[The case for North Dakota as a standalone name (not a Sioux endorsemen]

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. 

[The case for North Dakota as a standalone name (not a Sioux endorsemen]

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 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.

[The case for North Dakota as a standalone name (not a Sioux endorsemen]

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.