Vote on your final 5 nickname choices (just ND is out)

[dmksioux]

Either one of those options are my top 2 right now.

Mine too, but Roughriders is my number one by a pretty large margin..

[UND-FB-FAN]

And that's his opinion and I don't really agree with it. I watch a lot of sports and I never see media analysts talking about  it more than 30 seconds or so.  Also, over the past 3 years we have been in limbo in regards to a nickname.  If and/or when North Dakota is chosen I believe the media will put it to rest.  We would just be North Dakota and that sounds ok to me.

 

Completely disagree.

 

Anytime UND plays a school outside of this region, which is very frequent, the story is covered in detail - far longer than 30 seconds. It does take away from the match and student-athletes and it should be a non-issue. 

 

I think this opinion circles back to the perception of national prominence. Many UND supporters naively believe UND is the way it is locally everywhere else (i.e., everyone in the country who is a college athletics fan should know what UND is dealing with). That is just not the case. Go to SEC or PAC-12 country, where UND rarely plays or recruits, and you'll see the instant drop-off in familiarity.

 

This is why making UND uniform with the rest of DI athletics, regarding the nickname, is the most logical solution moving forward as it relates to the success of ALL UND sports. 

[jdub27]

The ENTIRE process.......everyone involved, decisions made....blah, blah, blah.  A number.....that's all I wanted.   

 

I have no issues with how either committee did its job, they did exactly what was laid out for them and were open about it whether you agreed with them or not: 5

However:

Including and listening to consultants: 0

Kelley undermining the committee: 0

 

Dating back decades: 0  This entire debacle has been and continues to be a joke and an embarrassment.

[breakin face]

If no nickname ends up being the answer and the university owns it through their marketing/merchandising this issue will eventually be behind us.  The argument for a nickname does not outweigh the damage that could be done by alienating potential donors regardless of whether they are a one sport fan or not.  

 

If no nickname ends up the answer and the university hmms and haws and allows nickname focus groups and committees to pop up in the future the nickname issue will always linger.  The only thing that has damaged the university in the three years without a nickname is the speculation and divisiveness caused by potentially having a new nickname.  

[dmksioux]

So about how you thought it would sake out?

Didn't think you wanted any reasons as to why...

[jdub27]

there will be people who choose to stop supporting the school based on this outcome

 

Those people are not supporters of the University of North Dakota, they are supporters of a retired nickname and logo.  There is absolutely no other way to put it. They also probably overlap with same group that threatened to quit giving donations when Fighting Sioux was retired.  The result?  Record year of donations to the Champions Club the following year.

[Siouxphan27]

So just out of curiousity, what happens if Roughriders is eliminated but the No nickname option remains?  You think these threads were entertaining the last few days, imagine how they'd be if that happens?

I would be really, really happy.   And I think we can all agree, that is what's most important, right? 

 

[dmksioux]

Didn't think you wanted any reasons as to why...

But if you insist...

 

The end result, I expected several horrible options, which we have.

I expected one name that would be the front runner, which we have.

 

I was hoping that no-nickname would be eliminated otherwise the debate will continue and take away the focus of what UND athletics will hopefully be accomplishing on the field of play.

 

So in summary...about a five...

[Big Green]

If no nickname ends up being the answer and the university owns it through their marketing/merchandising this issue will eventually be behind us.  The argument for a nickname does not outweigh the damage that could be done by alienating potential donors regardless of whether they are a one sport fan or not.  

 

If no nickname ends up the answer and the university hmms and haws and allows nickname focus groups and committees to pop up in the future the nickname issue will always linger.  The only thing that has damaged the university in the three years without a nickname is the speculation and divisiveness caused by potentially having a new nickname.  

Great post.  Agree 100%

[siouxfan512]

I have no issues with how either committee did its job, they did exactly what was laid out for them and were open about it whether you agreed with them or not: 5

Including consultants: 0

Kelley undermining the committee: 0

 

Dating back decades: 0  This entire debacle has been and continues to be a joke and an embarrassment.

 

Since Kelley get the final say regardless of what the committee does, as was always stated, I'm intrigued by this.

 

I could be wrong, but it seems like you are ok with the committee because they voted out the No-name option, and Not ok with Kelley because he chose to change that. An option that was always on the table.

 

Now I'm not agreeing with the way this has all been handled. I voted 1 across the board, but your assessment of the process as a whole seems very skewed by who agrees with your opinions and which outcome supports what you want.

 

Those people are not supporters of the University of North Dakota, they are supporters of a retired nickname and logo.  There is absolutely no other way to put it. They also probably overlap with same group that threatened to quit giving donations when Fighting Sioux was retired.  The result?  Record year of donations to the Champions Club the following year.

 

To say those people are not supporters is harsh. I think those folks just feel betrayed by an institution that they feel has turned its back on them. Not agreeing with them, but I think they just feel "You turn your back on me, I'll turn my back on you". Again, I don't agree with this, but to say they aren't even fans or supporters is a bit harsh. I guarantee none of these people do that light-heartedly.

[UND-FB-FAN]

The vast majority of the people coming out of the woodwork on this issue are of the "hockey-only" crowd. - Speculation. Of course you are going to get more hockey fans speaking out. There are just more hockey fans at the school; sad truth. I agree, it would be great to see this same crowd support football, basketball, etc, but that does not change the fact that people are passionate about what the name was, is and will be. School supporters want to voice their opinion, and do not want to be told what their opinion should be. 

 

Yes, it is speculation, but most of this nickname debate is just that. No one can accurately speak on the ideals of everyone involved to various degrees. 

 

It bothers me to see such passion aimed at the nickname, only then to wither away when UND football and basketball teams need such passion in terms of support. Its a cyclical issue; there would be more "overall fans" if they would attempt to make a department-wide difference with their support, because the product on the field/court would improve along with that. 

 

 

 

Lastly, UND needs to worry about competing on the field of competition, by improving academic standards, facilities, and instruction/coaching, not how to politically deal with impulsive behavior regarding at nickname/logo. -  Agreed, the focust SHOULD BE on developing the programs, facilities, athletes. That being said this issue is not something the university can afford to just overlook. They do have to consider the number of supporter that may be affected by this. Right or Wrong, there will be people who choose to stop supporting the school based on this outcome (I am not condoning that) but UND does need to consider that long term ramifications. This has been a LONG LONG LONG battle going back to way before I was a Sioux fan, and I think we are close to seeing some finality. Should be important to finish this the right way.

 

 

You have to be able to call a bluff in some of these instances. If "fans" really will drop funding because a name will change, so be it. They will come back when UND hockey is winning national titles and UND football is on the DI map competing in the playoffs every season. Point is, they will eventually realize - perhaps the hard way - that their love for UND is deeper than just a nickname/logo. If they feel they were excluded in the process, I understand their bitterness, but it is no reason to abandon the university they imply admiration for via donations. 

[Teeder11]

If no nickname ends up being the answer and the university owns it through their marketing/merchandising this issue will eventually be behind us.  The argument for a nickname does not outweigh the damage that could be done by alienating potential donors regardless of whether they are a one sport fan or not.  

 

If no nickname ends up the answer and the university hmms and haws and allows nickname focus groups and committees to pop up in the future the nickname issue will always linger.  The only thing that has damaged the university in the three years without a nickname is the speculation and divisiveness caused by potentially having a new nickname.  

 

These nebulous "potential donors" that many who want no nickname keep referring to are about has hazy and imminent as those "potential NCAA and Big Sky sanctions and penalties" that the new nickname crowd likes to trot out.  

 

Hell, if we stay just "North Dakota," I'm expecting Phase II of the HPC to get shovels in the ground this fall and for all of our athletic scholarship issues to be a thing of the past with all the donations that are going to start rolling in. 

[Oxbow6]

I have no issues with how either committee did its job, they did exactly what was laid out for them and were open about it whether you agreed with them or not: 5

However:

Including and listening to consultants: 0

Kelley undermining the committee: 0

 

Dating back decades: 0  This entire debacle has been and continues to be a joke and an embarrassment.

 

 

Fair enough.........I would give it a 1.

 

I get those on the committee are in a tough spot but there definitely was some personal agendas that were brought to the table and some unreasonable explanations for eliminating or keeping some options....give them a 3.  Kelley gets a -2 just because.....he is Kelley and this is how he operates.  The "process" itself get a zero because frankly I don't know if any real head way has been made since day 1 in this process thur today.

 

So doing basic math: 3 + -2 + 0 = 1

[Siouxphan27]

These nebulous "potential donors" that many who want no nickname keep referring to are about has hazy and imminent as those "potential NCAA and Big Sky sanctions and penalties" that the new nickname crowd likes to trot out.  

 

Hell, if we stay just "North Dakota," I'm expecting Phase II of the HPC to get shovels in the ground this fall and for all of our athletic scholarship issues to be a thing of the past with all the donations that are going to start rolling in. 

Good post.

 

But i'm confused;  I thought new tshirts that said Roughriders or  Sundogs would result in millions more from merchandise revenue, and would also guarantee success on the field, court, and rink because fans at the games wouldn't be discussing why we don't have a nickname..

 

[siouxfan512]

Yes, it is speculation, but most of this nickname debate is just that. No one can accurately speak on the ideals of everyone involved to various degrees. 

 

It bothers me to see such passion aimed at the nickname, only then to wither away when UND football and basketball teams need such passion in terms of support. Its a cyclical issue; there would be more "overall fans" if they would attempt to make a department-wide difference with their support, because the product on the field/court would improve along with that. 

 

 

 

You have to be able to call a bluff in some of these instances. If "fans" really will drop funding because a name will change, so be it. They will come back when UND hockey is winning national titles and UND football is on the DI map competing in the playoffs every season. Point is, they will eventually realize - perhaps the hard way - that their love for UND is deeper than just a nickname/logo. If they feel they were excluded in the process, I understand their bitterness, but it is no reason to abandon the university they imply admiration for via donations. 

 

I agree, definitely a passionate fan base about hockey, and the nickname. Though I do think the school is trending in the right direction. Passion for football and basketball will come with winning. Something that hockey has had alot of so you can completely blame that crowd. But I definitely understand your frustration. that being said, the passion that goes towards this nickname is somewhat of a seperate issue from the lack of passion about non-hockey sports. again, I think it will trend in the right direction, especially with football.

 

I also agree on calling the bluff of "potential donors". Not everyone who says they will pull funding, has or ever will donate, or donate a significant amount. BUT the University does need to consider their options and weigh out the possible ramifications of alienating a certain portion of their fan base/alumni/ticketholders/etc.

 

Simply state, this process has been way overdone. Nevertheless, the school needs to see it through for finality; and needs to do so carefully. They need to appease the NCAA (however that may be nickname/no-nickname - I'm not looking to stir up that debat on this thread), they need to appease their athletes, they need to appease their stakeholders. This will not be universal appeasement, but they need to find a good balance.

[siouxfan512]

Fair enough.........I would give it a 1.

 

I get those on the committee are in a tough spot but there definitely was some personal agendas that were brought to the table and some unreasonable explanations for eliminating or keeping some options....give them a 3.  Kelley gets a -2 just because.....he is Kelley and this is how he operates.  The "process" itself get a zero because frankly I don't know if any real head way has been made since day 1 in this process thur today.

 

So doing basic math: 3 + -2 + 0 = 1

 

Kelley gets a -2 just because.....he is Kelley and this is how he operates

 

Bahahaha, I like this one.

[SWSiouxMN]

No matter where everyone falls in this debate.  One thing cannot be debated

 

This has turned into a major debacle.

[jdub27]

Since Kelley get the final say regardless of what the committee does, as was always stated, I'm intrigued by this.

 

I could be wrong, but it seems like you are ok with the committee because they voted out the No-name option, and Not ok with Kelley because he chose to change that. An option that was always on the table.

 

Now I'm not agreeing with the way this has all been handled. I voted 1 across the board, but your assessment of the process as a whole seems very skewed by who agrees with your opinions and which outcome supports what you want.

 

The nicknames I preferred were dropped long before the final 15 or whatever the number was and I was felt the same before and after they did that.  The committee followed the processes laid out for them, that's why I have no issue with them.  They ranked the nicknames at least twice with "no nickname" being the lowest scoring of what remained, I'm not sure how keeping it on the list at that point made sense.  My issue with how Kelley handled it is that he openly undermined the committee.  I guess I didn't think about the fact that the process did state he had the ability to add names to the final list, but to add something that saw more debate than anything else, scored consistently low from the committee and was voted out isn't quite how I saw him using that power. 

 

 

To say those people are not supporters is harsh. I think those folks just feel betrayed by an institution that they feel has turned its back on them. Not agreeing with them, but I think they just feel "You turn your back on me, I'll turn my back on you". Again, I don't agree with this, but to say they aren't even fans or supporters is a bit harsh. I guarantee none of these people do that light-heartedly.

 

When the Fighting Sioux nickname was dropped, a group of people that fully knew the sanctions that would be placed on UND, did not care and chose to insist that the Fighting Sioux nickname be kept (and some continue to this day).  That is not someone who can honestly say they support the University of North Dakota.  To claim to be a fan and then voluntarily and intentionally supporting something that places the school at a disadvantage is mind-blowing.  I do understand what you're saying, I just don't have the same opinion.  I want the University of North Dakota to have every advantage possible.

[Oxbow6]

No matter where everyone falls in this debate.  One thing cannot be debated

 

This has turned into a major debacle.

 

 

I'd give you a +10 if I could

[UND-FB-FAN]

In terms of polls, I think having a weighted total is more important than ever in this situation. 

 

Those with the University of North Dakota and athletics department know more than what the general public knows. They have to deal with the "no nickname" and Fighting Sioux/NCAA battle on a consistent basis. They know what it takes to manage a university athletics department and assemble competitive sports teams, and I think its a stretch to assume the general public knows such intricacies. 

 

For example, do you think 6 out of 10 people or 60 out of 100 people (the majority) in Grand Forks could coach UND hockey or football? Do you think they would even know what FCS football is or what the NCAA settlement terms were? Do they know what the sanctions that the NCAA threatened to impose were/are? 

 

Grand Forks citizens and UND supporters are not knowledgeable in college athletics to the point where they should be entitled and entrusted to make this "no nickname" decision. Having them choose a nickname out of a list of 5 is one thing, but completely excluding a nickname is a different category of decision-making.

 

Its time to listen to the people who know something about what UND has to deal with behind-the-scenes. Its time to move on. As UND supporters/alumni, we can voice our support by showing up to games and supporting the student-athletes and coaches as they attempt to best represent UND athletics by winning on various stages. 

[siouxfan512]

The nicknames I preferred were dropped long before the final 15 or whatever the number was and I was felt the same before and after they did that.  The committee followed the processes laid out for them, that's why I have no issue with them.  They ranked the nicknames at least twice with "no nickname" being the lowest scoring of what remained, I'm not sure how keeping it on the list at that point made sense.  My issue with how Kelley handled it is that he openly undermined the committee.  I guess I didn't think about the fact that the process did state he had the ability to add names to the final list, but to add something that saw more debate than anything else, scored consistently low from the committee and was voted out isn't quite how I saw him using that power. 

 

 

 

When the Fighting Sioux nickname was dropped, a group of people that fully knew the sanctions that would be placed on UND, did not care and chose to insist that the Fighting Sioux nickname be kept (and some continue to this day).  That is not someone who can honestly say they support the University of North Dakota.  To claim to be a fan and then voluntarily and intentionally supporting something that places the school at a disadvantage is mind-blowing.  I do understand what you're saying, I just don't have the same opinion.  I want the University of North Dakota to have every advantage possible.

 

The nicknames I preferred were dropped long before the final 15 or whatever the number was and I was felt the same before and after they did that.  The committee followed the processes laid out for them, that's why I have no issue with them.  They ranked the nicknames at least twice with "no nickname" being the lowest scoring of what remained, I'm not sure how keeping it on the list at that point made sense.  My issue with how Kelley handled it is that he openly undermined the committee.  I guess I didn't think about the fact that the process did state he had the ability to add names to the final list, but to add something that saw more debate than anything else, scored consistently low from the committee and was voted out isn't quite how I saw him using that power. 

 

I understand the issue there. You would have though that this would have been largely discussed behind closed doors before the option was removed by the committe (and maybe it was). You would also think Kelley would have consulted with the committee before today's announcement. I did like today's announcement, but I AM NOT, nor have I ever been a fan of Kelley. Though, I can't say I think the voting of the committee is a accurate representation of the school's stakeholders; otherwise I think we would have seen Nokota or something else in the mix over Sundogs.

 

 

When the Fighting Sioux nickname was dropped, a group of people that fully knew the sanctions that would be placed on UND, did not care and chose to insist that the Fighting Sioux nickname be kept (and some continue to this day).  That is not someone who can honestly say they support the University of North Dakota.  To claim to be a fan and then voluntarily and intentionally supporting something that places the school at a disadvantage is mind-blowing.  I do understand what you're saying, I just don't have the same opinion.  I want the University of North Dakota to have every advantage possible.

 

Also understandable. I think that when Fighting Sioux was dropped, some people went a little far to try and hold onto it. Though their passion is admirable, th PC crowd sadly won that fight. Animosity towards the extremists is understandable, as I don't believe holding onto the Fighting Sioux name would be worth the damange to the school of losing competition and being punished. But I do think there is a line, where we don't bend over and take it from the NCAA or the PC crowd. The name is gone, and there is nothing offensive about the state name. I think we actually think along similar lines, just have a different end opinion.

[TheEagle]

The vast majority of the people coming out of the woodwork on this issue are of the "hockey-only" crowd. If those individuals were truthfully passionate about University of North Dakota athletics, they would support all sports, not just one. Furthermore, it's their opinion that excludes the holistic approach to UND athletics. 

 

To me, this "hockey-only" talk is insulting and unnecessary. I'm betting a lot of them are like me. I didn't go to UND, but I care about the University of North Dakota because I grew up in the state. My circumstances didn't allow me to go to UND, but I would rather have my daughters go to UND than to my alma mater (Minnesota). Yes, my passion comes out more for UND hockey--mainly because it's on a national stage. But I care about the university because my passion for all things North Dakota started at a young age and has continued throughout my life. Now, I don't agree with the people that say they will no longer support UND because of a nickname. However, most of the "hockey only" crowd truly care about UND. The University of North Dakota isn't just important to students and alumni. It goes beyond them. It's the flagship university of small state with proud people.

[siouxfan512]

In terms of polls, I think having a weighted total is more important than ever in this situation. 

 

Those with the University of North Dakota and athletics department know more than what the general public knows. They have to deal with the "no nickname" and Fighting Sioux/NCAA battle on a consistent basis. They know what it takes to manage a university athletics department and assemble competitive sports teams, and I think its a stretch to assume the general public knows such intricacies. 

 

For example, do you think 6 out of 10 people or 60 out of 100 people (the majority) in Grand Forks could coach UND hockey or football? Do you think they would even know what FCS football is or what the NCAA settlement terms were? Do they know what the sanctions that the NCAA threatened to impose were/are? 

 

Grand Forks citizens and UND supporters are not knowledgeable in college athletics to the point where they should be entitled and entrusted to make this "no nickname" decision. Having them choose a nickname out of a list of 5 is one thing, but completely excluding a nickname is a different category of decision-making.

 

Its time to listen to the people who know something about what UND has to deal with behind-the-scenes. Its time to move on. As UND supporters/alumni, we can voice our support by showing up to games and supporting the student-athletes and coaches as they attempt to best represent UND athletics by winning on various stages. 

 

 

I get what you are say, but in some regard that is like telling me align my opinion to do as the president says, because he knows more about how the government operates.

 

No thanks. I like my opinion and given the opportunity to vote my opinion. I will do so.

[homer]

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. My assumption is that it took a lot of feedback from numerous sources for him to step up and make this move. What evidence do you have that "It' doesn't take much to get the president ot change his mind."

 

What was the point of the time and effort of the committee if he wasn't going to follow through with their recommendations.  Someone got his ear and he went against the process that was set up by another committee he was part of appointing.  Ultimately, he went against the process he was responsible for setting up.  Maybe he should have just got all his big donors in a room and they could have put their list together. 

 

Personally, the statement President Kelly made today, should have been made when the process began.  The only thing I would have added is the NCAA's stance on if North Dakota is acceptable.  One can assume it is or isn't but no one has addressed that on record.  There can be no grey area on this and finding out one way or the other after the fact is too late. 

[snova4]

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.