The Sicatoka Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I'm assuming by "moniker/logo" you mean "moniker and logo", but I would suggest that it should mean "moniker or logo". Pick one, read the sentence with it, then pick the other and re-read the sentence with it. And "Big A HG" raises some real points and issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I have been trying to say the same thing. If they are well done, merchandise with a NEW logo and a NEW nickname will sell a lot more than anything that just says North Dakota or UND. Americans want to buy the latest and greatest. and if they powers that be don't listen and pick a stupid nick name like Flickertails there will be mayhem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Quiz time! 1. What school is that? 2. Do you think that, and their inspiring moniker , has them revisiting their history continually? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Quiz time! 1. What school is that? 2. Do you think that, and their inspiring moniker , has them revisiting their history continually? The Mighty Dartmouth umm, ahhh, ummm. Green something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 and if they powers that be don't listen and pick a stupid nick name like Flickertails there will be mayhem. How about Sundogs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 How about Sundogs? Not feeling it, just to be honest. The one thing going for it is our mascot could be Spuds MacKenzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 It could be argued that ANY nickname other than the current one or else no nickname at all would be stupid for UND. It could be argued, but would be a dumb argument. Yes, people will be upset about having a new nickname, but it likely won't be because of the nickname itself. Those people will be angry no matter what. If we have a proper nickname that isn't horrendous, people will come to accept the change even if it takes a little time. Having no nickname is a nice thought, but would be a bad move by the university. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 There are many good nicknames that wouldn't work for UND. Wolverines is great for Michigan but would suck for UND, Gators is great for Florida but would suck for UND, etc... I can't think of a single nickname that wouldn't sound lame and contrived if applied to UND. That's because you don't want to have a new nickname. You aren't going to approach the process with an open mind, so nothing is going to work for you. You are going to fight the idea tooth and nail. But no matter how much you stomp your feet or hold your breath, the process is going to continue. Unless someone pulls off a Hail Mary and finds a way to save the current nickname, it will go away and UND will select a new name. And then you are going to have to find a new team to cheer for since you will refuse to cheer for the University of North Dakota ________________. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Not feeling it, just to be honest. The one thing going for it is our mascot could be Spuds MacKenzie Me neither, just lobbin' that one out there for Goon, since he's been clear on his opinion on that one for months now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I don't see having a modified ND logo being something drastically more marketable than what we already had. The ND logo merchandise being sold was an alternative to using our Native American logo. As a standalone marketing campaign, the ND logo sales will be better, but not to the point of what a new logo would bring. People already have many ND only products, and it wouldn't generate the excitement (good or bad) of a new logo. I don't think many of you know or understand marketing if you think that the ND logo alone is going to be great for sales. People will be against the new logo at first, but people will come to accept a new nickname. There will also be people that are pro-Sioux, but aren't against the new nickname and want the latest and greatest in UND nickname apparel. I think it's fair to say most people prefer UND apparel with our Native American logo in comparison to our ND logo, and the same can be said for any new nickname we have (assuming it's not something horrendously bad). If anything, if UND doesn't adopt a new nickname and just markets ND logo apparel, many people will continue to just continue using Sioux products, hurting sales even more.I admit I'm not the marketing genius you apparently are, but I am not contending that Sicatoka's avatar would be the only new logo, but merely an example of one (of several) that could be successful without a moniker. If the current moniker is retired, it's likely merchandise sales will take a dip, regardless whether there is a new moniker or no moniker. I can easily envision a ill-fitting, forced, and too soon new moniker resulting in much worse merchandise sales than if no moniker is adopted. And no one seems interested in commenting on my Michigan example - again, if they can do it with in effect no moniker presence on their merchandise, why can't UND? This is being made harder than it has to be - try it with no moniker and see how it goes - if it catches on, great - if a new moniker naturally evolves, great - if hell freezes over and it becomes evident that a lame-ass contest to find a new moniker among a list of lame-ass options is needed, then gr... - TO HELL WITH THAT. The point is, going with no moniker does not preclude the possibility of choosing a new one at a later date - in other words, stupidity delayed is at least preferable to immediate stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 How about Sundogs? No I don't like the name one bit and I am against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Let's go Dartmouth. Go UND Fighting Green! Here's our mascot: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I think it's funny how people keep comparing UND to the top of the top-tier programs when it comes to this nickname stuff. UND, even with the Sioux nickname, can't compete with the ideas that are being given in correlation to those universities. Michigan is just that, Michigan. What do you think of when someone says Texas? Ok, how bout when someone says Longhorns? Now, Florida? And what if someone mentioned Gators? It's obvious you know exactly what someone is talking about when they mention the nickname. Just like Michigan. If you said Wolverines, you know exactly whom is being mentioned. Michigan has done great with marketing that name. The school is academically one of the best in the countries as well. We aren't Michigan, so why compare us to Michigan? Not only that, but they sell ten times more stuff than we do, so as long as it's blue and gold, they can say whatever they want to say. UND is different. We are a small school with a smaller fanbase, and less marketable income. There are only so many ideas you can put on a t-shirt referring to UND if all you have is the ND logo and no nickname to work with. And blatantly, nothing's intriguiging about a logo so similar to Notre Dame's and as bland as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Let's go Dartmouth. Go UND Fighting Green! Here's our mascot: UND would have to pay more in royalties than they could make selling merchandise. The last time anyone from UND tried to bring Kermit to hockey games they were threatened with legal action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 We'll use the silhouette then. Fighting Spleen then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 ...or maybe they will simply be known as the University of North Dakota. Unless you have some inside information you aren't sharing with us, you can't just dismiss that option. You're right, you can't dismiss it as an option, and that may be what we do for a year. However, I don't think that decision would last long, if it got implemented at all. It's just not a smart business decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 ...or maybe they will simply be known as the University of North Dakota. Unless you have some inside information you aren't sharing with us, you can't just dismiss that option. I have no inside information. But there are way too many reasons that not having a nickname is not as good an option as choosing a new nickname. There has to be a reason that no other Division I school has chosen to go that route for any length of time. Not since nicknames came into popular usage. There has to be a reason that Newberry College has chosen to not follow the no nickname route even though they have people that want to do that. Remember the article you tried to use yesterday where they were quoted as saying: Newberry sent a questionnaire to 9,000 alumni and supporters to ask if they wanted a new nickname, no nickname or some form of the old one; 3,000 responses came back. The committee met last week and decided no nickname is out of the question. It will meet again April 30. A final decision appears a year or more away. Besides all that my marketing degree and years of experience in sales and marketing tell me that selling a new nickname and logo is going to be much more lucrative in the long term than going with no nickname. That's why I am pretty sure that if the nickname actually goes away it will be replaced with something new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I have two counterpoints to your point... A. Simply marketing "UND hockey" and "UND football" to our fans will work. Nobody can convince me otherwise. B. Just think of how groundbreaking it would be for UND to become the 1st "popular" school to go without a nickname. I didn't realize that you were a marketing professional. We have covered A already. UND fans would buy some merchandise without a nickname, but probably not as much. Casual fans would not buy nearly as much without a logo as they would with a new name and logo. A new nickname and new logo would create excitement which could be transferred to sales. That is a lot of money to leave on the table. And it would be a huge risk to go without a name, UND administration isn't going to take that risk on top of all the other risks they are currently taking. I don't care if you're not convinced about either of your "counterpoints". Obviously no one can convince you of anything and everyone on this board wastes their time trying. But don't you find it interesting that so many people disagree with you about so many things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I have two counterpoints to your point... A. Simply marketing "UND hockey" and "UND football" to our fans will work. Nobody can convince me otherwise. B. Just think of how groundbreaking it would be for UND to become the 1st "popular" school to go without a nickname. A. The problem with no nickname isn't trying to convince people to support UND alone. The problem is that it isn't very marketable. It's limits UND's options BIG TIME when it comes to trying to sell athletic or team merchandise. If you are UND alone, that's all you have, one option. If you have UND and a nickname, that's two options, one being very expandable and much more marketable (that being the new nickname). As much as it will hurt to have a new nickname, it's really the only good option from UND's perspective. All that having no nickname will do is make people hang onto the Sioux nickname longer than we need to....and that will hurt marketing and merchandising even more. B. Sorry to disappoint, but UND isn't a "popular" school. Growing up in Wisconsin, I had no idea that UND existed nor that their nickname is the Sioux, and that's only two states away. It wasn't until I arrived in North Dakota the weekend I was to tour campus that I found out anything significant athletically about UND. That's not going to change by going D1, other than a few new schools outside the region that we may be exposed to that we weren't before. But, even those "fanbases" will be limited exposure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodak hockey fanatic Posted May 27, 2009 Author Share Posted May 27, 2009 I challenge you to find one single topic that 100% of people are going to agree on. here's one... that davek just likes to argue and fight with people, so he will take whatever stance achieves that goal, no matter how ridiculous it is... you kind of lobbed that one in there on a side note, at least this thread is serving its purpose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Some UND fans would buy merchandise with a new nickname but not as much. Others, like myself for example, would boycott it altogether. New nickname or no nickname would essentially have the same result... less merchandise sold than with the current nickname. At least with no nickname we could maintain some degree of integrity. A new nickname, no matter what it is, would seem contrived. As for "so many people" disagreeing with me on "so many things", who cares? I challenge you to find one single topic that 100% of people are going to agree on. The fact of the matter is that UND has a better chance of maintaining some degree of continuity without a nickname than they do with a new nickname, and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist (or marketing professional) to figure that out. People buy merchandise because it's new and improved all of the time. This would be another example. You wouldn't, we got that. A lot of people would. Did I say that 100% of people agreed on anything? No I didn't. I said that you disagreed with people more than most people do. Not even close to the same. What you can't figure out is that the UND administration and the SBoHE don't want continuity with the Fighting Sioux nickname. The name is causing them problems so they will want a complete and total break with it. They won't want people using Fighting Sioux all of the time. They can't do anything about people wearing Sioux clothing. But they can put a replacement in place and encourage people to use that instead. That's why they will put in motion a process for a new name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsDoc Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I really don't think the NCAA would make UND choose a new nickname as long as the current one is dropped. I don't know this for a fact, but it only seems logical. I know there's that wording about "transitioning to a different name", but I would think that no name is in essence a new name. To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule stating that all NCAA teams must have a nickname. Would they enforce a special rule on UND that does not apply to all other schools? That wouldn't seem fair. Directly from the settlement agreement with the NCAA: If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo, or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy. Life's not fair ... If you want fair, go to Minot at the end of July. Would they enforce a special rule ... well the settlement creates a special rule. I doubt they put it in to ignore it. I'm sure the NCAA had very good reason to put those exact words into the settlement agreement. The best of your knowledge just isn't good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 How many people said, "If they change from the Blackhawk logo I'll never buy anything again" ... and now have things with the Ben Brien logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Parsing the work of the word-weasels is being done over in this this thread, specifically this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Sigh... I really think people are reading way too much into how that is worded. "The University of North Dakota" would be the new nickname. That is different than "North Dakota Fighting Sioux". The interlocking ND that is displayed on the football helmets would be the new logo. That is different than the indian head logo on the current hockey jerseys. Dave, your scenarios are primarily because you don't want a new nickname logo and want to people to remember them as the Fighting Sioux, have fans continue to wear the Sioux gear and continue to cheer for the Sioux. That may be exactly why the language transition to a new nickname and logo was put into the settlement. The NCAA wants the Fighting Sioux name gone. The only way to really do that is for UND to transition to a new nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.