Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

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


ClassB

Recommended Posts

It was an after standard work hours rally (5 pm). 

I was being facetious as you realize.  Kelley announced that very morning that no nickname would still be given consideration, so that would also take the air out of any rally don't you think?

   To continue with facetious questions/answers.....   How have the rallies for the other 5 options been?   Poorly attended?  Well attended?  Wait what?!   there haven't been any rallies?   Wow given what we've learned here today, there must not be any support for those names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two scenarios have been quite obvious to everyone for awhile now. 1. Kelley has asked and received permission, or 2. Kelley has gone to bed each night praying the no nickname supporters will go away, and has avoided asking the NCAA until he absolutely has to.

If scenario 2 is true, he's probably asking the NCAA right now. OR, he's trying to find a way to justify having north stars and Sundogs as our only 2 options.

 

Scenario 3 is most likely.  UND/Kelley asked the NCAA and they politely said "We don't take stances on hypotheticals".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scenario 3 is most likely.  UND/Kelley asked the NCAA and they politely said "No comment at this time".

So in other words, scenario 3 = scenario 1.   They do not have a policy against it.   I know that's not enough for the tinfoil hat crowd, but the reality is, it would be acceptable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the audience playing along at home: 

 

If you had to guess at the break down of the "no nickname" camp ....

 

__% really sincerely mean no nickname and won't use the old name

__% want no nickname so they can de facto the old one into the void

__% want no nickname because they believe they can get the old nickname back some day

15%

75%

10%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words, scenario 3 = scenario 1.   They do not have a policy against it.   I know that's not enough for the tinfoil hat crowd, but the reality is, it would be acceptable. 

 

Significant difference between giving someone permission (your scenario 1) and reserving the right to take whatever stance you'd like in the future (my scenario 3). 

 

Does the group the refuses to acknowledge that there could possibly be any negative consequences get to be the "head in the sand" crowd since you're tossing out names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words, scenario 3 = scenario 1.   They do not have a policy against it.   I know that's not enough for the tinfoil hat crowd, but the reality is, it would be acceptable. 

Scenario 3 does not equal scenario 1. It's more likely that they are not willing to make a legally binding statement on a situation that does not officially exist yet. Most lawyers will recommend such a policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious and i don't know if it was a criteria of the committee ,but President Kelley said it would be nice to have a nickname for cheers,chants,and songs. During the 3 years or whatever length of time it's been with no nickname, what have you been cheering, chanting, and singing at your sporting events? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using absolute characterizations of the other POV is setting yourself up to be shown wrong, as has been shown here time and again.

Having said that, the "we don't need a nickname" rally last Friday lost some credibility when many of its speakers brought up the old moniker. If we don't need a moniker why bring up the old one at all. It just served to better make a case for the "no nickname is just de facto old nickname" argument.

Now I'm sure there were some there sincere in wanting no nickname; but they became harder to find because of the others.

Maybe what we witnessed was the "de facto" people at the rally, small amount. Maybe the MAJORITY of the no nickname people don't want to de facto the Sioux name????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe what we witnessed was the "de facto" people at the rally, small amount. Maybe the MAJORITY of the no nickname people don't want to de facto the Sioux name? ???

The majority of postings on social media that support not using a nickname include statements like "Fighting Sioux Forever" or include some other support of the Fighting Sioux nickname. If you are going to use social media as any example of the support of no nickname, then you have to accept that a large portion of them are people that still want to use the Fighting Sioux nickname either as an official or unofficial nickname.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious and i don't know if it was a criteria of the committee ,but President Kelley said it would be nice to have a nickname for cheers,chants,and songs. During the 3 years or whatever length of time it's been with no nickname, what have you been cheering, chanting, and singing at your sporting events? 

Most chants I've heard at games have included the Fighting Sioux nickname, although I believe they have been fewer than in previous years. There have been very limited attempts to write new cheers, chants or songs with no nickname.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious and i don't know if it was a criteria of the committee ,but President Kelley said it would be nice to have a nickname for cheers,chants,and songs. During the 3 years or whatever length of time it's been with no nickname, what have you been cheering, chanting, and singing at your sporting events? 

 

In a related note, There are many people that post on here that claim that more and more peopple are yelling  "Sioux" at the end of the anthem.  While that may be the case at hockey games (although one could argue it is less), it is almost non existant at every other sport.  Of course the "hockey only/Sioux forever/no nickname" crowd probably isn't aware of this fact (or that UND has any other sports besides hockey either) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of postings on social media that support not using a nickname include statements like "Fighting Sioux Forever" or include some other support of the Fighting Sioux nickname. If you are going to use social media as any example of the support of no nickname, then you have to accept that a large portion of them are people that still want to use the Fighting Sioux nickname either as an official or unofficial nickname.

I used online (unofficial) polls to count the support for no nickname. 4?% want no nickname, the rest want a nickname. Now, if it was a vote for the outcome, which would win out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most chants I've heard at games have included the Fighting Sioux nickname, although I believe they have been fewer than in previous years. There have been very limited attempts to write new cheers, chants or songs with no nickname.

 

I attend mostly road games and a majority of the cheers I hear are Fighting Sioux related.  I think one of the reasons the hockey team has adopted the Sioux name more than other teams is in part due to the fans.  When at a DU/UND game in Denver, it's half UND fans and cheer loudly for the Sioux.  When at a UNC/UND football or basketball game it's a sporadic crowd so you don't get those massive cheers going.  No sport has seen the type of fan presence on the road that hockey has over the past decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used online (unofficial) polls to count the support for no nickname. 4?% want no nickname, the rest want a nickname. Now, if it was a vote for the outcome, which would win out?

Online, non-scientific polls have no reliability at all. Most of those polls allow someone to vote as many times as they want. That alone makes those polls null and void. The average person doesn't take part in those polls, often only the ones that are most vocal take part in them. The group that wants no nickname thought they were losing that option, so they are naturally more likely to take part in such a poll. I am very sure that the actual group supporting no nickname is much less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a related note, There are many people that post on here that claim that more and more peopple are yelling  "Sioux" at the end of the anthem.  While that may be the case at hockey games (although one could argue it is less), it is almost non existant at every other sport.  Of course the "hockey only/Sioux forever/no nickname" crowd probably isn't aware of this fact (or that UND has any other sports besides hockey either) :)

It has seemed to me that there have been fewer people yelling Sioux at the end of the anthem at most games over the past few years. The only times it has seemed as loud as in previous years were at a few of the rivalry type games where it was a full house of people that were already amped up. There are only a few people that still yell in the area where I sit at hockey games, and even less at football games. I don't go to enough basketball games to have a good reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significant difference between giving someone permission (your scenario 1) and reserving the right to take whatever stance you'd like in the future (my scenario 3).

Does the group the refuses to acknowledge that there could possibly be any negative consequences get to be the "head in the sand" crowd since you're tossing out names?

Is it white sand? If so, I'm fine with it.

Didn't mean to offend by saying tinfoil hat. I happen to think they're quite stylish if worn for the right cause.

All we have is rampant speculation regarding what the NCAA may or may not do. Kelley needs to finally ask the NCAA, or if he's asked, share with the public what he has already found out from the NCAA so we can stop the insanity. With the 5 lackluster choices coupled with the following no nickname has right now, he needs to lead for once on this issue, immediately.

I'm a no nicknamer until we hear otherwise from the NCAA. And if they say no, I'll moooove on to support one of the lame names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Online, non-scientific polls have no reliability at all. Most of those polls allow someone to vote as many times as they want. That alone makes those polls null and void. The average person doesn't take part in those polls, often only the ones that are most vocal take part in them. The group that wants no nickname thought they were losing that option, so they are naturally more likely to take part in such a poll. I am very sure that the actual group supporting no nickname is much less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND.

I understand, and we shall find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has seemed to me that there have been fewer people yelling Sioux at the end of the anthem at most games over the past few years. The only times it has seemed as loud as in previous years were at a few of the rivalry type games where it was a full house of people that were already amped up. There are only a few people that still yell in the area where I sit at hockey games, and even less at football games. I don't go to enough basketball games to have a good reading.

It's very loud at big games! Frozen four, Frozen faceoff. Not much at basketball games, I'm always too late to the football games I do go to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Dakota is just fine as a nickname. Didn't we give up the nickname because people were defining us? We were associated with Nazis because of Ralph

and his party. We were associated genocidal maniacs because of the nickname. We were defined as bigots and of emotionally assaulting kids because of the nickname and logo. NDSU fans have always defined us in less than flattering ways. People are going to define us how they wish regardless of whether there is a nickname. Selecting a new nickname is going to do exactly squat for revenue. First, a whole lot of people are going to be upset that North Dakota

was not even considered and that a new horse$#!# nickname has been inflicted upon them. Second, many of those who aren't pissed are still going to

begrudgingly acknowledge that the new nickname sucks and not purchase anything. Third, there will be a segment who is indifferent to the nickname because

of its common use by other schools so they will likely not purchase much either.

Do we think of "Crimson" when we think of Harvard? Do we think of "Bears" when we think of Brown. Do we think of "Flames" when we think of the University of Illinois at Chicago? When we see a Denver fan with Denver attire, doesn't the attire say "Denver" or "DU"? I don't think I've ever seen a jersey or

sweatshirt with "Pioneers" on it. If the sentiment of moving forward, "healing", "full participation" is genuine, Kelley will have to let the people

choose what they want.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...