Siouxphan27
-
Posts
3,849 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Posts posted by Siouxphan27
-
-
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.
-
Ermine is unique too, doesn't make it good.
Lol. So you don't want positive exposure for the university based on uniqueness, which was one of the criteria the committee was considering? Lol.
I don't always win debates; but when I do, I drink Dos Equis. Cheers, friend!
-
Of course the announcers will all be the same in 10 years for the Frozen Four so they won't have any need to mention the lack of a nickname to the viewers. UND is such a well known shool throughout the nation that nobody will think it's weird or wonder why UND is the only school in D1 without a nickname.
Just keep thinking that will be the case.
If we are still getting extra air time from announcers that want to talk about how unique we are 10 years down the road, I would consider it yet another reason why going with no nickname is a good choice.
-
1 out of 4 student representatives had that opinion. The minority. The two actual student-athletes on the committee who were picked to represent the other student-athletes voted to remove "no nickname" and other than some hockey players, I haven't seen any student-athletes publicly disagree with that decision.
What do 4 out of 5 dentists think?
-
How many teams are in the ncaa? How many broadcast crews will do und games each year? You can bet the teams UND plays and the announcer teams will continue to change.
Unless those schools live in a cave, they will have heard.
But if they do in fact live in a cave and we choose a new nickname, they will also be wasting valuable pre broadcast and broadcast time, talking about the" new" name, even if it's 5 years down the road due to their aforementioned cave dwelling lifestyle. So now the discussion has come full circle. Talking about new name/talking about no name = same amount of time spent talking about each.
Glad we solved that. Thank you.
-
There will eventually be an end to the questions about the new nickname. There would never be an end if und didn't pick a name.
I disagree. I can't imagine a scenario where the other schools and the media repeatedly ask the same questions over and over again every few months. That's sort of the definition of insanity.
-
So if I'm reading this correctly, if UND goes forward without a nickname, valuable broadcast and pre broadcast time will be wasted. But, if UND does choose a nickname, zero time will be wasted, as no one from other schools will bother to ask about the new name or how it was chosen; it will be just business as usual and the new name will only be uttered as a last resort during the course of live game action.
Got it.
-
Again I will ask the question how many more games would we have won had we had a nickname or the past three years?
How many more people would have been at basketball games had we had a nickname?
The cooling off period was idiotic because it allowed all this divisiveness to fester, however not having a nickname did not damage any of our athletic or academic programs. Volleyball and Women's Basketball both won conference titles under the no nickname banner, Baseball has had their most noteworthy seasons in a long time, and the football program has a shot of energy. The argument not having a nickname somehow hurts every sport except hockey does not hold up for me at all. However if a big donor out of the 6000 petitioned people (speculative, however if i'm 1% right that's 60 donors) decides they want to dispose their income elsewhere over this issue we lose far greater than by maintaining the status quo, and it's the non-revenue sports that will suffer because of that.
Eleventy-two?
-
I've got it; let's just have Darell's mom and Jayson Hadju decide on the name for us.
-
The NCAA put Marco Hunt on the ice with UND after UND got him removed from the list of NCHC officials. Was it so we could kiss and make up?
You just answered your own question as to why he was put on the ice. Had nothing to do with the choice North Dakota still being on the nickname list at the time.
-
Gotta love the conspiracy theorist out there!! They make rationale topics so much more interesting!!
That's a far milder conspiracy theory than the one about our least favorite hockey ref, sending us a "message" from the NCAA that we better pick a name. Just saying- plenty of speculation from all sides.
-
Again I will ask the question how many more games would we have won had we had a nickname or the past three years?
How many more people would have been at basketball games had we had a nickname?
The cooling off period was idiotic because it allowed all this divisiveness to fester, however not having a nickname did not damage any of our athletic or academic programs. Volleyball and Women's Basketball both won conference titles under the no nickname banner, Baseball has had their most noteworthy seasons in a long time, and the football program has a shot of energy. The argument not having a nickname somehow hurts every sport except hockey does not hold up for me at all. However if a big donor out of the 6000 petitioned people (speculative, however if i'm 1% right that's 60 donors) decides they want to dispose their income elsewhere over this issue we lose far greater than by maintaining the status quo, and it's the non-revenue sports that will suffer because of that.
exactly right. I would give you a thumbs up, but alas, I am out for the day.
Off topic- What's up with the rationing of thumbs anyway?
-
These nebulous "potential donors" that many who want no nickname keep referring to are about has hazy and imminent as those "potential NCAA and Big Sky sanctions and penalties" that the new nickname crowd likes to trot out.
Hell, if we stay just "North Dakota," I'm expecting Phase II of the HPC to get shovels in the ground this fall and for all of our athletic scholarship issues to be a thing of the past with all the donations that are going to start rolling in.
Good post.
But i'm confused; I thought new tshirts that said Roughriders or Sundogs would result in millions more from merchandise revenue, and would also guarantee success on the field, court, and rink because fans at the games wouldn't be discussing why we don't have a nickname..
-
So just out of curiousity, what happens if Roughriders is eliminated but the No nickname option remains? You think these threads were entertaining the last few days, imagine how they'd be if that happens?
I would be really, really happy. And I think we can all agree, that is what's most important, right?
The case for North Dakota as a standalone name (not a Sioux endorsemen
in UND Nickname
Posted
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.