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

[ClassB]

This is not a topic chosen to try and get the Sioux name back.

 

I'd like to jump over all the supposed negatives of not having a nickname (marketability, very few schools have no nickname (none?), recruiting, we will never move on, etc.). Last I checked, a school with no nickname is almost completely unique, we are having tons of success (IE not hindering recruiting -- check track records falling, baseball players signing professional contracts, women making the dance, volleyball team excellent, football on the right track), and there are at least 6000 people who feel good enough about North Dakota to sign their names to a petition (regardless of their actual motivations).

 

Why can we not hire the marketers to liven up the North Dakota image? If we can blow $200K+ on nickname committees (that were, to put it lightly, highly ineffective) (KG's estimate), why can we not at least put the same into making North Dakota sexy? 

 

If there had been positive rhetoric on the 'North Dakota' option for the past four years, would we need to move on? 

 

Looking for a serious response. 

 

This is not a topic chosen to try and get the Sioux name back, please go elsewhere for that.

[bigskyvikes]

I love the passion for this from many people. I have seen some points making sense to me from the other side, (nickname needed people), however, I believe ZERO of their doom and gloom! I am still wanting to stay ND and I also think if it gets marketed as the final name it will sell like crazy again!

Just think things like the ND logo now, with words around it like honor, or honor the past, pride, courage, pioneers not followers, uniqueness, etc... All the worries would disappear if people knew something different wasnt coming soon!

I think staying ND would be Setting the Standard!

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

Why can we not hire the marketers to liven up the North Dakota image? If we can blow $200K+ on nickname committees (that were, to put it lightly, highly ineffective) (KG's estimate), why can we not at least put the same into making North Dakota sexy? 

 

I'm actually a fan of the current MHKY jerseys, but I will readily admit to liking very little else in the way of post-Sioux gear.  But then again, at any time during the Sioux era, how much did non-Sioux merchandise really ever catch on?  

 

I believe if there was a way to "make North Dakota sexy," somebody would have figured it out by now.  You'd have better luck with a tractor.

 

[82SiouxGuy]

This is not a topic chosen to try and get the Sioux name back.

 

I'd like to jump over all the supposed negatives of not having a nickname (marketability, very few schools have no nickname (none?), recruiting, we will never move on, etc.). Last I checked, a school with no nickname is almost completely unique, we are having tons of success (IE not hindering recruiting -- check track records falling, baseball players signing professional contracts, women making the dance, volleyball team excellent, football on the right track), and there are at least 6000 people who feel good enough about North Dakota to sign their names to a petition (regardless of their actual motivations).

 

Why can we not hire the marketers to liven up the North Dakota image? If we can blow $200K+ on nickname committees (that were, to put it lightly, highly ineffective) (KG's estimate), why can we not at least put the same into making North Dakota sexy? 

 

If there had been positive rhetoric on the 'North Dakota' option for the past four years, would we need to move on? 

 

Looking for a serious response. 

 

This is not a topic chosen to try and get the Sioux name back, please go elsewhere for that.

Here are a few thoughts on your subject.

 

First, if you read these forums I think that you will see a lot of people arguing that UND has not had a lot of athletic success during the past decade. It is a constant complaint in almost every forum and in almost every sport. You are correct that not having a nickname is rather unique. There is a women's Division III school that doesn't use a nickname, that is the only college or university with an athletic program that we have been able to identify other than UND. Why does everyone else have a nickname? There are probably multiple reasons, but the fact that every other school in the NCAA and the NAIA, along with pretty much all other amateur and professional teams, have nicknames must mean that they are important. And marketing people can only work with the material available to them. Having a blank for a nickname gives them fewer tools to work with, which makes the job more difficult.

 

Sports nicknames were created because both sports writers and fans wanted to use something besides the formal name of the team. If you read the history of team nicknames you will see that a lot of sports nicknames were created by sports writers needing variety in their writing. How many times can they use North Dakota in a story? Even when UND had a nickname (both Sioux and Flickertails) you would sometimes see Green and White or Nodaks or some other reference. Having a formal nickname limits the number of other names or references that are used.

 

Other nicknames were created by fans. Some times they were simple references to the location, the uniforms, the people on the team, etc. Names sometimes started with a few people, caught on with more, and were often adopted by sports writers before the schools or teams formally adopted them. Some of these names changed several times before arriving at the names we currently know. My favorite example is the Brooklyn-Los Angeles Dodgers. They used Grays, Grooms, Bridegrooms, Superbas, Robins, Trolley Dodgers and Dodgers as nicknames, sometimes at the same time. They didn't officially become the Dodgers until 1932, the team was started in 1883.

 

Still other names were chosen by the school or team. The advantage is that you can pick the image you want to portray. Letting others choose a name for you leaves that image up to others. It isn't always the image you want. And as we have seen, changing a nickname is not easy. Not having a nickname leaves a vacuum. Something is going to fill that vacuum. If UND doesn't choose a nickname something else will be used. It may not be flattering to the school. That could easily lead to other issues for UND to address. Choosing a new nickname gives the school some control.

 

What do you yell when you are cheering for your team? At UND we are familiar with yells like "Here we go Sioux", "Sioux, Yeah, Yeah", "Let's go Sioux". What are fans supposed to yell if they don't have a nickname to use? "Let's go North Dakota"? It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. "Let's go"? That doesn't even specify a team. Not having a nickname limits cheers and chants that are easy and familiar for fans. It limits the creativity of the fanbase, because no one is going to do much creatively with North Dakota.

 

Marketing is a major consideration. There are something like 347 schools in Division I athletics. All of them market using the name of the school (which is all you are doing if you don't have a nickname). But they also use a nickname that helps provide some differentiation from the other 346 schools. Combine the name of the school with a nickname and a logo and you have a specific school and image. It can be done without a nickname, but it is more difficult and probably not as effective. The logo is another story. The athletic department needs a new logo whether they have a new nickname or not. The interlocking ND is a good secondary logo for UND. But most people associate it with Notre Dame, which dramatically reduces the effectiveness for UND. A new logo is a must moving forward for UND.

 

The marketing is important for at least a couple of reasons. Money is one. Selling merchandise with the school name and logo is worth money to the athletic department. In UND's case it used to be worth $300,000-500,000 before the name issue became so large. There was a spike when it became apparent that the name was going away. Sales have been much lower the last year or so. The merchandise without a nickname (just North Dakota or UND) has always been available, and has never been a big seller. That merchandise will remain available whether UND picks a nickname or not. But it probably will never be a big revenue source for the school. My conservative estimate is that a new nickname and logo are worth $100,000-200,000 per year to the athletic department. That could be more if they find the right combination.

 

The other major reason that marketing is important is awareness or branding. One of the reasons that athletics are important to schools, and a major reason for competing in Division I, is to market your school or brand. I mentioned the 300 plus schools in Division I. There are even more schools in Division II, Division III and in the NAIA. There are probably more than 1,000 schools with athletic progarms. We already have a problem with people as close as Minneapolis confusing UND and NDSU. Using a nickname and creating a brand helps with that. Not having a nickname doesn't help with branding at all.

 

To sum this up a little bit, there are many reasons to have a nickname for the athletic programs at UND. They were originally created for identification purposes, and that is still important. They help create an identity and a brand. They help make money. Having a blank space where the nickname normally goes does not help the school. And that doesn't get into those that use an old nickname to fill the space and whether that is potentially a problem for the school or not. Going without a nickname is a bad idea for UND for many reasons.

[snova4]

Here are a few thoughts on your subject.

First, if you read these forums I think that you will see a lot of people arguing that UND has not had a lot of athletic success during the past decade. It is a constant complaint in almost every forum and in almost every sport. You are correct that not having a nickname is rather unique. There is a women's Division III school that doesn't use a nickname, that is the only college or university with an athletic program that we have been able to identify other than UND. Why does everyone else have a nickname? There are probably multiple reasons, but the fact that every other school in the NCAA and the NAIA, along with pretty much all other amateur and professional teams, have nicknames must mean that they are important. And marketing people can only work with the material available to them. Having a blank for a nickname gives them fewer tools to work with, which makes the job more difficult.

Sports nicknames were created because both sports writers and fans wanted to use something besides the formal name of the team. If you read the history of team nicknames you will see that a lot of sports nicknames were created by sports writers needing variety in their writing. How many times can they use North Dakota in a story? Even when UND had a nickname (both Sioux and Flickertails) you would sometimes see Green and White or Nodaks or some other reference. Having a formal nickname limits the number of other names or references that are used.

Other nicknames were created by fans. Some times they were simple references to the location, the uniforms, the people on the team, etc. Names sometimes started with a few people, caught on with more, and were often adopted by sports writers before the schools or teams formally adopted them. Some of these names changed several times before arriving at the names we currently know. My favorite example is the Brooklyn-Los Angeles Dodgers. They used Grays, Grooms, Bridegrooms, Superbas, Robins, Trolley Dodgers and Dodgers as nicknames, sometimes at the same time. They didn't officially become the Dodgers until 1932, the team was started in 1883.

Still other names were chosen by the school or team. The advantage is that you can pick the image you want to portray. Letting others choose a name for you leaves that image up to others. It isn't always the image you want. And as we have seen, changing a nickname is not easy. Not having a nickname leaves a vacuum. Something is going to fill that vacuum. If UND doesn't choose a nickname something else will be used. It may not be flattering to the school. That could easily lead to other issues for UND to address. Choosing a new nickname gives the school some control.

What do you yell when you are cheering for your team? At UND we are familiar with yells like "Here we go Sioux", "Sioux, Yeah, Yeah", "Let's go Sioux". What are fans supposed to yell if they don't have a nickname to use? "Let's go North Dakota"? It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. "Let's go"? That doesn't even specify a team. Not having a nickname limits cheers and chants that are easy and familiar for fans. It limits the creativity of the fanbase, because no one is going to do much creatively with North Dakota.

Marketing is a major consideration. There are something like 347 schools in Division I athletics. All of them market using the name of the school (which is all you are doing if you don't have a nickname). But they also use a nickname that helps provide some differentiation from the other 346 schools. Combine the name of the school with a nickname and a logo and you have a specific school and image. It can be done without a nickname, but it is more difficult and probably not as effective. The logo is another story. The athletic department needs a new logo whether they have a new nickname or not. The interlocking ND is a good secondary logo for UND. But most people associate it with Notre Dame, which dramatically reduces the effectiveness for UND. A new logo is a must moving forward for UND.

The marketing is important for at least a couple of reasons. Money is one. Selling merchandise with the school name and logo is worth money to the athletic department. In UND's case it used to be worth $300,000-500,000 before the name issue became so large. There was a spike when it became apparent that the name was going away. Sales have been much lower the last year or so. The merchandise without a nickname (just North Dakota or UND) has always been available, and has never been a big seller. That merchandise will remain available whether UND picks a nickname or not. But it probably will never be a big revenue source for the school. My conservative estimate is that a new nickname and logo are worth $100,000-200,000 per year to the athletic department. That could be more if they find the right combination.

The other major reason that marketing is important is awareness or branding. One of the reasons that athletics are important to schools, and a major reason for competing in Division I, is to market your school or brand. I mentioned the 300 plus schools in Division I. There are even more schools in Division II, Division III and in the NAIA. There are probably more than 1,000 schools with athletic progarms. We already have a problem with people as close as Minneapolis confusing UND and NDSU. Using a nickname and creating a brand helps with that. Not having a nickname doesn't help with branding at all.

To sum this up a little bit, there are many reasons to have a nickname for the athletic programs at UND. They were originally created for identification purposes, and that is still important. They help create an identity and a brand. They help make money. Having a blank space where the nickname normally goes does not help the school. And that doesn't get into those that use an old nickname to fill the space and whether that is potentially a problem for the school or not. Going without a nickname is a bad idea for UND for many reasons.

I'm a no nickname person, but I have to give you credit, your post really softened my stance when one is chosen (let's not pretend no nickname will make a vote, that boat has sailed). Amazing what happens when a well thought out poster states something without calling myself, and other no nickname supporters whining toddlers.

[ClassB]

Here are a few thoughts on your subject.

 

First, if you read these forums I think that you will see a lot of people arguing that UND has not had a lot of athletic success during the past decade. It is a constant complaint in almost every forum and in almost every sport. You are correct that not having a nickname is rather unique. There is a women's Division III school that doesn't use a nickname, that is the only college or university with an athletic program that we have been able to identify other than UND. Why does everyone else have a nickname? There are probably multiple reasons, but the fact that every other school in the NCAA and the NAIA, along with pretty much all other amateur and professional teams, have nicknames must mean that they are important. And marketing people can only work with the material available to them. Having a blank for a nickname gives them fewer tools to work with, which makes the job more difficult.

 

Sports nicknames were created because both sports writers and fans wanted to use something besides the formal name of the team. If you read the history of team nicknames you will see that a lot of sports nicknames were created by sports writers needing variety in their writing. How many times can they use North Dakota in a story? Even when UND had a nickname (both Sioux and Flickertails) you would sometimes see Green and White or Nodaks or some other reference. Having a formal nickname limits the number of other names or references that are used.

 

Other nicknames were created by fans. Some times they were simple references to the location, the uniforms, the people on the team, etc. Names sometimes started with a few people, caught on with more, and were often adopted by sports writers before the schools or teams formally adopted them. Some of these names changed several times before arriving at the names we currently know. My favorite example is the Brooklyn-Los Angeles Dodgers. They used Grays, Grooms, Bridegrooms, Superbas, Robins, Trolley Dodgers and Dodgers as nicknames, sometimes at the same time. They didn't officially become the Dodgers until 1932, the team was started in 1883.

 

Still other names were chosen by the school or team. The advantage is that you can pick the image you want to portray. Letting others choose a name for you leaves that image up to others. It isn't always the image you want. And as we have seen, changing a nickname is not easy. Not having a nickname leaves a vacuum. Something is going to fill that vacuum. If UND doesn't choose a nickname something else will be used. It may not be flattering to the school. That could easily lead to other issues for UND to address. Choosing a new nickname gives the school some control.

 

What do you yell when you are cheering for your team? At UND we are familiar with yells like "Here we go Sioux", "Sioux, Yeah, Yeah", "Let's go Sioux". What are fans supposed to yell if they don't have a nickname to use? "Let's go North Dakota"? It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. "Let's go"? That doesn't even specify a team. Not having a nickname limits cheers and chants that are easy and familiar for fans. It limits the creativity of the fanbase, because no one is going to do much creatively with North Dakota.

 

Marketing is a major consideration. There are something like 347 schools in Division I athletics. All of them market using the name of the school (which is all you are doing if you don't have a nickname). But they also use a nickname that helps provide some differentiation from the other 346 schools. Combine the name of the school with a nickname and a logo and you have a specific school and image. It can be done without a nickname, but it is more difficult and probably not as effective. The logo is another story. The athletic department needs a new logo whether they have a new nickname or not. The interlocking ND is a good secondary logo for UND. But most people associate it with Notre Dame, which dramatically reduces the effectiveness for UND. A new logo is a must moving forward for UND.

 

The marketing is important for at least a couple of reasons. Money is one. Selling merchandise with the school name and logo is worth money to the athletic department. In UND's case it used to be worth $300,000-500,000 before the name issue became so large. There was a spike when it became apparent that the name was going away. Sales have been much lower the last year or so. The merchandise without a nickname (just North Dakota or UND) has always been available, and has never been a big seller. That merchandise will remain available whether UND picks a nickname or not. But it probably will never be a big revenue source for the school. My conservative estimate is that a new nickname and logo are worth $100,000-200,000 per year to the athletic department. That could be more if they find the right combination.

 

The other major reason that marketing is important is awareness or branding. One of the reasons that athletics are important to schools, and a major reason for competing in Division I, is to market your school or brand. I mentioned the 300 plus schools in Division I. There are even more schools in Division II, Division III and in the NAIA. There are probably more than 1,000 schools with athletic progarms. We already have a problem with people as close as Minneapolis confusing UND and NDSU. Using a nickname and creating a brand helps with that. Not having a nickname doesn't help with branding at all.

 

To sum this up a little bit, there are many reasons to have a nickname for the athletic programs at UND. They were originally created for identification purposes, and that is still important. They help create an identity and a brand. They help make money. Having a blank space where the nickname normally goes does not help the school. And that doesn't get into those that use an old nickname to fill the space and whether that is potentially a problem for the school or not. Going without a nickname is a bad idea for UND for many reasons.

 

I called for serious responses, and I got a respectful, serious response I appreciate. I do not agree that we have to move forward with a new nickname, however.

You mentioned the women's D3 team without a nickname -- that would make us the only division 1 school. 1/347 just like our old nickname, we were one-of-a-kind. We still are.

I am of the opinion that if we picked a logo, something unique, but no name, we would restore sales, albeit slowly. Obviously, not much of an effort has been made to rebrand our University in the last four years as everyone waited with uncertainty. I don't think merchandise would be an issue, I don't think branding would be an issue. Your last three paragraphs (apart from the conclusion), all are answered by a marketing/merchandise rebranding of our North Dakota image. I've heard from current student athletes that they think its a joke that each of our teams uses different gear, because there is no unity. Each team does its own thing because of all the uncertainty. It would be very simple to unite them behind a campus wide rebranding. 

Why don't we spend $300K to come up with an image? North Dakota is already unifying and rallying (see petition, herald polls).

I think the chant point is moot because the fans will cheer what they want. I am afraid those chanting sioux right now would either continue to cheer sioux as opposed to sundogs, or wouldn't cheer at all for a new name (this is NOT a cue to go on a diatribe about how those fans aren't real fans, stick to the topic).

 

If we're to move forward with a nickname, it needs to be organically, as in your third paragraph. Great names don't appear at the drop of a hat. The bald eagle has grown into its meaning as a symbol for the USA -- at the first bald eagle siting no one shouted "OH LOOK THERE GOES AMERICA!! OH SAY CAN YOU SEE.." etc.

 

I'd like to remind everyone that, in a discussion that gets heated, the first to sling mud is the first to show his incompetence. That is especially true in online forums.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

I am of the opinion that if we picked a logo, something unique, but no name, we would restore sales, albeit slowly. Obviously, not much of an effort has been made to rebrand our University in the last four years as everyone waited with uncertainty. I don't think merchandise would be an issue, I don't think branding would be an issue. Your last three paragraphs (apart from the conclusion), all are answered by a marketing/merchandise rebranding of our North Dakota image. I've heard from current student athletes that they think its a joke that each of our teams uses different gear, because there is no unity. Each team does its own thing because of all the uncertainty. It would be very simple to unite them behind a campus wide rebranding.

Why don't we spend $300K to come up with an image?

But if UND adopts a single "logo" or "image", doesn't the literal equivalent or description of that image become the de facto nickname?

And please stop with the preaching about preserving the sanctity of your precious thread. We get it; you think you're better than every Tom, Dick, and Harry who fires off an anonymous post on an Internet forum. I'll take mud-encrusted witty insight over 'competence' every day of the week.

[homer]

I called for serious responses, and I got a respectful, serious response I appreciate. I do not agree that we have to move forward with a new nickname, however.

You mentioned the women's D3 team without a nickname -- that would make us the only division 1 school. 1/347 just like our old nickname, we were one-of-a-kind. We still are.

I am of the opinion that if we picked a logo, something unique, but no name, we would restore sales, albeit slowly. Obviously, not much of an effort has been made to rebrand our University in the last four years as everyone waited with uncertainty. I don't think merchandise would be an issue, I don't think branding would be an issue. Your last three paragraphs (apart from the conclusion), all are answered by a marketing/merchandise rebranding of our North Dakota image. I've heard from current student athletes that they think its a joke that each of our teams uses different gear, because there is no unity. Each team does its own thing because of all the uncertainty. It would be very simple to unite them behind a campus wide rebranding.

Why don't we spend $300K to come up with an image? North Dakota is already unifying and rallying (see petition, herald polls).

I think the chant point is moot because the fans will cheer what they want. I am afraid those chanting sioux right now would either continue to cheer sioux as opposed to sundogs, or wouldn't cheer at all for a new name (this is NOT a cue to go on a diatribe about how those fans aren't real fans, stick to the topic).

If we're to move forward with a nickname, it needs to be organically, as in your third paragraph. Great names don't appear at the drop of a hat. The bald eagle has grown into its meaning as a symbol for the USA -- at the first bald eagle siting no one shouted "OH LOOK THERE GOES AMERICA!! OH SAY CAN YOU SEE.." etc.

I'd like to remind everyone that, in a discussion that gets heated, the first to sling mud is the first to show his incompetence. That is especially true in online forums.

In multiple posts you have mentioned rebranding North Dakota. Give me some ideas and explain how that can't be done with a new nickname in place.

We will use the Notth Dakota moniker with or without a nickname behind it. I personally don't see a lot of it selling with or without a nickname. How would you rebrand the name you share with a state?

[82SiouxGuy]

I called for serious responses, and I got a respectful, serious response I appreciate. I do not agree that we have to move forward with a new nickname, however.

You mentioned the women's D3 team without a nickname -- that would make us the only division 1 school. 1/347 just like our old nickname, we were one-of-a-kind. We still are.

I am of the opinion that if we picked a logo, something unique, but no name, we would restore sales, albeit slowly. Obviously, not much of an effort has been made to rebrand our University in the last four years as everyone waited with uncertainty. I don't think merchandise would be an issue, I don't think branding would be an issue. Your last three paragraphs (apart from the conclusion), all are answered by a marketing/merchandise rebranding of our North Dakota image. I've heard from current student athletes that they think its a joke that each of our teams uses different gear, because there is no unity. Each team does its own thing because of all the uncertainty. It would be very simple to unite them behind a campus wide rebranding. 

Why don't we spend $300K to come up with an image? North Dakota is already unifying and rallying (see petition, herald polls).

I think the chant point is moot because the fans will cheer what they want. I am afraid those chanting sioux right now would either continue to cheer sioux as opposed to sundogs, or wouldn't cheer at all for a new name (this is NOT a cue to go on a diatribe about how those fans aren't real fans, stick to the topic).

 

If we're to move forward with a nickname, it needs to be organically, as in your third paragraph. Great names don't appear at the drop of a hat. The bald eagle has grown into its meaning as a symbol for the USA -- at the first bald eagle siting no one shouted "OH LOOK THERE GOES AMERICA!! OH SAY CAN YOU SEE.." etc.

 

I'd like to remind everyone that, in a discussion that gets heated, the first to sling mud is the first to show his incompetence. That is especially true in online forums.

History shows us that UND will not remain without a nickname for any length of time. I don't believe that a private Division III women's college of 800 students is a good role model for a school like UND. A nickname will be created. The vacuum will be filled in some way. One way is organically, as you mentioned. But that doesn't guarantee a quality name. Some organic names are good, some are very weak. And as I said, you lose all control by playing roulette with the choosing of a nickname. You can end up with a very weak image just as easily as a good one. You could end up using Banana Slugs, a name first chosen by 3 students for a club team at the University of California-Santa Cruz, or Billikens, first used by a sportwriter because a coach looked like a charm doll. Based on reactions to this process it is pretty obvious that people would not be fond of a similar name being used at UND.

 

As far as being unique by going as just North Dakota, I disagree. Every school uses their school name or a shortened form of their school name. That is all UND would be doing by going as North Dakota. And that doesn't make UND unique. The nickname is the additional piece that makes each school unique. Going without a nickname isn't going to help UND build a brand or image. A really good logo may help, but logos are temporary. Even the best logos are altered or changed periodically. The nickname is a very important piece of the puzzle.

 

As far as your point about the different teams using different gear, that has always been true at UND. The hockey program made very liberal use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo in recent years (until it was dropped). The football team didn't use either very extensively. The football team has used the interlocking ND on its helmets for years. They also have used North Dakota on their jerseys for years. Over the years, other teams have used school name, nickname, neither, and going back even further, Nodaks on uniforms. Use of just North Dakota and the interlocking ND has been much more standard for the teams during the past 3 seasons than in any other period in UND history. Most of the students wouldn't know that because most of them didn't pay much attention to what UND sports uniforms looked like going back through history. The contract being discussed with Adidas may help give a little more uniform look to the program, but that isn't even guaranteed.

 

And as far as your belief that going as just North Dakota is somehow a unifying point, I disagree completely with your premise. Disagreement has been just as vocal lately as when the school was discussing dropping the Fighting Sioux nickname. It hasn't unified the groups, it has created a bigger wedge. Online polls like the one done by the Herald are not credible in any way. And getting signatures for an online petition isn't exactly a scientific tool. All it proves is that there is a group of people that are willing to go to that web site. They may or may not be knowledgeable about the subject. They may or may not have the best interests of the University at heart. A large portion of that group might be NDSU fans just trying to cause more trouble for UND, a lot of NDSU fans would love that. They could be people from anywhere on the planet. Plus it doesn't tell you what anyone else thinks about the idea, including the other 700,000 people that live in the state of North Dakota. Is there another meaningless petition for people that want a new nickname?

[jdub27]

I think the amount of blame that will continue to be projected on UND for anything that is even remotely controversial and related to Native Americans is being significantly understated.  We just saw this recently with the "Siouxper Drunk" shirts.  In that instance, there was maybe 1 or 2 out of the group that were actually UND students (with most of them being from Fargo) and it wasn't a UND sanctioned event. Yet UND ended up taking the brunt of the backlash.  With no nickname in place, it continues to be very clear that there is a large group filling that void by hanging on to the Fighting Sioux nickname and UND has no defense for that blame. Picking a new nickname and showing the outside world that they have done everything in their power to move is the only way to deflect things like that. I'm sure there will still be some things that arise, but the difference in reaction would be significant. People may actually look at the individuals doing the idiotic things instead of going straight to blaming UND.

 

Not to mention there are multiple groups more or less licking their chops for UND to go with "no nickname" because of the perception that having "no nickname" creates an environment where Fighting Sioux remains the de facto nickname.  These groups seem to only be able to get their name or message out when controversy arises and they would love nothing more than for UND to make a decision that helps get them back into the public's view. It's honestly tough to argue with their point on the perception being created when people show up to a "no nickname" rally in Fighting Sioux gear, Sioux Forever signs and chanting "Let's go Sioux".

[ClassB]

Yeah sorry this thread isn't deserving of more respect than anything else, just wanted to keep the pro-Sioux talk to a minimum, as we've already covered^

 

My underlying assumption is that choosing to move on as North Dakota (or continue) you will only piss off the people who want a new nickname. If you pick sundogs, you piss off probably half of the other nickname supporters (because most of these people, IMHO are pro-change, not pro-any specific nickname), in addition to the North Dakota people. Clearly it is sh*t or get off the pot time for the University. They have to do something but does that something have to be drastic?

 

Bubba being the guy he is, I don't see the football unis changing much at all, if ever, for a new nickname

 

82siouxguy, an organic name isn't always BAMF but it usually is accepted, which again is my goal. As far as North Dakota being divisive, in these non-scientific polls (which is the only information we have available, and so will be utilized), it is by far the largest plurality, the largest unified group since we lost the name.

Jdub, that is a good point. A storyline that might be delicate, but worth noting nonetheless, is that even though the old nickname has gone, the American Indian Studies program and tuition assistance for that demographic has stayed. These are attached in my mind (correct me if I'm wrong) because they were tied to the adopting of the old nickname? Of course I don't need to explain that to a forum, someone from the University needs to explain that to the world. But I think the PC police won't be happy enough for that, so it would be time for a change - - rebranding.

 

Thats the third time that I've brought it up now, homer, thanks for the count. I'm no marketing guy, but if the university opted instead of running from North Dakota, to embrace it, don't you think we could figure it out? The athletic administration has been preaching to the athletes that a new nickname is mandatory for moving on. That might be the most commonly accepted stance but is it the only way? Think outside the box - I think we have to. We had the best nickname/logo combination out there, and now are faced with 5 pretty lame replacements. Whether we like it or not we are not like any of the other 346 d1 schools, I think that lets us react differently.

 

At the very minimum, we would have to change the rhetoric surrounding North Dakota. We all (or at least me and everyone I spoke to) reacted pretty poorly when we were stuck with North Dakota four years ago. That perception could easily be changed, its as easy as having the administration endorse it, top-down, the same way the 'need a nickname' campaign was enforced. 

 

That's more of a rebranding the way we think of North Dakota, I still think the school could throw $300K to a marketing committee.

Edit: after looking at Homer's post again. Yeah I don't have any gold mine ideas. But I know we could be encouraged to accept it as opposed to hate it (4 years ago). Thats a start. Which group will be easier to sway? I would argue the nickname people, whose numbers are probably artificially inflated by people who just think its time, without real reasoning. Not necessarily you guys, who have clearly thought things out. 

[JohnboyND7]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but natives get a pretty good gig at other schools I think as well. A friend/acquaintance of mine was 1/16th native and got her tuition covered. Whether that was the tribe or the school of the government covering it though... Not sure.

[82SiouxGuy]

Yeah sorry this thread isn't deserving of more respect than anything else, just wanted to keep the pro-Sioux talk to a minimum, as we've already covered^

 

My underlying assumption is that choosing to move on as North Dakota (or continue) you will only piss off the people who want a new nickname. If you pick sundogs, you piss off probably half of the other nickname supporters (because most of these people, IMHO are pro-change, not pro-any specific nickname), in addition to the North Dakota people. Clearly it is sh*t or get off the pot time for the University. They have to do something but does that something have to be drastic?

 

Bubba being the guy he is, I don't see the football unis changing much at all, if ever, for a new nickname

 

82siouxguy, an organic name isn't always BAMF but it usually is accepted, which again is my goal. As far as North Dakota being divisive, in these non-scientific polls (which is the only information we have available, and so will be utilized), it is by far the largest plurality, the largest unified group since we lost the name.

Jdub, that is a good point. A storyline that might be delicate, but worth noting nonetheless, is that even though the old nickname has gone, the American Indian Studies program and tuition assistance for that demographic has stayed. These are attached in my mind (correct me if I'm wrong) because they were tied to the adopting of the old nickname? Of course I don't need to explain that to a forum, someone from the University needs to explain that to the world. But I think the PC police won't be happy enough for that, so it would be time for a change - - rebranding.

 

Thats the third time that I've brought it up now, homer, thanks for the count. I'm no marketing guy, but if the university opted instead of running from North Dakota, to embrace it, don't you think we could figure it out? The athletic administration has been preaching to the athletes that a new nickname is mandatory for moving on. That might be the most commonly accepted stance but is it the only way? Think outside the box - I think we have to. We had the best nickname/logo combination out there, and now are faced with 5 pretty lame replacements. Whether we like it or not we are not like any of the other 346 d1 schools, I think that lets us react differently.

 

At the very minimum, we would have to change the rhetoric surrounding North Dakota. We all (or at least me and everyone I spoke to) reacted pretty poorly when we were stuck with North Dakota four years ago. That perception could easily be changed, its as easy as having the administration endorse it, top-down, the same way the 'need a nickname' campaign was enforced. 

 

That's more of a rebranding the way we think of North Dakota, I still think the school could throw $300K to a marketing committee.

Edit: after looking at Homer's post again. Yeah I don't have any gold mine ideas. But I know we could be encouraged to accept it as opposed to hate it (4 years ago). Thats a start. Which group will be easier to sway? I would argue the nickname people, whose numbers are probably artificially inflated by people who just think its time, without real reasoning. Not necessarily you guys, who have clearly thought things out. 

According to many of the unscientific polls done before this week, Roughriders often outperformed no nickname. For example, there was a poll done in this forum when it was down to 7 choices. Roughriders had 42 percent of the vote and North Dakota had 27. That would make Roughriders a bigger unifying choice than North Dakota according to your logic. Just because people like different nicknames also doesn't mean that their major support is picking a new nickname rather than going without. So even the fact that an unscientific poll has no nickname as the largest plurality out of 6 options doesn't mean that it would lead if the options were any nickname versus no nickname. The vocal group of no nickname supporters made a public fuss this week when they thought that option was going away, another example of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Your calling it a unifying group doesn't make it so.

 

But either way, unscientific polls have very little meaning. You can't make decisions based on unscientific polls. That's just making it up as you go. And whether you want to discuss it or not, a significant portion of the no nickname group are actually just looking for a way to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname alive. Some realize that it probably won't come back officially, some actually believe that it will come back. The thing they have in common is that they can't let the name go and will do whatever they can to keep it alive. As jdub noted, this could lead to further issues for UND in the future.

 

You asked a question about the NA programs being tied in some way to the old nickname. That question has been answered by the University many times. There were no official ties between increasing NA programs and the Fighting Sioux nickname. Maybe there should have been, maybe it would have led to better relations with the tribes. North Dakota has a fairly significant number of NA tribes and population for the size of the state. UND saw that as an opportunity and chose to try to develop it. I haven't seen any data lately, but I would be at least somewhat surprised if UND didn't have more NA students than any other school in the region. A significant reason for that would be the NA programs at UND. Also, most of the NA programs were built by a small group of individuals that went after and got federal dollars. The programs didn't cost UND a lot of money. Yet they brought students that were paying tuition. The Fighting Sioux nickname (actually just Sioux when most of the programs were originally developed) may have been an contributing reason that some administrators supported the programs, but the people that thought of and built the programs were not doing it to support the nickname. Losing the nickname should have no effect on the programs.

[82SiouxGuy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but natives get a pretty good gig at other schools I think as well. A friend/acquaintance of mine was 1/16th native and got her tuition covered. Whether that was the tribe or the school of the government covering it though... Not sure.

There are a lot of different scholarships available out there, and that is true of most schools. Some are tied to heritage like being NA, Norwegian, whatever. The tribes do have their own scholarships. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has some scholarships. Some are based on grades, sports, the field of study you want to pursue, and a lot of other reasons. Income, or lack of income, is a major factor in qualifying for a lot of scholarships and grants. The scholarships can range from a few dollars to full tuition. Just because your friend is 1/16th of some tribe doesn't mean that her tuition was covered because of that heritage. Or it could have been a reason. But the same thing can be said about a lot of students who aren't NA. I have nieces and nephews in college right now, all of them getting some kind of scholarship. None of them are NA. I've also known NA students who weren't getting much for scholarships, if any at all. All NA students getting their tuition paid for is a myth.

[ClassB]

I had seen the poll in this forum, looked to me like it was of a much smaller sample size? But, definitely you are correct in that the polls don't tell us that much. 

[Cratter]

1) A small sample size of UNDs most dedicated fans.

2) That two headed girl down the block is also "unique."

3) People have learned to accept just North Dakota over Sioux these past four years but no way can they learn to accept a new nickname?

4) Makes no sense to have a no nickname logo.

5) I hereby organically name UNDs sports teams after the guy riding the horse outside Engelstad Arena: the RoughRiders.

[CMSioux]

I am in the group that sees that those at the top of the decision making chain know how to play us like a violin. I am highly confident that if "North Dakota" is included as a voting choice, prior to any vote on the nickname options the following will be trotted out again: 

 

- The Big Sky will share that UND having no nickname would be a "concern" to "some" of their members.

- Other schools have expressed concern in scheduling us because "No Nickname" means "ongoing nickname issues." (Have we really seen any of those schools step up and schedule us anyway?). 

- We will continue to lose recruits because "Other schools" will continue to use the fact that UND has "this nickname issue".

- The NCAA will share that "perhaps" they might need to revisit the language and agreement with UND to better clarify their requirements to keep us off "the list". 

[scpa0305]

I am in the group that sees that those at the top of the decision making chain know how to play us like a violin. I am highly confident that if "North Dakota" is included as a voting choice, prior to any vote on the nickname options the following will be trotted out again:

- The Big Sky will share that UND having no nickname would be a "concern" to "some" of their members.

- Other schools have expressed concern in scheduling us because "No Nickname" means "ongoing nickname issues." (Have we really seen any of those schools step up and schedule us anyway?).

- We will continue to lose recruits because "Other schools" will continue to use the fact that UND has "this nickname issue".

- The NCAA will share that "perhaps" they might need to revisit the language and agreement with UND to better clarify their requirements to keep us off "the list".

Everything you just mentioned is purely speculative and your opinion only (along with some other posters I guess). Nothing you said is fact. Especially the recruits comment. I think you are blaming the lack of football success on this nickname topic.

[zonadub]

I had seen the poll in this forum, looked to me like it was of a much smaller sample size? But, definitely you are correct in that the polls don't tell us that much.

Besides the limited number of people who frequent this forum keeping the size of the sample lower, the control of only being allowed to cast your vote(s) one time will keep the size smaller. This site does its best to limit ballot box stuffing, where the Herald/Forum poll and the nickname submission link allowed a single person to submit as many votes/suggestions as they were willing to spend their time doing. One person could hypothetically cast 100 votes easily in an hour. (See 'Ermines' for an example)

My feeling (and I have absolutely no data to back this up) is that the no nickname/North Dakota group will not rally behind any nickname. I agree that there is no nickname is good enough to replace the Sioux name, especially when it is taken away by force. The committee was in an impossible predicament. There is no way they could have come up with a list of 5 names that people would have said "Wow, those 5 names are so good that I can't decide which one I like best." Oxbow's question in another thread is really unfair in that respect because the committee did the best they could under the circumstances.

So, back to the why can't UND stay without a nickname in perpetuity, like the 'football' teams in the UK? Yes, it is unique. But why is it unique? And do you really think that being unique in this particular way is in the best interest of the student athletes and the University of North Dakota? I can't give you any better reasons than those posted above, but for me, I would prefer that the North Dakota something's take the field/ice/floor over the North Dakta Nothings (not saying that 'Nothings' would become the de facto nickname, but who knows what outside sportswriters might start doing as derisive humor in absence of a true nickname).

[Teeder11]

Besides the limited number of people who frequent this forum keeping the size of the sample lower, the control of only being allowed to cast your vote(s) one time will keep the size smaller. This site does its best to limit ballot box stuffing, where the Herald/Forum poll and the nickname submission link allowed a single person to submit as many votes/suggestions as they were willing to spend their time doing. One person could hypothetically cast 100 votes easily in an hour. (See 'Ermines' for an example)

My feeling (and I have absolutely no data to back this up) is that the no nickname/North Dakota group will not rally behind any nickname. I agree that there is no nickname is good enough to replace the Sioux name, especially when it is taken away by force. The committee was in an impossible predicament. There is no way they could have come up with a list of 5 names that people would have said "Wow, those 5 names are so good that I can't decide which one I like best." Oxbow's question in another thread is really unfair in that respect because the committee did the best they could under the circumstances.

So, back to the why can't UND stay without a nickname in perpetuity, like the 'football' teams in the UK? Yes, it is unique. But why is it unique? And do you really think that being unique in this particular way is in the best interest of the student athletes and the University of North Dakota? I can't give you any better reasons than those posted above, but for me, I would prefer that the North Dakota something's take the field/ice/floor over the North Dakta Nothings (not saying that 'Nothings' would become the de facto nickname, but who knows what outside sportswriters might start doing as derisive humor in absence of a true nickname).

Good points. My litmus test as to the sincerity of one's arguments for not having a nickname is if they would be logically consistent and hold that exact same opinion if the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo were somehow magically (or as an act of Devine intervention, take your pick) still an option. In most cases, their arguments for No Nickname evaporate under that imagined scenario. So then the argument becomes: we are for no nickname, with one big qualifier -- as long as Fighting Sioux is not an option. To me, that qualifier sort of undercuts the sincerity of the no nicknamers arguments.

* Notice no use of whiny cry babies and/or tantrums were used in the making of this post. ( ;

[Siouxphan27]

Good points. My litmus test as to the sincerity of one's arguments for not having a nickname is if they would be logically consistent and hold that exact same opinion if the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo were somehow magically (or as an act of Devine intervention, take your pick) still an option. In most cases, their arguments for No Nickname evaporate under that imagined scenario. So then the argument becomes: we are for no nickname, with one big qualifier -- as long as Fighting Sioux is not an option. To me, that qualifier sort of undercuts the sincerity of the no nicknamers arguments.

* Notice no use of whiny cry babies and/or tantrums were used in the making of this post. ( ;

I would pass your litmus test.   Since we're all speculating here anyway, my thoughts are that the number of people content with going forward without a nickname, (permanently, even if Fighting Sioux magically became an option again,) is much larger than you might think.  The number of people content with no nickname continued to grow after each committee meeting, as one by one, good choices that either meant something personally to North Dakotans, and also pretty much all animal choices for that matter, were eliminated, and we were left with 5 steaming piles of poo.  I would venture to say that at this point, the fighting Sioux forever folks are a small minority of the people desiring to have no nickname.  

 

I for one am not interested in attending rallies put on by the fighting Sioux forever people.  As others have mentioned on here, they undermine the legitimacy of the idea of going nickname-less when they show up in Sioux apparel and shout Sioux cheers.  Coupled with Kelley's wishy washy statement made about possibly including North Dakota as an option again, maybe this helps explain why their rally was poorly attended.

[jdub27]

Everything you just mentioned is purely speculative and your opinion only (along with some other posters I guess). Nothing you said is fact. Especially the recruits comment. I think you are blaming the lack of football success on this nickname topic.

You claim they are speculative yet every single one of them has already happened in the past.  Seems like a pretty good basis to assume they could very easily happen or in some cases, most definitely are still happening, going forward.

 

And not sure what the shot at the football team is about?  There were multiple issues, some of the ones mentioned included, but a large part of it was coaching and by all appearances appears to be on the upswing.

 

 

 

Good points. My litmus test as to the sincerity of one's arguments for not having a nickname is if they would be logically consistent and hold that exact same opinion if the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo were somehow magically (or as an act of Devine intervention, take your pick) still an option. In most cases, their arguments for No Nickname evaporate under that imagined scenario. So then the argument becomes: we are for no nickname, with one big qualifier -- as long as Fighting Sioux is not an option. To me, that qualifier sort of undercuts the sincerity of the no nicknamers arguments.

 

Agree 100% and I've inferred the same point a few times.  

[bigskyvikes]

Good points. My litmus test as to the sincerity of one's arguments for not having a nickname is if they would be logically consistent and hold that exact same opinion if the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo were somehow magically (or as an act of Devine intervention, take your pick) still an option. In most cases, their arguments for No Nickname evaporate under that imagined scenario. So then the argument becomes: we are for no nickname, with one big qualifier -- as long as Fighting Sioux is not an option. To me, that qualifier sort of undercuts the sincerity of the no nicknamers arguments.

* Notice no use of whiny cry babies and/or tantrums were used in the making of this post. ( ;

So you're saying this wouldn't happened to a huge number of nickname people also?....yeah right!

[Teeder11]

So you're saying this wouldn't happened to a huge number of nickname people also?....yeah right!

Well, I will speak for myself and say that my stance has been consistent from the beginning: I will cheer for UND and proudly wear its nickname and colors whether we are the Sundogs, North Stars, Nodaks, Hawks, Roughriders, No Nickname or Fighting Sioux.

I just think it's better to have a nickname in the long run so we can focus on the true mission of the school again. No nickname just kicks the can down the road. There is no real sense of resolution, and loud mouth PC pandering crowd get that many more years to drag UND's name through the mud as a place that caters to "hostility and abuse" -- their words not mine," because it continues to foster an environment where the old monikers are allowed to live on as defacto symbols in the vacuum that would be left by no nickname.

Now I am not so naive to think that the Fighting Sioux forever crowd won't continue to fill that void anyway for years to come. The difference, however, is that if some sort of new name is chosen, it would show the NCAA that UND has done all it could to fulfill the spirit of the settlement agreement, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, it would severely preempt and undercut the protestations of the bleeding heart constantly offended crowd that is just licking its chops to use this issue to keep their "cause" and name in the spotlight at the expense of UND's reputation.

[Fetch]

go....sundogs