Siouxphan27
-
Posts
3,862 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Posts posted by Siouxphan27
-
-
The NCAA policy is framed around "race, ethnicity, or national origin" and they couldn't even enforce that one fully. See: Fighting Irish, Seminoles, Vandals, Utes, Spartans*, Trojans*.
If they try again, Roughriders would be in category with Minutemen, Mountaineers, Volunteers, and (gulp) Cowboys. Sooners, Hoosiers, Cornhuskers, and Boilermakers probably fall in the category also.
I'm not sweating Roughriders in light of those.
* Sparta and Troy were city-states, or "nations of origin" by today's standards.
Interesting take. So in this instance the ncaa's policies are permanently set in stone?
After all the hullabaloo about the ncaa and what punishment they may drum up for going without a nickname, it just seems like a bad idea to go with any name with a human element. One person complains that Nodakers is derogatory, or one person claims Roughriders were racist gun toting white cowboys from the desert southwest, and all of a sudden we have a new headache on our hands.
go sUNDawgs!! a daschUND would be a solid mascot.
-
My question is why in the world does anyone want to risk going down this road again with a name like Roughriders?
It's puzzling to see some people stressing moving on from Fighting Sioux, while at the same time championing the cause for another "human-based" name, for lack of a better term.
Nodaks should be off the table as well given the hypersensitive path this nickname quest is on.
Hawks, Sun, or Stars. Yay.
-
2
-
-
I would love to see UND take the NCAA to court for trying to force unfair sanctions on a university based on words uttered by a third party.
The reality is it would never come to that. This silly, weak response from the NCAA is proof they know they have no leg to stand on. It's a green light for no nickname.
-
I know the difference between alumnus and alumni. It was a fantasy football team name that I had with two buddies and I have the same email account for it, so I just used it . There are a lot of people here who have Sioux in their name. Are they trying to represent the thoughts and opinions of all Sioux natives?
Looks like we finally have the answer to the riddle of how many ndsu graduates it takes to run a fantasy football team.
-
You anti-dentite bastard!!
Next thing you know he'll be saying they should have their own schools
-
Aren't We Sued Enough?
-
2
-
-
If UND chose "no nickname" would you continue to yell Sioux?
How about we all yell Voldemort?
-
Is it white sand? If so, I'm fine with it.Significant difference between giving someone permission (your scenario 1) and reserving the right to take whatever stance you'd like in the future (my scenario 3).
Does the group the refuses to acknowledge that there could possibly be any negative consequences get to be the "head in the sand" crowd since you're tossing out names?
Didn't mean to offend by saying tinfoil hat. I happen to think they're quite stylish if worn for the right cause.
All we have is rampant speculation regarding what the NCAA may or may not do. Kelley needs to finally ask the NCAA, or if he's asked, share with the public what he has already found out from the NCAA so we can stop the insanity. With the 5 lackluster choices coupled with the following no nickname has right now, he needs to lead for once on this issue, immediately.
I'm a no nicknamer until we hear otherwise from the NCAA. And if they say no, I'll moooove on to support one of the lame names.
-
I never know with you. A smiley for tone would help.
sorry Sic. just assume sarcasm with me. it's a curse.
-
Scenario 3 is most likely. UND/Kelley asked the NCAA and they politely said "No comment at this time".
So in other words, scenario 3 = scenario 1. They do not have a policy against it. I know that's not enough for the tinfoil hat crowd, but the reality is, it would be acceptable.
-
It was an after standard work hours rally (5 pm).
I was being facetious as you realize. Kelley announced that very morning that no nickname would still be given consideration, so that would also take the air out of any rally don't you think?
To continue with facetious questions/answers..... How have the rallies for the other 5 options been? Poorly attended? Well attended? Wait what?! there haven't been any rallies? Wow given what we've learned here today, there must not be any support for those names.
-
Ahh ... but it was supposed to be a "no nickname" rally, aimed at just those folks (like you as you say), but somehow it got overwhelmed by the "old nickname forever" point of view. What does that say about what is reality.
I'll take a stab. No nickname forever folks are employed, while fighting Sioux forevers are not?
-
After thinking about this issue for awhile, the fact that Kelley hasn't come out and clearly stated that the NCAA has an issue with UND having no nickname leads me to believe that maybe the NCAA does not have a problem with it. If he clearly didn't want "no nickname" to be an option, he could just pull out the "the NCAA has a problem with it" card out of his back pocket to push his "agenda". (Of course it still may be in play and he may wait to play it if "North Dakota" moves on to the popular vote and comes out on top." Now lets just say that is the case. It is still in the best interest of the University to select a new nickname. First an foremost to move past the Fighting Sioux nickname debacle that has plagued this University, it's fanbase, and this state for a decade. Forget settlemet agreements, forget recruiting scare tactics, forget marketing opportunities. UND and all of its invested stakeholders need to move on from this issue. Not selecting a new nickname will not allow all of us to do that.
Two scenarios have been quite obvious to everyone for awhile now. 1. Kelley has asked and received permission, or 2. Kelley has gone to bed each night praying the no nickname supporters will go away, and has avoided asking the NCAA until he absolutely has to.
If scenario 2 is true, he's probably asking the NCAA right now. OR, he's trying to find a way to justify having north stars and Sundogs as our only 2 options.
-
Using absolute characterizations of the other POV is setting yourself up to be shown wrong, as has been shown here time and again.
Having said that, the "we don't need a nickname" rally last Friday lost some credibility when many of its speakers brought up the old moniker. If we don't need a moniker why bring up the old one at all. It just served to better make a case for the "no nickname is just de facto old nickname" argument.
Now I'm sure there were some there sincere in wanting no nickname; but they became harder to find because of the others.
We weren't at the rally, because we do not agree with the fighting Sioux forever part of their stance.....maybe that's why it was poorly attended?
-
It's been use by other coaches to recruit against UND. That is a FACT. You can choose to not believe it, but it is reality.
The reality we should be concerned with is today's reality/situation. You're comparing apples and oranges.
-
People on here have all sorts of opinions. No one of those people has wrote a letter to the editor, called radio stations or planned protests but those are ok right.
At the end of the day it should be a factor in the decision. If it's all good with the NCAA than the leadership needs to come out and say so.
We're on two different wavelengths here- my post a couple posts back was referring to people saying opposing coaches will use it in the future as a recruiting strike against UND. I did not say, and was not referring to, the issue the NCAA may or may not have with going nickname less.
My point, and I'll state it again, permission for going with no nickname will have been decided with the NCAA before UND goes ahead and officially chooses no nickname, (I have at least that much faith in the UND administration).
Thus, rendering all the scare tactics mentioned here regarding opposing schools and recruiting, moot.
Or as some mimes would say, mute.
-
It hasn't been brought up by any decision makers or UND personnel this go around. How are they using it as a scare tactic. It's only been brought up by me and a few others on this board as something that officially needs to be addressed as the NCAA has proven time and time again it plays by its own set of rules.
They're not the ones using it as a scare tactic. People on here are the ones using it as a reason to be afraid of going with no nickname.
-
You're missing something here. Read the post above yours.
The NCAA and sanctions over the old nickname was the problem back in the day. Everyone wants to know if it will pop up again by not having a nickname. Wish Kelley would answer the question.
My pont was that question will be answered by then. We will not go forward with an option that creates instant sanctions. Which makes the entire discussion about opposing coaches another fear mongering scare tactic.
-
How would not having a nickname be used against UND by other teams' coaches?
Would they sit in a recruit's living room and say you know, UND doesn't have a nickname, so, Neener Neener Neener? Or am I missing something here?
-
1
-
-
Good points. My litmus test as to the sincerity of one's arguments for not having a nickname is if they would be logically consistent and hold that exact same opinion if the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo were somehow magically (or as an act of Devine intervention, take your pick) still an option. In most cases, their arguments for No Nickname evaporate under that imagined scenario. So then the argument becomes: we are for no nickname, with one big qualifier -- as long as Fighting Sioux is not an option. To me, that qualifier sort of undercuts the sincerity of the no nicknamers arguments.
* Notice no use of whiny cry babies and/or tantrums were used in the making of this post. ( ;
I would pass your litmus test. Since we're all speculating here anyway, my thoughts are that the number of people content with going forward without a nickname, (permanently, even if Fighting Sioux magically became an option again,) is much larger than you might think. The number of people content with no nickname continued to grow after each committee meeting, as one by one, good choices that either meant something personally to North Dakotans, and also pretty much all animal choices for that matter, were eliminated, and we were left with 5 steaming piles of poo. I would venture to say that at this point, the fighting Sioux forever folks are a small minority of the people desiring to have no nickname.
I for one am not interested in attending rallies put on by the fighting Sioux forever people. As others have mentioned on here, they undermine the legitimacy of the idea of going nickname-less when they show up in Sioux apparel and shout Sioux cheers. Coupled with Kelley's wishy washy statement made about possibly including North Dakota as an option again, maybe this helps explain why their rally was poorly attended.
-
The same here in Arizona. Followed by a chuckle.
I think I speak for everyone on this board when I say we don't really care what the end result of this process is, as long as the unaffiliated folks in Colorado and Arizona are happy, that's all that matters. *
-
She wants North Stars cause that was her CB handle (back in the day) she was born in Roseau.
I told her no.
Haha. Well, at least she doesn't like roughriders the best! :-)
-
I have had mixed feelings over the years on the no nickname idea, one of the reasons was that there would be lost revenue by not picking a nickname and marketing it. Someone had a post yesterday (I don't know who it was and I can't seem to find it today) that pointed out there would be lost revenue from the big stakeholders in that donations would suffer. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but it got me thinking why can't we have no nickname and still have something new to market. I had the idea of North Dakota Arrows back in April, but it didn't make the cut, it was deemed "Native American" imagery. I totally disagree with that as arrows have been around for 1000's of years.
If UND is going to by "North Dakota", there needs to be something to market with it, such as a new logo. The arrow logo I threw together would be a way of separating the North Dakota "ND" from the Notre Dame "ND".
I have always liked your arrow idea. You've provided a great example of what can be done to enhance the ND logo if we move forward without a nickname.
-
Not sure but I know that 346 out of 346 other D1 schools think that having a nickname and logo is a good idea.
But to address your question, I question the relevancy. I haven't seen any baseless claims about what dentists prefer like there have been for students and student-athletes even after their chosen representatives voted 3-1 to get rid of the option.
My goal was a little levity- I shouldn't have quoted you directly- sorry about that. I just couldn't resist everyone's '1 out of, 2 out of, 3 out of' talk.
10 Year Anniversary of Nickname Fight
in UND Nickname
Posted
I hear ya. it's understandable if that is the ncaa's stance, at this time. as we continue down the PC road of insanity, the ncaa may feel pressure in the future from other constantly offended groups. Midgets is now controversial.
Even if it's not the ncaa that has a problem with a certain "human" name, if other groups of wake up offended-type folks do, time and resources will be wasted.