snova4
-
Posts
889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by snova4
-
-
What are your ideas?
At this point might as well call them the rose petals and parade them out in pink jerseys, Kelly would probably love that.
Seriously though, I have no idea. I know I remember seeing names in the list that I didn't mind. If I remember right, I saw Big Horns in the list, I thought that would be something if done right would make a pretty sweet logo. I think my biggest issue is with just how unimaginative everything on this list is. What the hell did we pay this firm for?
-
Have you been paying attention at all? The No Nickname people ARE the Sioux Forever people. They don't want a nickname so they can keep calling it them the Sioux. Of course they are going to tear apart each name choice, they don't want one! C'mon.
No we're not all the Sioux forever crowd. I would love to have the Sioux back, but I understand that's not happening. I wouldn't be opposed to a new nickname but these poor excuses for options don't cut it. As I've said before, the best options in my opinion are Roughriders (the name of the local high school, how original), or Fighting Hawks (oh, another school with Hawks, how original). North Stars should have never been considered because Minnesota is the North Star State, not North Dakota. Sundogs is just dumb, as well as NoDaks.
-
Or I wear 'su fan gear first. So my money's on Hell freezing over first, and then the NC$$ pulling its head out of its a$$ after the next Ice Age.
I recently read an article that we'll be facing an ice age by 2030. So you're telling me only ten years of this new terrible logo?
-
So am I to assume that it is illegal to own a trademark without generating income with it?
It's not illegal at all, it just won't remain a trademark.
-
How?
Okay. UND wins by not having any Tom, Dick, or Harry slapping the proud logo that Brien created onto anything they want, that includes stupid Bison fans creating shirts and such. It allows UND to control the heritage and the future of that logo and not have it tarnished by someone else, who may do whatever they please with it if the trademark were to lapse. The NCAA benefits by not having the continued circulation of the logo outside of a very, very limited official merchandise that likely barely sees the light of day.
-
The way you say that makes it sound like they are being forced against their will. Who do you think benefits from this stipulation? Which side do you think pushed it into the settlement?
I'm on the no nickname side, would absolutely love to have Fighting Sioux return, but I don't see it as any grand conspiracy. It would only make sense for the University to want to keep it, and it only makes sense that the NCAA would want the University to keep it. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
-
They have to maintain the trademark per the settlement. Could you imagine if they lost the trademark on the Fighting Sioux symbolism? You think it's hard to try and get a new nickname now. Very few would be buying anything actually produced by the university.
-
Here are a few thoughts on your subject.
First, if you read these forums I think that you will see a lot of people arguing that UND has not had a lot of athletic success during the past decade. It is a constant complaint in almost every forum and in almost every sport. You are correct that not having a nickname is rather unique. There is a women's Division III school that doesn't use a nickname, that is the only college or university with an athletic program that we have been able to identify other than UND. Why does everyone else have a nickname? There are probably multiple reasons, but the fact that every other school in the NCAA and the NAIA, along with pretty much all other amateur and professional teams, have nicknames must mean that they are important. And marketing people can only work with the material available to them. Having a blank for a nickname gives them fewer tools to work with, which makes the job more difficult.
Sports nicknames were created because both sports writers and fans wanted to use something besides the formal name of the team. If you read the history of team nicknames you will see that a lot of sports nicknames were created by sports writers needing variety in their writing. How many times can they use North Dakota in a story? Even when UND had a nickname (both Sioux and Flickertails) you would sometimes see Green and White or Nodaks or some other reference. Having a formal nickname limits the number of other names or references that are used.
Other nicknames were created by fans. Some times they were simple references to the location, the uniforms, the people on the team, etc. Names sometimes started with a few people, caught on with more, and were often adopted by sports writers before the schools or teams formally adopted them. Some of these names changed several times before arriving at the names we currently know. My favorite example is the Brooklyn-Los Angeles Dodgers. They used Grays, Grooms, Bridegrooms, Superbas, Robins, Trolley Dodgers and Dodgers as nicknames, sometimes at the same time. They didn't officially become the Dodgers until 1932, the team was started in 1883.
Still other names were chosen by the school or team. The advantage is that you can pick the image you want to portray. Letting others choose a name for you leaves that image up to others. It isn't always the image you want. And as we have seen, changing a nickname is not easy. Not having a nickname leaves a vacuum. Something is going to fill that vacuum. If UND doesn't choose a nickname something else will be used. It may not be flattering to the school. That could easily lead to other issues for UND to address. Choosing a new nickname gives the school some control.
What do you yell when you are cheering for your team? At UND we are familiar with yells like "Here we go Sioux", "Sioux, Yeah, Yeah", "Let's go Sioux". What are fans supposed to yell if they don't have a nickname to use? "Let's go North Dakota"? It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. "Let's go"? That doesn't even specify a team. Not having a nickname limits cheers and chants that are easy and familiar for fans. It limits the creativity of the fanbase, because no one is going to do much creatively with North Dakota.
Marketing is a major consideration. There are something like 347 schools in Division I athletics. All of them market using the name of the school (which is all you are doing if you don't have a nickname). But they also use a nickname that helps provide some differentiation from the other 346 schools. Combine the name of the school with a nickname and a logo and you have a specific school and image. It can be done without a nickname, but it is more difficult and probably not as effective. The logo is another story. The athletic department needs a new logo whether they have a new nickname or not. The interlocking ND is a good secondary logo for UND. But most people associate it with Notre Dame, which dramatically reduces the effectiveness for UND. A new logo is a must moving forward for UND.
The marketing is important for at least a couple of reasons. Money is one. Selling merchandise with the school name and logo is worth money to the athletic department. In UND's case it used to be worth $300,000-500,000 before the name issue became so large. There was a spike when it became apparent that the name was going away. Sales have been much lower the last year or so. The merchandise without a nickname (just North Dakota or UND) has always been available, and has never been a big seller. That merchandise will remain available whether UND picks a nickname or not. But it probably will never be a big revenue source for the school. My conservative estimate is that a new nickname and logo are worth $100,000-200,000 per year to the athletic department. That could be more if they find the right combination.
The other major reason that marketing is important is awareness or branding. One of the reasons that athletics are important to schools, and a major reason for competing in Division I, is to market your school or brand. I mentioned the 300 plus schools in Division I. There are even more schools in Division II, Division III and in the NAIA. There are probably more than 1,000 schools with athletic progarms. We already have a problem with people as close as Minneapolis confusing UND and NDSU. Using a nickname and creating a brand helps with that. Not having a nickname doesn't help with branding at all.
To sum this up a little bit, there are many reasons to have a nickname for the athletic programs at UND. They were originally created for identification purposes, and that is still important. They help create an identity and a brand. They help make money. Having a blank space where the nickname normally goes does not help the school. And that doesn't get into those that use an old nickname to fill the space and whether that is potentially a problem for the school or not. Going without a nickname is a bad idea for UND for many reasons.
I'm a no nickname person, but I have to give you credit, your post really softened my stance when one is chosen (let's not pretend no nickname will make a vote, that boat has sailed). Amazing what happens when a well thought out poster states something without calling myself, and other no nickname supporters whining toddlers.
-
1
-
-
People still get lunch "Hours"?
I haven't had one of those in the last fifteen years. That brings me back to the age of seventeen, so essentially, I've never had a lunch " hour ".
-
I'm always looking for signed 8 X 10's if anyone has one or two they'd like to part with.
-
It was the iceing on the cake, maybe a post too late? Either way I knew he was on the same side as the rest of us, just a different view, besides his response was great and that is why I gave him a plus one as you can see.
Had a weird thing happen today in Scheels. First off my choice for a nickname is,
1) No nickname
2/3 Roughriders/Fighting Hawks
2/3 Fighting Hawks/Roughriders
4) North Stars/Stars
Born at the GFAFB, lived in GF till 3rd grade, always a Sioux fan!
But, while trying to buy a new fillable water bottle for my daughter to bring to basketball, she grabbed a Gopher one and said "this would be cool if they had a UND one". Then she found one and it just said North Dakota on it. She then said "would this look wrong on an EGF school team bench, it looks like I'm supporting GF, (the enemy to Eastside sports) I wish they had Sioux or something on it"! My order of names is still the same, but that got me thinking about things! Just thought I'd share that....
That's an interesting point. I've never lived in Grand Forks, and although I was in sports that played against the schools I never really associated with the city, and really didn't associate the University with any real connection to the city outside of it being located there. I guess I would never draw the connection that your daughter did.
For what it's worth, our choices for nicknames are exactly the same.
-
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 could get behind something like this. I agree, the ND would need something to distinguish itself from Notre Dame. I also fail to see where using an arrow constitutes Native American imagery.
-
I don't believe anyone called that particular post out, but there have been several through the past couple days from several posters. I'm not going to name any one person, but it would probably be prudent for everyone to show a bit more humbleness when it comes to opinions.I'm not seeing where anyone was belittled or disparaged in Teeder's post. He reported what was said. He then questioned why folks would talk about the old name at a "we don't need a name" rally. If I missed something please point it out.
Edit: My bad just saw the example. So disregard my above comment. But I do believe that it's been a totality of posts more so than a single post.
-
Well when you can't attack the message attack the messenger.
Agreed. I'm in the no nickname side of things, not because I want to hold on to the Fighting Sioux as much as I've grown accustomed to being North Dakota. I actually think it'd be kind of cool to stay away from a nickname at this point because I can relate to the battle cry of, "We ARE North Dakota". Outside of that, I could live with Roughriders, and could tolerate Fighting Hawks. I despise Sundogs and NoDaks, and can't believe the nickname of our neighboring State is still an option, which really makes me question the intelligence of everyone on the committee and those individuals that like that name. To me, it's akin to going back to Flickertails and then adopting the Gopher logo.
-
2
-
-
This thing really needs to end. I am in the no name/Nodak camp but I recognize that Roughriders is the name option that most people could rally behind once established. If it was mine to do I would put it to a vote between no name and Roughriders and the vote would be in mid August. The students have something called the internet. The divisiveness which becomes more shrill by the hour (as observed on this board) needs to end.
Part of that divisiveness, in my opinion, comes from those in a certain crowd that keep referring to no nickname people as children throwing tantrums, and then turn around and attempt to hold some sort of moral high ground on the matter. It's laughable. You want civil discourse, don't make your comments come across as though you feel your are somehow superior to people of a differing point of view. Over the last two days, I've seen this perception play out over several threads, and it's akin to shouting down other posters. With that said, there are several on both sides that can carry a civil discourse, but I don't believe it's very difficult to figure out the posters I'm referring to.
-
2
-
-
These late departures have to be a little troubling.
I heard through the grapevine that we may not be totally out of the woods yet either.
Either throw out a name or keep your negative vibes to yourself.
-
So because one committee member says what he thinks (and many others would agree with) and somehow it came right from Kelley's mouth? And then to top it off, Kelley backchannels to deep six "no nickname" through the committee process only to place it back under possible consideration two days later? If he wanted it gone, he got what he wanted and didn't have to deal with it anymore.
Yes, two days after an onslaught of public outcry, that I'm sure has been falling right into his lap. Do you seriously think Kelly's personal wishes aren't a motivating factor for committee members? It's always been evident, right from the start that he wants a new nickname.
It would be interesting to have seen how this process would have played out if he'd have said from the start that no nickname was fine, and if it came to that he would approve. Do you think it's possible that some committee members would score things differently? I personally do. But, we'll never know because this whole process has been as much of a circus of pathetic leadership as the original retiring of the Sioux nickname.
-
OK, how bout this for an option. Kelley reduces the choices to Roughriders and North Dakota. Put those up for a vote and see what comes out on top. If it is Roughriders, then that is the name and the supporters of "North Dakota" can't complain because their choice made it to the final vote. If "North Dakota" wins out the popular vote, Kelly can then inform the NCAA that UND has chosen to not have a nickname and just go with "North Dakota". If the NCAA is OK with it, then fine. If they say that is not an option and can't do that and that UND must select a new nickname, then default back to Roughriders.
Way to much common sense in this post. Will never happen.
-
Gotta love the conspiracy theorist out there!! They make rationale topics so much more interesting!!
Can't say it's a real big conspiracy when this quote is in the Herald,
"President Kelley, if we send him North Dakota, no nickname, I think he could just disband the committee or just say we could start over or he could just veto it," Bridewell said.
I don't see where it's difficult to draw logic from the fact that committee members likely didn't vote for it for the sole purpose of Kelly vetoing it. But keep calling me a conspiracy theorist.
-
No one is flip-flopping.
Kelley had zero to do with what happened Tuesday, no one was praising him for the committee making the right decision. The committee had zero to do with what happened today, no one is condemning them for Kelley appeasing a vocal group of people, many who threw public temper-tantrums.
When one of the committee members states publicly that they thought no nickname should stay, but at the end of the day was fearful Kelly would veto it and disband the committee, he most certainly had something to do with the vote. That committee member just happened to rank no nickname least favorable, any higher ranking from one or two committee members and this discussion isn't taking place and no nickname is in the final ballot.
-
I agree that it isn't that great of a name but I just want that boob (Nanne) to get his undies all in a bunch. Just like when Parise spurned him and his little buddy during their visit to Shattuck to try and get Parise to play at the UofM.
Ha. I understand the sentiment, I just don't want a lifetime of being associated with that State for a moment of entertainment.
-
Staving off the tide of knee-jerk revisionism.
I guess I must have forgot the time that the University administration ever actually made any attempt to save the name during Kelly's tenure.
-
So should any nickname beat out the "no nickname" in the final vote and should there be more protests, will Kelley capitulate and just keep opening up the "no nickname" option to continually appease the screaming masses?
Let's reverse it, of no nickname beats a nickname in a vote, would the "move on" crowd accept it? I doubt it.
-
5
-
1
-
-
So should any nickname beat out the "no nickname" in the final vote and should there be more protests, will Kelley capitulate and just keep opening up the "no nickname" option to continually appease the screaming masses?
If a nickname beats the no nickname option I suspect some will still be upset, but the vast majority, in my opinion, could live with it. But one of the most popular options through the entire process shouldn't have been eliminated in fear of Kelly vetoing it. If he wants to go against the vote, let him.
The case for North Dakota as a standalone name (not a Sioux endorsemen
in UND Nickname
Posted
I think the crowd noise has more to do with the fact that games have become more of a social status is Grand Forks than really for fans. I know a lot of people that go just to hang out, almost like a night at the club. They couldn't care less about the game itself.