TheEagle Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 I think another option that is way to logical for Kelley to employ is to add North Dakota back on the list and put them to a vote. If there is no winner that gets greater than 50%, cut the list in half with the top vote getters moving on. Put it to a vote again and if nothing on the ballot gets greater than 50% put the top two on the ballot again, and the winner is what we are known as from that time forward. This actually wouldn't be bad because it would give a nickname a chance against no nickname--even though I'm in favor of no nickname or Roughriders (I don't like any of the others). If they put up no nickname with two or more nicknames, no nickname will have the plurality and win. Getting to 50% might be harder for no nickname. I suspect no nickname vs. Roughriders would be a fair fight. Quote
dmksioux Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 He might already have that card in his pocket. My thoughts as well. How can he not have checked with the NCAA to see if no nickname was an option. Quote
Oxbow6 Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 My thoughts as well. How can he not have checked with the NCAA to see if no nickname was an option. Well.........we are talking about Kelley. It really wouldn't surprise me if he has not checked on that topic. Quote
TheEagle Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 But remember, the student athletes don't want a new new nickname... kat reller@katreller 2h2 hours ago @cglass11 @UNDSID more athletes at UND that want a new nickname, then there are that don't, which is mainly the hockey players.. Has Kat polled all of the athletes at UND? I suspect it's just conjecture. Just like it was conjecture on the part of the student on the committee to say most of the non-hockey playing athletes she knows want no nickname. I suspect the student-athletes are as divided on this issue as everybody else. Regardless, this decision is bigger than the student-athletes that are currently playing at UND only. Many may not be from North Dakota, and the nickname choice could mean very little to them. It's just a nickname, right? That doesn't mean I don't respect their opinion. It just means that I don't respect their opinion any more than North Dakota residents, UND students, or UND administration. 1 Quote
Teeder11 Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Has Kat polled all of the athletes at UND? I suspect it's just conjecture. Just like it was conjecture on the part of the student on the committee to say most of the non-hockey playing athletes she knows want no nickname. I suspect the student-athletes are as divided on this issue as everybody else. Regardless, this decision is bigger than the student-athletes that are currently playing at UND only. Many may not be from North Dakota, and the nickname choice could mean very little to them. It's just a nickname, right? That doesn't mean I don't respect their opinion. It just doesn't mean any more to me than North Dakota residents, UND students, or UND administration. I know you know this, but I think it should be said that the same thing could be said of the current athletes who think we should remain N.D., it's just that most of those that we've seen displayed on this message board have been from one sport only, and most of them are from places such as Canada and Minnesota and other far flung places in the U.S. and beyond. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 My thoughts as well. How can he not have checked with the NCAA to see if no nickname was an option. Easily, as he's exhibited underwhelming "leadership", vision, and performance many, many times. However, I easily see this (scripted) scenario playing out: He "restores" it to the list (white hat for his legacy) and then the NCAA comes in as the bad guys once again. Win-win for Kelley. Quote
dmksioux Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Easily, as he's exhibited underwhelming "leadership", vision, and performance many, many times. However, readily see this (scripted) scenario: He "restores" it to the list (white hat for his legacy) and then the NCAA comes in as the bad guys once again. Win-win for Kelley. Just like Jackal posted...which I agree. He may not have formally asked, but I would have to think he 's inquired off the record. Quote
lawkota Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Well.........we are talking about Kelley. It really wouldn't surprise me if he has not checked on that topic. Ha! If he has checked, I suspect they told him "try it first and then we'll let you know". If Kelley knows they won't approve and he's keeping it in his back pocket, that would be despicable. But I believe that he has asked, and its the NCAA that is keeping their answer in reserve. Quote
SWSiouxMN Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Easily, as he's exhibited underwhelming "leadership", vision, and performance many, many times. However, I easily see this (scripted) scenario playing out: He "restores" it to the list (white hat for his legacy) and then the NCAA comes in as the bad guys once again. Win-win for Kelley. Expect for the... oh I don't know, this could have been done months ago and prevented all this nonsense. If he knew it was a no go in March...... Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Ha! If he has checked, I suspect they told him "try it first and then we'll let you know". If Kelley knows they won't approve and he's keeping it in his back pocket, that would be despicable. But I believe that he has asked, and its the NCAA that is keeping their answer in reserve. You know, I never considered that possibility. That would fit their pattern of past behavior. The NCAA wouldn't want to be seen meddling in the process; but, they'll surely have their say on the outcome. How can I say that? Imagine if the outcome was ... "we're going back to the old name". The NCAA'd have their say. Quote
TheEagle Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 I know you know this, but I think it should be said that the same thing could be said of the current athletes who think we should remain N.D., it's just that most of those that we've seen displayed on this message board have been from one sport only, and most of them are from places such as Canada and Minnesota and other far flung places in the U.S. and beyond. The first part I agree with. I disagree with the second part. The people on the message boards are from those places but also from everywhere in North Dakota outside of Grand Forks and maybe Fargo--although you'd be surprised that most people in Fargo who didn't go to NDSU root for UND hockey. The comments I read on FB groups that I'm a part of from Bismarck and Mandan all have the same sentiments. In a lot of ways it's those from North Dakota vs. those that went to UND from elsewhere. I know not everybody from North Dakota has those sentiments and vice versa, but I think it's true in general. Quote
jackal Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Easily, as he's exhibited underwhelming "leadership", vision, and performance many, many times. However, I easily see this (scripted) scenario playing out: He "restores" it to the list (white hat for his legacy) and then the NCAA comes in as the bad guys once again. Win-win for Kelley. If he is looking for a scapegoat, he has/had one......the committee. They voted the no-name off. Agree or not, they did their job. All he had to and should do, is accept their decision. Respect the process and move on. Quote
goyotes Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 This whole process resonates "death by committee". The 5 remaining nicknames all appear to by trying to drive a square peg in a round hole. Try as you might, they just don't fit. From my outside viewpoint, going back to Flickertails would be preferable to any of the Final 5. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 If he is looking for a scapegoat, he has/had one......the committee. They voted the no-name off. Agree or not, they did their job. All he had to and should do, is accept their decision. Respect the process and move on. I'm surprised by his move. As you say, he had a scapegoat. Quote
southpaw Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Has Kat polled all of the athletes at UND? I suspect it's just conjecture. Just like it was conjecture on the part of the student on the committee to say most of the non-hockey playing athletes she knows want no nickname. I suspect the student-athletes are as divided on this issue as everybody else. Regardless, this decision is bigger than the student-athletes that are currently playing at UND only. Many may not be from North Dakota, and the nickname choice could mean very little to them. It's just a nickname, right? That doesn't mean I don't respect their opinion. It just means that I don't respect their opinion any more than North Dakota residents, UND students, or UND administration. You accuse Kat of conjecture and then you do the exact same thing two sentences later. The no-nickname crowd certainly does a good job of screaming like small children. We'll see if they get their way... 1 Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 While the "no nickname" crowd rejoices the day today and the "why'd he just undercut his committee" crowd scratches their heads ... the side that won by attrition keeps winning. Quote
TheEagle Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 You accuse Kat of conjecture and then you do the exact same thing two sentences later. The no-nickname crowd certainly does a good job of screaming like small children. We'll see if they get their way... Yes, let's insult the people that disagree with us. People can have a differing opinion. It's okay. Certainly, my point was conjecture. That is why I said "I suspect". I suspect my conjecture is closer to the truth, but that's just more conjecture. If somebody is going to quote Kat, then they should also quote the student on the committee who offered a differing opinion. Intellectually honesty. I remember for years hearing how the Sioux tribal members were against the Sioux nickname--until there were polls and an actual vote on it. Quote
jdub27 Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Yes, let's insult the people that disagree with us. People can have a differing opinion. It's okay. Certainly, my point was conjecture. That is why I said "I suspect". I suspect my conjecture is closer to the truth, but that's just more conjecture. If somebody is going to quote Kat, then they should also quote the student on the committee who offered a differing opinion. Intellectually honesty. I remember for years hearing how the Sioux tribal members were against the Sioux nickname--until there were polls and an actual vote on it. 1 out of 4 student representatives had that opinion. The minority. The two actual student-athletes on the committee who were picked to represent the other student-athletes voted to remove "no nickname" and other than some hockey players, I haven't seen any student-athletes publicly disagree with that decision. 2 Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 1 out of 4 student representatives had that opinion. The minority. The two actual student-athletes on the committee who were picked to represent the other student-athletes voted to remove "no nickname" and other than some hockey players, I haven't seen any student-athletes publicly disagree with that decision. To add to this, the 2 student-athletes play for the football and volleyball teams. They belong to 2 of the higher profile teams on campus not playing on ice. One of those is the largest single team on campus. Quote
siouxjoy Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 My interpretation of Kelley's message: "I let the committee fulfill the task set out for them, but it apparently created backlash. I am willing to override their decision, but not without being shown the committee erred." Meaning, the people who are upset can plead their case. If the argument is strong enough, disregarding the committee members' decision could be justified. All of the people who attended the protest today and were interviewed on WDAZ said Kelley's statement showed that he didn't care. If people really are passionate about no nickname, I hope they realize that it takes more work than signing an online petition, posting on social media, and chanting on a sidewalk. I also think wearing clothes without a certain logo at protests would be helpful for giving the message that a mascot/logo isn't needed, but that is just my opinion. 1 Quote
Siouxphan27 Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 1 out of 4 student representatives had that opinion. The minority. The two actual student-athletes on the committee who were picked to represent the other student-athletes voted to remove "no nickname" and other than some hockey players, I haven't seen any student-athletes publicly disagree with that decision. What do 4 out of 5 dentists think? Quote
petey23 Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 My interpretation of Kelley's message: "I let the committee fulfill the task set out for them, but it apparently created backlash. I am willing to override their decision, but not without being shown the committee erred." Meaning, the people who are upset can plead their case. If the argument is strong enough, disregarding the committee members' decision could be justified. All of the people who attended the protest today and were interviewed on WDAZ said Kelley's statement showed that he didn't care. If people really are passionate about no nickname, I hope they realize that it takes more work than signing an online petition, posting on social media, and chanting on a sidewalk. I also think wearing clothes without a certain logo at protests would be helpful for giving the message that a mascot/logo isn't needed, but that is just my opinion. Yeah. I think if you are going to protest about wanting The name to be UND you should wear gear to reflect that. Quote
KSSioux Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 Yeah. I think if you are going to protest about wanting The name to be UND you should wear gear to reflect that. I would give the folks a break regarding the gear they are wearing. Please read the settlement agreement regarding intellectual property. The university must maintain copyright/trademark of the Brien logo and the name "Fighting Sioux" or be out of compliance with the agreement. They are wearing a logo/name of the university, but it just cannot be used by the university in events anymore. Those folks realized that as it was a part of the on line petition. I realize most folks just focused on the scare tactics of "replacement" wording in the agreement, but there is more to it than that. Quote
southpaw Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 I would give the folks a break regarding the gear they are wearing. Please read the settlement agreement regarding intellectual property. The university must maintain copyright/trademark of the Brien logo and the name "Fighting Sioux" or be out of compliance with the agreement. They are wearing a logo/name of the university, but it just cannot be used by the university in events anymore. Those folks realized that as it was a part of the on line petition. I realize most folks just focused on the scare tactics of "replacement" wording in the agreement, but there is more to it than that. The copyright issue has nothing to do with it. The best chance for the nickname crowd to prove their point is by distancing themselves from the Fighting Sioux Forever folks. Otherwise, it just looks like they want to unofficially be FS, which is why the committee got rid of it in the first place. 4 Quote
UNDErmines Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 Maybe they'll put a sundog/ermine on one side of the helmet and leave the other side blank, like the Steelers do with their helmet. Then you can have the no nickname thing in the first quarter and third quarter. Quote
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.