dagies

seriously? That is one guy unclear on the concept....

Looks like there were actually 3 captains and a couple of assistants back in 85-86. If you want strange, there it is. Berry says in the paper they have a bunch of rookies coming in, and rather than lay the burden of official leadership on 2-3 guys he thought there was value in naming several guys in those official leadership roles to help teach the new guys about Fighting Sioux hockey. The voting apparently was very close among all of these guys, so it seems there's some good logic involved and I like the idea.

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. I don't think the NCAA would be able to win, in the court of public opinion, a decision that all member teams MUST have an official nickname. I think that would be a bridge too far. For me, I'm good with Roughriders. But I'd go with no nickname over Green Hawks.

Not the only reason, but one of the reasons I fear "Sun Dogs" as the nickname. Keep the freakin animal out of it. I'm still not high on that nickname but I do think the logo potential is decent. It fits my logo criteria (simple, not busy, easily recognizable at distance, etc.). And it can also be made to look like a reticle. Which may be a good or bad thing.

In large measure I have no great issue with your position. Everyone can have their own opinion and this is a subject wide open to strong opinions from many different directions. I do, however, take issue with the bolded comment, as it's just not fair to characterize it this way. That's like saying the State of ND takes a nickname after a pack of condoms, and I'm guessing if anyone from MN said that to you in the stands during a hockey game you would strongly disagree with them. No one has to like Rough Riders or Roughriders or whatever, but I think it's reasonable to accept that it's a legitimate choice with some strong merit to back it up.

Jim, that last is a really good point that I hadn't considered.

I also agree. The story's last chapter hasn't yet been told and that will define the success of the "book". We shall see..... Since none of my suggestions made it all that far it was clearly a flawed process. I do think you have hit on it, though. There's no good way to solve for this, but I think there are names, like you reference, that given a little more thought and attention might have been big hits. For example, we could provide 140 characters in support of a nickname, but if a nickname proposal actually had someone stand up and do a 1 minute presentation on the reasons for and merits of, those nickname options may have started to ring better in the minds of the committee. Unfortunately, how do you winnow several hundred suggestions down using a process like that?

I'm not sure if you beat me or just beat me into submission. but either way...UNCLE! exactly

I wonder how the Dodge brothers would feel about that?

I get it, but I think this is a case of "covering all bases" or even "covering your ass". I think the idea was to try and develop a process where people felt there were many inputs (people involved) into the process, and a professional (consultant, like it or not) involved to provide advice so that the end result wouldn't appear to have been dictated or railroaded by 1 person, and that there was some knowledge and experience involved in the decision making process. We can decide if we think this was a correct or valuable process and I'm not going to take a very strong stand one way or the other, but I think it was a good try, and I think that this process was a lot more difficult for the committee than we think from our view on the "outside". I think there are good people with the best of intentions who are trying their best involved. I may not be very pleased with MOST of the final options, but fortunately there is still a chance of a suitable outcome (IMO) and I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Yeah, but calling a kid Harrison Ford doesn't make him a Ford. I'm not sure they could actually pull that one off.

really nice job Additionally, as has been pointed out by Cratter, besides the association with Teddy R, rough riders were men who broke wild horses or who rode untamed horses. So there is another association for the nickname as well which would fit the frontier history of North Dakota

same page here

Amazing trend related to changing NA nicknames to some version of Hawks. Good work digging that up.

agreed

that wasn't the question

We need to not be afraid of how that nickname might be twisted by others. The response by the organization and by the media MUST be, if said situations occur, to repeat the positive images and meanings associated with that name and express disappointment that fans of (insert team here) aren't able to conduct themselves in an adult fashion and debase themselves in such a way. Take the high road that clearly points out the lower level behavior associated with fans of the "other" team. Sooner or later that will quit being fun and it will eventually just go away.

Let's be clear on this. Mpls has hardly been an "excellent" source for Al-Shabaab. That makes it sound like hundreds of boys and men have left to join these organizations and that's just not the case. Exaggerating the facts does nothing to advance the discussion. There have been some, yes (but we're probably talking in the neighborhood of a dozen or so), and I join with you in expressing concern regarding anyone who benefits from living here and who decides to go fight for one of those groups. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/20209-thousands-of-somalis-in-minn-spark-fears-of-al-shabaab-terrorists You've got a few dozen men out of a community of a few tens of thousands who are wack-jobs and go fight for these terrorist groups. But that should tarnish a whole community who really do love being here.

If this is all it takes to get a free beer and a burger, get ready for all kinds of crazy.

considering the recent scare with Pride and Spirit and I think I could actually learn to live with Sun Dogs depending on how it's logo'd and marketed. Wow, have I come a long way. But I prefer the others on the list first. Though Green Hawks might even be lower, and my shoulder angels are still fighting over Fighting Hawks. So I really don't know how I feel about that one yet

Agreed

That's what they get for picking something stupid like the Orangemen in the first place. So, I do think North Stars is a cool name but like others have a big problem with it because it's the nickname of the state to the east. That said, what if it was slightly modified to the "Nordic Stars"? I believe at some point the nickname committee said they withheld the right to slightly modify a proposed nickname in order to meet the guidelines or the goals of the process..... (I suppose that will be considered NOT inclusive, so maybe a bad idea)

Agree with what farce poobah said. If we ALL BOOOOOOOOOOOOO! loudly after every one of these public address statements at every sporting event for a year, I think UND might get the hint it's time to try this again.

To start this, let me just say that in the long run I think UND is better off selecting an actual nickname rather than sticking with North Dakota. That said, I can see just using "North Dakota" as a whole lot more attractive than 70% of the names on the final list. Here's why I believe the NCAA will not fuss if North Dakota is chosen as the "nickname". There's NO way Kelley would have allowed that option into the process if he didn't know the NCAA would allow it. Simply wouldn't have. The next question that seems to hang in the air, and why we are continually arguing over whether the NCAA will or won't have a cow, is that Kelley WILL NOT confirm if the NCAA has been consulted on this. And why wouldn't he? Because if he came out right now and said "I've checked with the NCAA and they said selecting no nickname would satisfy the agreement" there would be such a groundswell that it would destroy the process of selecting an actual nickname. I believe the powers that be at UND know that no nickname is acceptable. But they feel, like the Sicatoka, that UND is much better off selecting a different moniker and moving on. To try and encourage that end, they leave the idea out there that UND MUST select a actual nickname.

You beat me to it. We can't keep weeping about what someone might say to hurt our feelings