New Nickname

[82SiouxGuy]

Your points are valid, but I am not trying to paint a broad brush by assuming that everyone for the name has honorable intentions.  Certainly many do not.  However, many do; and the University's intent was to honor.  You cannot also not deny that there are many in the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota tribes that perceived the name to be an honor and they now feel they have been betrayed by the loss of the name.    Finally, I also recognize that others in the Sioux tribes feel strongly in the complete opposite, which is a perfectly valid viewpoint and undeserving of any insult, to say the least. 

 

If UND decides to go the no nickname route, then they must maintain control over the name and logo.  To do otherwise would be a disingenuous farce.  But if UND chooses to implement a new name and logo, the institution is making the definitive statement that going forward they are something other than the "Fighting Sioux",  so what is wrong with gifting the name and the Brien logo to the local tribes.  The gift would be one given in honor, It would certainly put the matter to rest once and for all, and it is completely within UND's right to do so under the settlement agreement.  If the tribes feel that the name is an insult, they can do nothing with it.  If they don't, they can market it.  That would be their business.  You seem to be worried about competition against a new name.  So what?  There is already enough Fighting Sioux merchandise in the hands of "die hards" to last for decades anyway.  And what's wrong with the tribes making money?

The problem is that it would keep the Fighting Sioux name as an active and ongoing factor, not one that is in the past.  It wouldn't be limited to just the diehards that have used and worn the name for years, it would be available and used by future residents and students also.  It would be direct and active competition against any new name and logo.  It would hurt the chances of the new nickname and logo being accepted and used by a wider group of people.  It would be a stupid decision for the University if they want the new name to be successful.  And there is no chance of it happening.

[82SiouxGuy]

The addendum is the NCAA's answer to that question, at least from a legal standpoint.  One more time, this isn't simply a case of the NCAA taking no action to enforce a right under the settlement agreement.  This is a case of the NCAA affirmatively removing UND from the list and stating UND was in compliance with the settlement agreement.  If this ended up in court, which I highly doubt it ever would, and even if the court agreed that the original settlement agreement required UND to adopt a new nickname and that no-nickname was not enough - the addendum signed in 2012 would make this a very easy case of waiver.

I agree with tSic rather than with you.  I think that the NCAA could argue that they have been giving leniency due to the challenges faced by UND and were just giving them extra time as long as it appeared that UND was working toward a new nickname .  The NCAA could very easily make a decision to enforce the "new nickname" portion of the agreement.  I have no idea whether they would or not, but it definitely would not surprise me.  Then it would be up to UND to take the issue to court, this isn't something that the NCAA would need to take to court to enforce.  I also agree with jdub that the 2012 addendum was focused on the facilities portion of the settlement agreement and not on whether UND was in compliance on the new nickname portion of the settlement agreement.

[Benny Baker]

I agree with tSic rather than with you.  I think that the NCAA could argue that they have been giving leniency due to the challenges faced by UND and were just giving them extra time as long as it appeared that UND was working toward a new nickname .  The NCAA could very easily make a decision to enforce the "new nickname" portion of the agreement.  I have no idea whether they would or not, but it definitely would not surprise me.  Then it would be up to UND to take the issue to court, this isn't something that the NCAA would need to take to court to enforce.  I also agree with jdub that the 2012 addendum was focused on the facilities portion of the settlement agreement and not on whether UND was in compliance on the new nickname portion of the settlement agreement.

Stop it already.  UND did not face any challenges; UND is North Dakota.  Who do you think sued the NCAA in the first place?  North Dakota would not allow any transition to a new nickname for three years.  How on earth can anyone possibly interpret a North Dakota law that expressly prohibits the transition to a new nickname as North Dakota's effort to transition to a new nickname?!?!

 

The NCAA cannot enforce an August 15, 2011 deadline to adopt a new nickname, when the subsequent September 2012 addendum, which says that the University of North Dakota [no nickname] was in compliance, controls and supersedes the original settlement agreement.

 

Stop misinforming people.

[The Sicatoka]

Ultimately, I hope the committee suggest finalists that will at least be acceptable and will allow most people to move on.  

 

The most important word in there? "Most". Some will never. 

[Siouxperfan7]

Like I have said before.  We can debate till the cows come home whether or not UND has to adopt a new nickname or not.  The real debate is why people would not want UND to have a new nickname.  My theory that not having a new nickname allows the old name to remain as the unofficial nickname is valid.  Just look how many schools, boradcasters, etc still refer to us as the Fighting Sioux.  So we are alrady living in the world just being North Dakota and not having a name.  Is this the world we want to live in forever as UND fans?  Where some people refer to our teams as the Sioux, some just say North Dakota, and some do both and can't decide.  To me, this is not what is best for the University, its athletic teams, atheletes, and its fans.  All of us as fans rallied around the Fighting Sioux name.  It unifies us.  Just like a nickname does at other schools. If things stay the way they are now, that is going to be very difficult to happen.  So debate on whether no nickname is allowed, but IMO, having a new nickname to rally around and unify the school, the teams, and the fans is what is best for UND.

[engelbunny]

The problem is that it would keep the Fighting Sioux name as an active and ongoing factor, not one that is in the past.  It wouldn't be limited to just the diehards that have used and worn the name for years, it would be available and used by future residents and students also.  It would be direct and active competition against any new name and logo.  It would hurt the chances of the new nickname and logo being accepted and used by a wider group of people.  It would be a stupid decision for the University if they want the new name to be successful.  And there is no chance of it happening.

Why would future residents and future students care if there is "Fighting Sioux" merchandise for sale, when UND is the "Sundogs", or the "Nakotas", or the "Blizzards", or whatever?  I am being a bit facetious there, but isn't this the entire problem with a new name?  In order for a new name to be successful, we have to hide the old one in some dark closet?  Speak of it in hushed tones?  Snidely sneer at those who continue to wear it as old coots who are harming the university because they just can't let go?   I can't think of anything that could dishonor the name more.

 

I stated earlier that I believe the name was a tribute and an honor.  If UND goes the no nickname route, they pay silent homage to the "Fighting Sioux" name and reaffirm its past use as one of solemn respect.  If they pick a new name, then the best way to treat "Fighting Sioux" with the dignity it deserves is to give it back from where it came, not bury it. 

[The Sicatoka]

If they pick a new name, then the best way to treat "Fighting Sioux" with the dignity it deserves is to give it back from where it came, not bury it. 

 

That would violate the Settlement Agreement, section 2.j "Intellectual Property".

 

No, wait, I didn't read far enough. UND can transfer it to "any Sioux nation or tribe".

 

The catch is ... there aren't any "Sioux". There are just Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota.  

 

"Sioux" is a nickname given to the D/L/Nakota tribes by others.

[82SiouxGuy]

Why would future residents and future students care if there is "Fighting Sioux" merchandise for sale, when UND is the "Sundogs", or the "Nakotas", or the "Blizzards", or whatever?  I am being a bit facetious there, but isn't this the entire problem with a new name?  In order for a new name to be successful, we have to hide the old one in some dark closet?  Speak of it in hushed tones?  Snidely sneer at those who continue to wear it as old coots who are harming the university because they just can't let go?   I can't think of anything that could dishonor the name more.

 

I stated earlier that I believe the name was a tribute and an honor.  If UND goes the no nickname route, they pay silent homage to the "Fighting Sioux" name and reaffirm its past use as one of solemn respect.  If they pick a new name, then the best way to treat "Fighting Sioux" with the dignity it deserves is to give it back from where it came, not bury it. 

Why do some current Marquette students still want to use Warriors?  Marquette hasn't used the Warrior name for years.  Why do some people still want Stanford to be the Indians?  They changed the name in like 1972.  Fighting Sioux was a good nickname and it is a good looking logo.  People that weren't affiliated with the school in any way liked the name and logo.  So obviously, people in the future would still like the logo, especially when you add the history associated with name and logo.  Why would UND allow a competing name and logo to be used against them?

 

Your plan puts extra roadblocks in the way of a new name being accepted.  The idea of adopting a new name has enough challenges by itself.  Only a fool would add unnecessary roadblocks, especially when it is so obvious.  This is the issue that several people have noted in the past, people are trying every angle they can come up with to maintain use of Fighting Sioux as the nickname even if it is unofficial.  Your idea makes no sense for UND if they want to make a successful transition. 

[82SiouxGuy]

Stop it already.  UND did not face any challenges; UND is North Dakota.  Who do you think sued the NCAA in the first place?  North Dakota would not allow any transition to a new nickname for three years.  How on earth can anyone possibly interpret a North Dakota law that expressly prohibits the transition to a new nickname as North Dakota's effort to transition to a new nickname?!?!

 

The NCAA cannot enforce an August 15, 2011 deadline to adopt a new nickname, when the subsequent September 2012 addendum, which says that the University of North Dakota [no nickname] was in compliance, controls and supersedes the original settlement agreement.

 

Stop misinforming people.

I'm not misinforming anyone.  You are stating your opinion.  I am stating my opinion about what is possible.  You are trying to come across as though this question has a cut and dried answer.  Several of us believe that there is quite a bit of gray area in this discussion.  It would depend on the interpretation of both parties as well as the interpretation of any judges that may look at the case.  Stop trying to act like you have the final decision on how this would come out.

 

One of the challenges that UND faced was the interference by the North Dakota State Legislature, first not allowing them to change the time within the time frame agreed to in the settlement agreement, and again when the Legislature put the January 1, 2015 date in for a transition.  UND is not the North Dakota Legislature.  The Legislature has a lot of control over the University, but the State Board of Higher Education also has a lot of separate control.  UND is caught in between.  UND could very easily have plans to make a transition to a new nickname and still have those plans delayed by a state law put in place by the Legislature, as a matter of fact that is exactly what happened.  And it is very possible that the NCAA could hold off on forcing the issue since there was a definite date after only a few years for a potential change.  Forcing the issue under those conditions would look like they were being totally unfair to the University.  It would be an unnecessary PR hit, which is something that the NCAA didn't need.  The hit would be much less now if they decide that UND isn't living up to the settlement agreement.  With everything else going on it would just be a blip on the radar rather than a major issue.

[Chewey]

Look at the actual addendum to the settlement agreement.  There is nothing about UND adopting a new nickname, only the fact that UND dropped the old nickname.  Yet, the NCAA took UND off the list anyway.  Which, according to you, UND was in violation of the settlement agreement at the time.  

 

Your theory doesn't hold water.  It's not consistent with the addendum to the settlement agreement.  It's not consistent with the NCAA's actions since the settlement agreement.  And it's not consistent with statements from the committee, and it's not consistent with President Kelley's statement saying no nickname is an option. 

Speaking of an addendum, if having a nickname was so important and was actually required by the NCAA and given the obvious ambiguity in the language of the surrender agreement, why didn't the addendum address that issue?  What has there not been another addendum to address it?  The answer:  Because not having a nickname does not violate any policy; not having a nickname does not violate the surrender agreement. 

[Fetch]

The Fighting Sioux name will never go away

I hope they do pick a good new name & if it's good over time it will become more & more acceptable

But if it is a name (like Roughriders & many others) that I & many others can not get behind - Fighting Sioux will remain for us forever

I do feel if just staying North Dakota is one option that is voted on it may win by a big margin

So I pray they can come up with a few names that can make the vast majority vote for it but I don't feel like I have heard that name & that is why just North Dakota has the best chance & then time will tell what happens

I will also say NODAKS (Keeps it simple) & may have the best chance of growing on the majority even if it will never be anywhere near as good as our old name

I would actually love to see the ncaa try & take the name North Dakota away from us (are they that stupid ?)

& I still respect Ralph's last words on this issue

[Chewey]

Not having a nickname would be marketable because UND would be the only school (to my knowledge).  That's certainly unique, as I see it.  UND had the best nickname and logo in all of college and professional sport.  People would ask why UND does not have a nickname and logo.  They could be told and it would become generally known that UND had the best and chose not to adopt another one out of respect for the Sioux people whose traditions and customs were disrespected.  That would be entirely marketable.  The uniforms could have only an "FS" which also would not violate the surrender agreement.  "Here's your North Dakota 'FS' scoring!!!!!!"  

[engelbunny]

Why do some current Marquette students still want to use Warriors?  Marquette hasn't used the Warrior name for years.  Why do some people still want Stanford to be the Indians?  They changed the name in like 1972.  Fighting Sioux was a good nickname and it is a good looking logo.  People that weren't affiliated with the school in any way liked the name and logo.  So obviously, people in the future would still like the logo, especially when you add the history associated with name and logo.  Why would UND allow a competing name and logo to be used against them?

 

Your plan puts extra roadblocks in the way of a new name being accepted.  The idea of adopting a new name has enough challenges by itself.  Only a fool would add unnecessary roadblocks, especially when it is so obvious.  This is the issue that several people have noted in the past, people are trying every angle they can come up with to maintain use of Fighting Sioux as the nickname even if it is unofficial.  Your idea makes no sense for UND if they want to make a successful transition. 

Look,  earlier in this thread someone asked if anyone in the no-nickname crowd could possibly explain their position.  I did so.  Agree or disagree, but I am consistent in my argument.  My belief is that the "Fighting Sioux" name was, and is, more than just a marketing piece.  You state it was a "good nickname" and Briens artwork "is a good looking logo".  I say they represent more than just a name and a logo.  My thoughts on the name transcend any dollar value you can put on it.  I am not making my argument from an economic perspective.  In fact, I certainly know that my reasoning on this issue is antithetical to any marketing campaign a new nickname for UND would need.   I am also not an idealist, but in this instance I am taking an idealist point of view.  I am taking my stance to its logical conclusion; if the name is truly one of respect and honor, then base the decision on what is ultimately done with it on that alone, and forget about $$$. 

 

In the end it will all work out for the best. 

[Taz Boy]

Why do some current Marquette students still want to use Warriors?  Marquette hasn't used the Warrior name for years.  Why do some people still want Stanford to be the Indians?  They changed the name in like 1972.  Fighting Sioux was a good nickname and it is a good looking logo.  People that weren't affiliated with the school in any way liked the name and logo.  So obviously, people in the future would still like the logo, especially when you add the history associated with name and logo.  Why would UND allow a competing name and logo to be used against them?

 

Your plan puts extra roadblocks in the way of a new name being accepted.  The idea of adopting a new name has enough challenges by itself.  Only a fool would add unnecessary roadblocks, especially when it is so obvious.  This is the issue that several people have noted in the past, people are trying every angle they can come up with to maintain use of Fighting Sioux as the nickname even if it is unofficial.  Your idea makes no sense for UND if they want to make a successful transition. 

 

Why the degrading language:  "Only a fool" and "Your idea makes no sense" ?

 

We've had several logo changes in recent history:  Sammy, Blackhawk, Geometric, Brien.  Shall we work on controlling measures for each since they would all be in competition for the new one?  What about the interlocking UND?  I bet many would prefer that to some weather graphic or petite bird.  Going to be especially difficult to keep that pesky Blackhawk logo under wraps... still widely licensed and in use, internationally, and worn by former UND athletes no less!  And, just how pathetic is this new logo that it needs to be protected from speech?  An effeminate cowboy?  A flower?  Some sort of animal with big teeth that can be easily designed into a joyful, lovable mascot kids can hug at games?

 

You can't control the public.  Like guns, the Brien artwork is so widely distributed on merchandise that it wouldn't matter if a few more shirts and hats were commissioned by a tribe as owner and licensor.  It is not going away for decades.

 

The argument is to do what is honorable, not what is somehow advantageous for the University.  You seem to fear the free market, and perhaps you should.  A new nickname is going to suck for a very long time.  That is an undeniable truth.  It will be weak and lame and no self respecting Fighting Sioux fan is going to like it one bit.

 

I say, nickname = state name = North Dakota.

 

taz

[KSSioux]

Why the degrading language:  "Only a fool" and "Your idea makes no sense" ?

 

We've had several logo changes in recent history:  Sammy, Blackhawk, Geometric, Brien.  Shall we work on controlling measures for each since they would all be in competition for the new one?  What about the interlocking UND?  I bet many would prefer that to some weather graphic or petite bird.  Going to be especially difficult to keep that pesky Blackhawk logo under wraps... still widely licensed and in use, internationally, and worn by former UND athletes no less!  And, just how pathetic is this new logo that it needs to be protected from speech?  An effeminate cowboy?  A flower?  Some sort of animal with big teeth that can be easily designed into a joyful, lovable mascot kids can hug at games?

 

You can't control the public.  Like guns, the Brien artwork is so widely distributed on merchandise that it wouldn't matter if a few more shirts and hats were commissioned by a tribe as owner and licensor.  It is not going away for decades.

 

The argument is to do what is honorable, not what is somehow advantageous for the University.  You seem to fear the free market, and perhaps you should.  A new nickname is going to suck for a very long time.  That is an undeniable truth.  It will be weak and lame and no self respecting Fighting Sioux fan is going to like it one bit.

 

I say, nickname = state name = North Dakota.

 

taz

I believe you are stating what most people feel is reasonable at this time and you will have folks call you names for feeling that way.  I will add a couple of things to watch for in the near future.  President Kelley will find some way to keep the "North Dakota" choice off of the ballot.  I know that it is the highest balloted "name" and I will get a FOIA request immediately if it is not on the ballot.  I am sure I am not the only one that will push that request and battle to not have a ballot until those numbers are made public.  It was stated that the ones with the highest votes will be put forward and I do not believe that will be the case.  The "North Dakota" choice meets all of the requirements that the original committee said were necessary.  No nickname or logo other than "North Dakota" will not have someone from NDSU or Minnesota come up with something offensive regarding that nickname or logo.  Impossible.  That will immediately contradict what the original nickname committee stated to the Herald that it was looking for in a nickname.  Again, I state that that is impossible as anything can be found to be offensive in some way to some one.  Then again, I guess I could be wrong since if a "Crusader" cannot be deemed offensive to a particular religious group by the NCAA, the sky could be the limit on what we could get.

[82SiouxGuy]

Why the degrading language:  "Only a fool" and "Your idea makes no sense" ?

 

We've had several logo changes in recent history:  Sammy, Blackhawk, Geometric, Brien.  Shall we work on controlling measures for each since they would all be in competition for the new one?  What about the interlocking UND?  I bet many would prefer that to some weather graphic or petite bird.  Going to be especially difficult to keep that pesky Blackhawk logo under wraps... still widely licensed and in use, internationally, and worn by former UND athletes no less!  And, just how pathetic is this new logo that it needs to be protected from speech?  An effeminate cowboy?  A flower?  Some sort of animal with big teeth that can be easily designed into a joyful, lovable mascot kids can hug at games?

 

You can't control the public.  Like guns, the Brien artwork is so widely distributed on merchandise that it wouldn't matter if a few more shirts and hats were commissioned by a tribe as owner and licensor.  It is not going away for decades.

 

The argument is to do what is honorable, not what is somehow advantageous for the University.  You seem to fear the free market, and perhaps you should.  A new nickname is going to suck for a very long time.  That is an undeniable truth.  It will be weak and lame and no self respecting Fighting Sioux fan is going to like it one bit.

 

I say, nickname = state name = North Dakota.

 

taz

UND can control what it can control.  The Sammy Sioux logo went away because people realized it was insulting.  The Chicago Blackhawks own the Blackhawk logo.  They get the revenue, not UND.  They took it back from UND years ago, which is a major reason that UND stopped using it.  The geometric logo never sold well, that is why it was replaced.  UND can control the Fighting Sioux nickname and Brien logo.  Those are worth a significant amount of money. 

 

Giving the nickname and logo away to a tribe would be taking dollars from the Athletic Department because they would divert money that could be spent on UND merchandise.  This is very much a financial decision for the University, as it should be.  People come on this board and complain about the budgets for various sports.  They don't think that UND is spending enough on football or basketball.  Then a few of you come here and want UND to give away hundreds of thousands of dollars in merchandise revenue.  That is what is stupid, and something only a fool would do, give away large sums of potential revenue at the same time that you are trying to increase department revenues.  That would be like giving away your paycheck when you haven't paid the electrical bill.  You may live in some idealistic world, the UND Athletic Department does not.

[82SiouxGuy]

I believe you are stating what most people feel is reasonable at this time and you will have folks call you names for feeling that way.  I will add a couple of things to watch for in the near future.  President Kelley will find some way to keep the "North Dakota" choice off of the ballot.  I know that it is the highest balloted "name" and I will get a FOIA request immediately if it is not on the ballot.  I am sure I am not the only one that will push that request and battle to not have a ballot until those numbers are made public.  It was stated that the ones with the highest votes will be put forward and I do not believe that will be the case.  The "North Dakota" choice meets all of the requirements that the original committee said were necessary.  No nickname or logo other than "North Dakota" will not have someone from NDSU or Minnesota come up with something offensive regarding that nickname or logo.  Impossible.  That will immediately contradict what the original nickname committee stated to the Herald that it was looking for in a nickname.  Again, I state that that is impossible as anything can be found to be offensive in some way to some one.  Then again, I guess I could be wrong since if a "Crusader" cannot be deemed offensive to a particular religious group by the NCAA, the sky could be the limit on what we could get.

There is not any kind of a vote going on right now for nicknames.  They are taking suggestions, not taking votes.  The names selected to go forward will not be based on the number of times they are suggested.  It is not based on numbers at this point in the process.  The committee will review the suggested nicknames and will choose the 3 they believe are the best choices for the school based on the criteria that has been developed.  Names that are obviously obscene, trademarked, and/or not appropriate are eliminated during this stage.  The actual name chosen will be the 1 out of those 3 that gets the most votes.

[jdub27]

There is not any kind of a vote going on right now for nicknames. They are taking suggestions, not taking votes. The names selected to go forward will not be based on the number of times they are suggested. It is not based on numbers at this point in the process. The committee will review the suggested nicknames and will choose the 3 they believe are the best choices for the school based on the criteria that has been developed. Names that are obviously obscene, trademarked, and/or not appropriate are eliminated during this stage. The actual name chosen will be the 1 out of those 3 that gets the most votes.

This. There's a group that will throw a fit regardless but hopefully some will actually take some time to actually read how the process will play out.

[Teeder11]

There is not any kind of a vote going on right now for nicknames.  They are taking suggestions, not taking votes.  The names selected to go forward will not be based on the number of times they are suggested.  It is not based on numbers at this point in the process.  The committee will review the suggested nicknames and will choose the 3 they believe are the best choices for the school based on the criteria that has been developed.  Names that are obviously obscene, trademarked, and/or not appropriate are eliminated during this stage.  The actual name chosen will be the 1 out of those 3 that gets the most votes.

This is my understanding, as well, of how the process is intended to play out.

[engelbunny]

82Siouxguy:

 

The Fighting Sioux Name and Logo are worth exactly $0.00 dollars to the University of North Dakota, because the University is prohibited from actively licensing them to captialize on any revenue stream.  You are only worried about the potential competition to a new UND nickname, yet no one that is a hard core supporter of the Fighting Sioux name (no matter their motivation) is going to buy any of that stuff anytime soon.  These people already have Sioux gear to last them years.  Your point is moot.

[82SiouxGuy]

82Siouxguy:

 

The Fighting Sioux Name and Logo are worth exactly $0.00 dollars to the University of North Dakota, because the University is prohibited from actively licensing them to captialize on any revenue stream.  You are only worried about the potential competition to a new UND nickname, yet no one that is a hard core supporter of the Fighting Sioux name (no matter their motivation) is going to buy any of that stuff anytime soon.  These people already have Sioux gear to last them years.  Your point is moot.

This is not true.  There are always going to be people in the market to buy things.  There are several thousand freshman entering UND each year.  All of them have families.  There are new people moving into Grand Forks each year, and some of them will adopt UND as a team to root for.  There are people like myself.  I own multiple jerseys, sweatshirts, tee shirts, sweatpants, etc. with the Sioux or Fighting Sioux names on them.  I have purchased plain North Dakota goods.  I will purchase goods with the new nickname.  I purchase to support the University and to show my support for the University.  I don't buy just to support a nickname and logo.  I graduated from the University of North Dakota, not the University of Fighting Sioux. 

 

There are plenty of people that will choose what merchandise to buy from what is available.  If the only choice is to purchase merchandise with a new nickname and logo, they will choose to buy that merchandise because they want to associate themselves with the teams and the school.  They might even want to support the school.  But if they have a choice between merchandise with the new nickname and logo or choosing merchandise with the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, a significant number would choose to purchase the Fighting Sioux merchandise.  It has history, is established and better known than a new nickname, and it is a desirable brand.  Under your scenario those dollars would go to the tribes.  That equals a negative sum of money going to UND compared to what could be going to UND.  Again, I support what is best for the University of North Dakota, not what is best for a sports nickname.

 

The problem is your assumption that the world breaks down into hardcore Fighting Sioux fans (people that would only buy Fighting Sioux merchandise) and non-hardcore fans (fans that would not be interested in Fighting Sioux merchandise).  It is true that there are people in both camps.  But there is a large group of people in the middle.  These people will buy what is available and what is more desirable to them based on looks, color, etc.  That etc. could include the name and logo, meaning they would choose Fighting Sioux over the new nickname if they are given a choice, but would purchase new nickname if there is no Fighting Sioux available.  These are the dollars that would be lost to UND every year under the scenario you are promoting.

[DamStrait]

This is not true.  There are always going to be people in the market to buy things.  There are several thousand freshman entering UND each year.  All of them have families.  There are new people moving into Grand Forks each year, and some of them will adopt UND as a team to root for.  There are people like myself.  I own multiple jerseys, sweatshirts, tee shirts, sweatpants, etc. with the Sioux or Fighting Sioux names on them.  I have purchased plain North Dakota goods.  I will purchase goods with the new nickname.  I purchase to support the University and to show my support for the University.  I don't buy just to support a nickname and logo.  I graduated from the University of North Dakota, not the University of Fighting Sioux. 

 

There are plenty of people that will choose what merchandise to buy from what is available.  If the only choice is to purchase merchandise with a new nickname and logo, they will choose to buy that merchandise because they want to associate themselves with the teams and the school.  They might even want to support the school.  But if they have a choice between merchandise with the new nickname and logo or choosing merchandise with the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, a significant number would choose to purchase the Fighting Sioux merchandise.  It has history, is established and better known than a new nickname, and it is a desirable brand.  Under your scenario those dollars would go to the tribes.  That equals a negative sum of money going to UND compared to what could be going to UND.  Again, I support what is best for the University of North Dakota, not what is best for a sports nickname.

 

The problem is your assumption that the world breaks down into hardcore Fighting Sioux fans (people that would only buy Fighting Sioux merchandise) and non-hardcore fans (fans that would not be interested in Fighting Sioux merchandise).  It is true that there are people in both camps.  But there is a large group of people in the middle.  These people will buy what is available and what is more desirable to them based on looks, color, etc.  That etc. could include the name and logo, meaning they would choose Fighting Sioux over the new nickname if they are given a choice, but would purchase new nickname if there is no Fighting Sioux available.  These are the dollars that would be lost to UND every year under the scenario you are promoting.

Talk about a straw man argument!  The choice going forward is not Fighting Sioux merchandise and merchandise with a new nickname/logo - it is between UND merchandise and merchandise with a new nickname/logo.  You and your ilk are arguing that the latter will obviously generate more revenue for the university.  In other words, ANY new nickname/logo is better than sticking with just University of North Dakota and our existing (or possibly new) non-Fighting Sioux logos.  Others, including myself, are arguing that it depends entirely on what the new nickname/logo is and since there is no natural consensus, it may very well be worse regarding merchandising revenues for UND than continuing only as UND.  Your absolute certainty to the contrary seems to me to be irrational and often stoops to the level of condescension - and is so dogmatic as to lead one to believe you may have some ulterior motive, although I can't imagine what it might be.

[The Sicatoka]

Not having a nickname would be marketable because UND would be the only school (to my knowledge).  That's certainly unique, as I see it.  

 

Unique, yes. But again you're trying to sell a nothing. I can go to any truck stop and get a hat or t-shirt that says "North Dakota" on it; but, that's not UND. What makes it identifiable is either "University of North Dakota" or "UND" ... or the (wait for it) ... identifying nickname. 

 

You can't sell or market a void, a nothing. 

 

 

People would ask why UND does not have a nickname and logo. 

 

No they wouldn't. Nobody outside of this tight little circle cares. If they did, Florida State and Notre Dame would be changing names ... or North Dakota would not. 

 

There's not a lot of hazy area in the NCAA policy (no race, ethnicity, or national origin based nicknames) yet the Seminoles and Irish are still out there. If people really cared that policy would be applied equally and consistently. But it's not, which tells me nobody cares if North Dakota takes the hit or if they have a nickname or not. 

 

 

The uniforms could have only an "FS" which also would not violate the surrender agreement.  "Here's your North Dakota 'FS' scoring!!!!!!"  

 

And there it is, as many have said all along: no nickname is merely a ruse to keep using the old nickname. 

[82SiouxGuy]

Talk about a straw man argument!  The choice going forward is not Fighting Sioux merchandise and merchandise with a new nickname/logo - it is between UND merchandise and merchandise with a new nickname/logo.  You and your ilk are arguing that the latter will obviously generate more revenue for the university.  In other words, ANY new nickname/logo is better than sticking with just University of North Dakota and our existing (or possibly new) non-Fighting Sioux logos.  Others, including myself, are arguing that it depends entirely on what the new nickname/logo is and since there is no natural consensus, it may very well be worse regarding merchandising revenues for UND than continuing only as UND.  Your absolute certainty to the contrary seems to me to be irrational and often stoops to the level of condescension - and is so dogmatic as to lead one to believe you may have some ulterior motive, although I can't imagine what it might be.

The premise is simple.  It is easier to sell something (a new nickname and logo) than nothing (what UND currently has for a nickname).  North Dakota is not a sports nickname.  It is the name of the state.  University of North Dakota North Dakota sounds stupid, but that is what you would print out if you were using North Dakota as a nickname.  North Dakota doesn't work well for a lot of chants, "Here we go, North Dakota, here we go (clap, clap)."  We have already seen that the interlocking ND logo is not a big seller, and is confused with Notre Dame.  What UND has been using for the past 3 years is not working from a marketing standpoint, and it isn't working from a cheer standpoint.  All it does is encourage a significant portion of the crowd to continue using Fighting Sioux while others won't use Fighting Sioux.  Yes, people will continue to use Fighting Sioux no matter what is chosen, but a new nickname will give others something they can use other than the name of the state.

 

Yes, the amount of success that a new nickname or logo will have will depend on the quality of the nickname and logo  plus how quickly it is accepted.  I think that the committee will find something that a lot of the non-fanatics will accept.  But I also believe that almost any new nickname and logo will be more successful from a marketing standpoint than what UND is using now.  There are schools out there using Billikens, and Anteaters, and Banana Slugs that have success.

 

I'm not sure what kind of ulterior motive I could have by promoting the selection of a new nickname, especially when I haven't been promoting any specific nickname.  I have seen quite a few that I believe would work, some better than others.  I believe that the committee may have gotten others that would also work that we may not have heard yet.  Every other school that has chosen a new nickname has found one that works for them.  If every other school that has been through a similar process in the past 40+ years (going back to Stanford) has been able to find an acceptable nickname, then I believe that UND can do so also.  So I am very confident that UND will also find a solution that works in spite of the apprehension that some people seem to have about the process.

[UND1983]

The old nickname is gone. 

 

We are getting a new nickname.

 

That much is 100% certain.  

 

(drops the mic and swaggers off the stage)