ClassB

Yeah sorry this thread isn't deserving of more respect than anything else, just wanted to keep the pro-Sioux talk to a minimum, as we've already covered^ My underlying assumption is that choosing to move on as North Dakota (or continue) you will only piss off the people who want a new nickname. If you pick sundogs, you piss off probably half of the other nickname supporters (because most of these people, IMHO are pro-change, not pro-any specific nickname), in addition to the North Dakota people. Clearly it is sh*t or get off the pot time for the University. They have to do something but does that something have to be drastic? Bubba being the guy he is, I don't see the football unis changing much at all, if ever, for a new nickname 82siouxguy, an organic name isn't always BAMF but it usually is accepted, which again is my goal. As far as North Dakota being divisive, in these non-scientific polls (which is the only information we have available, and so will be utilized), it is by far the largest plurality, the largest unified group since we lost the name. Jdub, that is a good point. A storyline that might be delicate, but worth noting nonetheless, is that even though the old nickname has gone, the American Indian Studies program and tuition assistance for that demographic has stayed. These are attached in my mind (correct me if I'm wrong) because they were tied to the adopting of the old nickname? Of course I don't need to explain that to a forum, someone from the University needs to explain that to the world. But I think the PC police won't be happy enough for that, so it would be time for a change - - rebranding. Thats the third time that I've brought it up now, homer, thanks for the count. I'm no marketing guy, but if the university opted instead of running from North Dakota, to embrace it, don't you think we could figure it out? The athletic administration has been preaching to the athletes that a new nickname is mandatory for moving on. That might be the most commonly accepted stance but is it the only way? Think outside the box - I think we have to. We had the best nickname/logo combination out there, and now are faced with 5 pretty lame replacements. Whether we like it or not we are not like any of the other 346 d1 schools, I think that lets us react differently. At the very minimum, we would have to change the rhetoric surrounding North Dakota. We all (or at least me and everyone I spoke to) reacted pretty poorly when we were stuck with North Dakota four years ago. That perception could easily be changed, its as easy as having the administration endorse it, top-down, the same way the 'need a nickname' campaign was enforced. That's more of a rebranding the way we think of North Dakota, I still think the school could throw $300K to a marketing committee. Edit: after looking at Homer's post again. Yeah I don't have any gold mine ideas. But I know we could be encouraged to accept it as opposed to hate it (4 years ago). Thats a start. Which group will be easier to sway? I would argue the nickname people, whose numbers are probably artificially inflated by people who just think its time, without real reasoning. Not necessarily you guys, who have clearly thought things out.

I called for serious responses, and I got a respectful, serious response I appreciate. I do not agree that we have to move forward with a new nickname, however. You mentioned the women's D3 team without a nickname -- that would make us the only division 1 school. 1/347 just like our old nickname, we were one-of-a-kind. We still are. I am of the opinion that if we picked a logo, something unique, but no name, we would restore sales, albeit slowly. Obviously, not much of an effort has been made to rebrand our University in the last four years as everyone waited with uncertainty. I don't think merchandise would be an issue, I don't think branding would be an issue. Your last three paragraphs (apart from the conclusion), all are answered by a marketing/merchandise rebranding of our North Dakota image. I've heard from current student athletes that they think its a joke that each of our teams uses different gear, because there is no unity. Each team does its own thing because of all the uncertainty. It would be very simple to unite them behind a campus wide rebranding. Why don't we spend $300K to come up with an image? North Dakota is already unifying and rallying (see petition, herald polls). I think the chant point is moot because the fans will cheer what they want. I am afraid those chanting sioux right now would either continue to cheer sioux as opposed to sundogs, or wouldn't cheer at all for a new name (this is NOT a cue to go on a diatribe about how those fans aren't real fans, stick to the topic). If we're to move forward with a nickname, it needs to be organically, as in your third paragraph. Great names don't appear at the drop of a hat. The bald eagle has grown into its meaning as a symbol for the USA -- at the first bald eagle siting no one shouted "OH LOOK THERE GOES AMERICA!! OH SAY CAN YOU SEE.." etc. I'd like to remind everyone that, in a discussion that gets heated, the first to sling mud is the first to show his incompetence. That is especially true in online forums.

This is not a topic chosen to try and get the Sioux name back. I'd like to jump over all the supposed negatives of not having a nickname (marketability, very few schools have no nickname (none?), recruiting, we will never move on, etc.). Last I checked, a school with no nickname is almost completely unique, we are having tons of success (IE not hindering recruiting -- check track records falling, baseball players signing professional contracts, women making the dance, volleyball team excellent, football on the right track), and there are at least 6000 people who feel good enough about North Dakota to sign their names to a petition (regardless of their actual motivations). Why can we not hire the marketers to liven up the North Dakota image? If we can blow $200K+ on nickname committees (that were, to put it lightly, highly ineffective) (KG's estimate), why can we not at least put the same into making North Dakota sexy? If there had been positive rhetoric on the 'North Dakota' option for the past four years, would we need to move on? Looking for a serious response. This is not a topic chosen to try and get the Sioux name back, please go elsewhere for that.