.
Is there anything explicitly saying that "North Dakota" violates something that the surrender agreement addresses? The contract makes reference to having a NA nickname that violates the policy or transitioning to something that does not violate the NA policy. What purpose would Kelley and Karl have in coming out and saying that "North Dakota" is an option? How would the committee and Kelley look if Kelley were to come out and say that "North Dakota" is not an option and then have to reverse course? This would be extremely irresponsible and it would make the process look a lot worse than it already does. Kelley probably checked with the school's lawyers and he probably checked with the NCAA itself before making any statement or allowing any statements to be made by any third party. Irrespective of what's been said about the committee and Kelley, they are not using hyperbole and misinformation to sway people on this and I think they should be viewed in more positive light. They're essentially saying that "North Dakota" is an option and addressing the issue directly, as I see it. Acknowledging this lends credence to the claim that they want to address the nickname issue honestly, transparently and openly. I give them a lot of credit for this. If they truly want to honor the history and traditions of the Sioux people, as was said before, choosing "North Dakota" does just that.
-
Source with the sales numbers?
The point is that for some time many have claimed that sales of "North Dakota", "ND" materials have been down and offer that as a justification for adopting a new nickname. Sales of "Fighting Sioux" materials have been made during that time. The initial claim then must be viewed in that light.
-
The whole process was started and is being dragged out for one reason....to decide on and institute a NEW nickname and not continue just as North Dakota without a nickname. Could I live with just being North Dakota...yes. Will that happen? IMO there is zero chance that is the ultimate result. Think of the outrage from the general public on the waste of time, effort and dollars spent to essentially come up with nothing. I am resigned to the fact that there will be a new nickname ultimately chosen........but one the will cause me to regurgate small amounts of vomit in my mouth every time I hear it.
All progress is change but not all change is progress. If the committee determines that "North Dakota" is the option most want and "North Dakota" is retained, it will have done what it was meant to do, which is to get input from the "stakeholders" and make decisions accordingly. If they choose something, anything just so that there is something other than "Fighting Sioux" and just so that a few people can say we've transitioned to a new nickname and logo, the process will have been a failure.
-
I forgot to add the scare tactic that sales of "North Dakota" only stuff are way down even though sales of "Fighting Sioux" stuff are running as high as ever.
-
I read Chewey's past opinions about how the Spirit Lake lawsuit was going to win in Federal court over the NCAA. I actually attended sessions in Judge Ralph Erickson's courtroom. I saw how the NCAA attorneys and how a Federal judge views these matters, first hand.
Given that track record, I temper my belief in Chewey's opinions posted here.
As someone else said, "fair enough". Matters in court have winners and losers. There was no shortage of people asserting that the 1969 pipe ceremony was a permanent and binding act as per Sioux traditions. That said, the Judge gave Eunice Davidson the title of her book which has proved pretty successful and (i.e. "The Sioux Were Silenced") support for the Fighting Sioux nickname and/or no nickname is strong.
As to the no nickname option, that is an entirely different issue apart from the controversy addressed in the surrender agreement. I've stated them before but when you have 1.) Kelley himself and Karl coming out and stating that "North Dakota" is an option; 2.) No policy against offensive nicknames and logos being violated; 3.) No amendment to the surrender agreement in nearly 8 years regarding the no nickname option; 4.) An amendment to the surrender agreement regarding NA imagery at the Ralph which was clearly part of the controversy addressed in the original surrender agreement;
5.) No objection to the "cooling off period" by the NCAA (again, if you think the NCAA didn't do so out of being respectful of the trauma ND was put through, you're certifiable); 6.) The NCAA actually agreeing to ongoing sales of "Fighting Sioux" materials for multiple years and fostering the racism it sought to prevent, the position is sound.
The contrast between all of this and assertions that A.) Marco Hunt was chosen by the NCAA to eff UND in the frozen four; B.) We need a new nickname - any lame nickname - for the sake of some marketing/identity benefit so that we can make $$$$ of selling all of the hot new materials and so that we don't get controlled by other teams' fans; C.) We'll be permanently on the NCAA unspoken nasty list; D.) Retaining "North Dakota" will foster an abusive and racist atmosphere on campus and UND will be sanctioned by the NCAA because the spirit of the policy against NA nicknames will have been violated; E.) Other schools/teams will make fun of us for not having a nickname/logo is stark. This strain (dare I say "contagion"?) of hyperbole should be viewed with extreme skepticism.
All of the scare tactics and paranoia surrounding the "North Dakota" option constitute validation not only that it is a viable option but also that the stakeholders and many members on this board have probably known it all along. I think it may be probable that Kelley called the NCAA before any public assertions that it is an option were made. The polls and interviews done by the various committees indicated, at least from what I've seen, that most people prefer "North Dakota". If Kelley and the committee do what most people want, "North Dakota" will be retained.
-
2
-
-
Kelley himself would not have said that just "North Dakota" is an option if it violated the surrender agreement. It does not violate the surrender agreement. The controversy addressed by the litigation and resolved via the surrender agreement was having a NA nickname that violated the NCAA policy against having offensive NA nicknames. The directive was to transition to a new nickname that does not violate the policy. Not having a nickname does not implicate or violate the policy. The policy and the surrender agreement concerning the policy are irrelevant. There was no mandate against not having a nickname in the surrender agreement. The reason behind this was that this was not the controversy being addressed. For nearly 8 years, there's been no amendment to the surrender agreement addressing this. Why? See above. There was an amendment concerning the imagery at The Ralph. Why? See above. The "cooling off period" was passed into law by the ND Legislature. Why? See above. The NCAA did not object to the "cooling off period" even now, after it has passed. Why? See above. If you think that the NCAA was motivated by what the state of North Dakota, UND, alumni, fan base, etc. had all been put through, you're dead wrong. The NCAA has not objected to (it in fact agreed to it, at least implicitly) the sale of "Fighting Sioux" material for years now so the whole argument that the NCAA would sanction us for just being "North Dakota" because we'd be perpetuating and supporting the old nickname and logo is without merit. If this is a concern at all, the NCAA has certainly been complicit in exacerbating and perpetuating the racism it sought to prevent.
If you want to tender the argument that we should have a new nickname and logo because the NCAA Executive Committee could change the rules and indicate that it will sanction any school that doesn't have a nickname and logo, fine. The argument that the surrender agreement prohibits just having "North Dakota" is just wrong.
-
3
-
-
University of North Dakota North Dakota seems a little redundant, no?
No.
-
Tim Miller tweeted the other day that no one yet has asked if just "North Dakota" is an option. Seriously?? You are a sports reporter for the Herald?!! YOU ask the question. To Kelley, Goehring, Faison, whoever!! The question needs to be asked if UND officials and the committee have asked the NCAA if being just "North Dakota" with no nickname is allowed. IMO it directly violates the settlement agreement. I have yet to year Goehring or anyone in the nickname committee say "We checked with the NCAA and they said being just North Dakota is fine." YOu would think that at some point before a vote, UND submits all the names left and asks the NCAA if the names are permissable.
Am I being to logical here?!!
Just "North Dakota" is an option. That's why it's been listed in the final 15. There have been others in the process who have already said that it's an option. It does not violate the surrender agreement. The "risks" regarding the surrender agreement have been nothing more than baseless hyperbole that has been thrown out there to incentivize the masses to accept something completely insipid like "Pride", "Roughriders", "Spirit", etc. The true risk is if the NCAA Executive Committee were to come out and say that every school must have a nickname or face sanctions. At present, there's no overarching, politically correct purpose in requiring schools to have nicknames. Maybe the dung heap of otherwise would-be unemployed academics that is the NCAA Executive Committee would throw a couple of hundred thousand dollars of research money into it for purposes of educating the masses.
-
1
-
1
-
-
"Cooling off period can be extended". LOL. I think we are all ice cold by now.
'North Dakota' is not marketable, as merchandise sales have shown. Solely using Notre Dame's logo for our marketing/merchandising is a great way to insure we keep our revenues down.
The "ND" logo will always be around, just as it has always been around before. But using it by itself has proven to be "meh".
As to the lower merchandise sales, people are still buying Fighting Sioux materials. One must consider the lower sales in light of that reality.
-
1
-
-
I am shocked by some of the stupidity on these message boards. There are actually people who prefer Sun Dogs over North Dakota. I understand people not being a fan of no nickname; but to be willing to accept anything over remaining North Dakota shocks me.
Sun Dogs is absolutely laughable, I would take flickertails 100 times over before sun dogs. unbelievable.
Agreed. "Sun Dogs" is an absolute non-starter. At least with "North Dakota", a nickname can be added later and the cooling off period can be extended. "North Dakota" is marketable. We've had the best nickname and logo and we're not going to simply replace them and further disrespect the noble people who gave them to us. We're going to take a path that's not been traveled by anyone and people, especially recruits/athletes, will know why we've taken it. This is called having a backbone. This is called respecting a heritage and doing something to preserve it. This is called having a courageous and independent mindset. Any recruit should be interested, accordingly. The usual PC zealots should be all for it because one can import or read into it any nickname one wants.
-
3
-
1
-
-
So with "North Dakota" being one of the final 15, I guess all of the assertions that it's against the surrender agreement, we'll get booted from the NCAA, we'll be put back on the sanctions list, etc. are now publicly fully revealed as being that which anyone with a scintilla of common sense has already known - complete and utter B.S. Stay "North Dakota"; it's that simple, really.
-
3
-
-
Thank God. He should have announced it July 2, 2008. Such a shadow compared to Baker, especially Clifford, even Kupcake. Good riddance.
-
Jared Spooner commits to Mankato, not sure if UND had interest in him.
He's a good pickup for Mankato. They're going to be good again next year.
-
Good for Hakstol. Happy for the guy. However, I truly hope he does well there because Philly is a nasty, nasty sports town. Hopefully, he'll suggest to some of their draft choices that UND would be an awesome place to play.
-
Our university is becoming more of a joke each day!
That's because it's being run by a really big weasel and a bunch of smaller weasels. "North Dakota" says it all. Period. The "controversy" or
object of the policy and the litigation and the surrender agreement was ridding the school of disparaging NA imagery. "Fighting Sioux" is not the nickname
"Fighting Sioux" is not on the uniforms. "Fighting Sioux" is not on the arena. No offensive, hostile, abusive imagery is being used by the school or its teams. Not having a nickname and everyone knowing the reason why it is much more "marketable" than a lame nickname (insert state of being/condition/weather phenomenon) chosen only because one wants to "encourage" fans not to yell "Fighting Sioux" anymore. After having the best, not
having a nickname and logo shows respect for the former and, more importantly, shows respect for the Sioux people who gave it. Let people indulge their
creative muse and emote or read into it what they want. If they read "Fighting Sioux" into it and are offended then they've themselves to blame. Not
having a nickname was never part of any controversy; having the Fighting Sioux nickname was.
People's knowledge of why UND has no nickname would spur
recruiting because it would show backbone, respect for the Sioux, respect for tradition and history. The whole marketing argument is a complete sham.
Marketing is the art of deriving strategies that make people want what you're selling; you cater to what people want. I don't think it's a stretch to say
that 80 to 90 percent of the fan base, alumni/ae and other "stakeholder" groups want "North Dakota". Yet, Kelley and some on this board are going to argue
that some lame nickname that 80 to 90 per cent do not want is really going to catch on and benefit UND and all impacted groups? Marketing against what 80 to 90 per cent of the impacted constituencies want = positive/beneficial/satisfactory result? This can be true only in the world of some academic and like minded sycophants who have no grasp at all on what "marketing" is and what it is supposed to do.
-
1
-
1
-
Captain Gage
in Men's Hockey
Posted
Happy for him. Good to have a local kid where "the C"