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

[The Sicatoka]

When I think "Harvard" I think medicine or law.

When I think Harvard Athletics I think Crimson.

Same story for Princeton, Yale, OK, most of the Ivys, and Stanford. Throw Duke in there as well.

When I think of the school name, what they are known for academically comes to mind; toss in the word "Athletics" and the nickname comes to mind. That's for the schools that I know something about their history and academics.

You say "U of Tulsa" I'll say "Golden Hurricanes" and that's all I know.

Recent good case in point: All I knew about U of Akron until recently is that they play in the MAC and they are the Zips. I'm a technology guy and I didn't know that Akron is effectively "Ohio Polytechnic University". All I knew about Akron was "Zips".

So in light of that, I guess my point is -- nicknames do matter because sometimes it's all people know.

[scpa0305]

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.

.

Pretty loud where we sit. Also, the sioux yelled after the anthem before the Quinnipiac game was one of my top sporting moments. I got Goosebumps.

[jdub27]

Pretty loud where we sit. Also, the sioux yelled after the anthem before the Quinnipiac game was one of my top sporting moments. I got Goosebumps.

If UND chose "no nickname" would you continue to yell Sioux?

[82SiouxGuy]

.

Pretty loud where we sit. Also, the sioux yelled after the anthem before the Quinnipiac game was one of my top sporting moments. I got Goosebumps.

I wasn't at the game, I watched it from home, so I can't comment on that game. Smaller arenas are often louder since there is less volume to fill. That was one of the differences between the old Ralph and the new.

[Sioux>Bison]

If UND chose "no nickname" would you continue to yell Sioux?

No matter what nickname I will always say Sioux unless something else catches on I guess

[homer]

No matter what nickname I will always say Sioux unless something else catches on I guess

And if there's nothing else to catch on?

[scpa0305]

No matter what nickname I will always say Sioux unless something else catches on I guess

Ditto.

[DamStrait]

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. 

About the same validity as trying to draw conclusions from posts on social media, wouldn't you say?

 

 

 

I am very sure that the actual group supporting no nickname is much less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND.

Based on what, might I ask?  If you truly believe this, then you should be amongst those screaming the loudest to have the "no nickname" option included in the final ballot - having it voted down is the surest way to have it dismissed with the least amount of blow-back.

[jdub27]

Ditto.

 

So even though you're in the "no nickname" camp, you are still going to hold on to the Fighting Sioux nickname.  This one of the many reasons that "no nickname" is not an acceptable option, it continues to leave Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname.  The good thing is that at least it is becoming more and more obvious to the general public and the vocal supporters of the "no nickname" crowd are doing more harm than good for that cause. 

[ericpnelson]

The crowd noise at an average hockey game was lacked from my perspective (admittedly, I'm not carrying around a decibel meter or anything). I think part of it has to do with not having a go-to chant. The ol' Let's Go Sioux never gets the traction it did in the past. I really think that Fargo regional was the exception and not the rule, and I have decent sample size with having made most of the available treks from Williston to Grand Forks for football and hockey games. It's a minor deal and not something that the whole situation should hang on (before I get accused of basing this decision on this minor detail), I just thought it was worth mentioning. I think the air has been slowing sneaking out of the Ralph this past few years, despite having great teams to watch. This isn't the end all be all, but it doesn't help the atmosphere. 

 

I remember big moments a few years ago when the Let's Go Sioux chant would get almost spooky loud. Now, half the crowd won't get into it (save the regional), and it kinda sucks. 

[scpa0305]

So even though you're in the "no nickname" camp, you are still going to hold on to the Fighting Sioux nickname.  This one of the many reasons that "no nickname" is not an acceptable option, it continues to leave Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname.  The good thing is that at least it is becoming more and more obvious to the general public and the vocal supporters of the "no nickname" crowd are doing more harm than good for that cause. 

I am going to hold onto several traditions until they become irrelevant.  Believe me, I fully understand what the PC folks are doing and I fully understand what is right and what is wrong.  Do I like the old nickname and logo, absolutely.  Do I fully understand that it is never coming back, absolutely.  Because I cherish the old nickname doesn't make me a bad guy .

 

As I've noted over and over again, I am simply looking for a stunningly unique nickname to be chosen to replace the best nickname and logo there was in college sports.  Fighting Hawks doesn't do it for me.  Given the names remaining, my vote is for no nickname.

[jdub27]

As I've noted over and over again, I am simply looking for a stunningly unique nickname to be chosen to replace the best nickname and logo there was in college sports.  Fighting Hawks doesn't do it for me.  Given the names remaining, my vote is for no nickname.

 

I think we are all in the same boat on that but as much as we all would have like it to, it was never going to happen. The disagreements on the names submitted were just as much as they are on the finalists.  You aren't going to come up with something unique and then have a majority buy in because everyone has their own idea of unique.  Add the consultants into the mix and you see what happens.  If they would have had 100% say, I doubt that Roughriders or Sundogs would have made it this far.  It doesn't fit <adjective> <unoffensive animal/object>.

 

 

I am going to hold onto several traditions until they become irrelevant.  Believe me, I fully understand what the PC folks are doing and I fully understand what is right and what is wrong.  Do I like the old nickname and logo, absolutely.  Do I fully understand that it is never coming back, absolutely.  Because I cherish the old nickname doesn't make me a bad guy .

 

I guess I'm not sure what your reference to what the PC folks are doing means but even though I'm fully in favor of choosing a new nickname, I have zero intention of hiding from or being ashamed of UND's past.  I will display my Fighting Sioux memorabilia next to whatever is chosen.  It's not that I (or many other) want to move on from the past, it just happens to be what is best for the University of North Dakota for many reasons and on many levels.

[Siouxphan27]

If UND chose "no nickname" would you continue to yell Sioux?

How about we all yell Voldemort?

[ScottM]

[Old Time Hockey]

I would call it like this:

10% really sincerely mean no nickname and won't use the old name

85% want no nickname so they can de facto the old one into the void

5% want no nickname because they believe they can get the old one back some day

I'm an 85%er! Woohoo!

[Siouxperfan7]

I'm an 85%er! Woohoo!

 

Put the settlement agreement asside for a secaond.  We have debated the language enough on multiple threads.  I agree that UND must never forget the Sioux name and the history of it over the years we had it.  Selcting a new name doen't throw all that away.  It is still a part of UND athletics rich history.  We all know about the PC NCAA mrons who forced this issue on us causing the name to be retired.  We can be mad at them, that's fine.  But to not select a name on the basis of "sticking it to the NCAA" and still being able to have Sioux as the unnoficial name is just dumb.  Plain and simple. 

[82SiouxGuy]

About the same validity as trying to draw conclusions from posts on social media, wouldn't you say?

 

Based on what, might I ask?  If you truly believe this, then you should be amongst those screaming the loudest to have the "no nickname" option included in the final ballot - having it voted down is the surest way to have it dismissed with the least amount of blow-back.

I agree that you can't draw definite conclusions from the reactions on social media. In the post I mentioned social media I was using his own arguments against the poster. He has talked about all of the support for no nickname on social media, yet tried to say that only a small part of the people that want to go without a nickname are doing it to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname alive. So I pointed out that most of the people on social media that are trying to keep the no nickname option are also posting Fighting Sioux Forever or something else about keeping the Fighting Sioux name.

 

I base my opinion that less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND want to go with no nickname on the total information I have available to me. I base it on what I've seen and heard from all sources. It is my opinion. From all of my experience and reading, a strong majority of the public are ready to move on from this whole nickname debate. One of the problems with keeping it in a vote is that the vote right now would be 6 ways. No nickname could possibly get a plurality under these conditions, which would help keep it alive. Besides, elections are like sporting events, the best option (or team) doesn't always win. If people aren't all excited about a single nickname choice, they may not vote in the election. At the same time, the group promoting no nickname could get all of their supporters to vote. So apathy for a specific nickname could throw the vote to the no nicknames even though a large majority want something chosen.

 

Most of all, keeping no nickname as an option clouds the entire issue. A lot of the people that are supporting the no nickname option are not going to drop their support of the Fighting Sioux nickname or their opposition to any new nickname whether no nickname loses in an election or not. I have outlined some of the reasons that having a nickname are important. Going without a nickname shouldn't even be an option. This process should be about what is best for the University and the athletic department, going without a nickname is not what is best for either. Even the nickname choice committee agreed with that position after spending many hours working on the process. It is time to drop that option and make a decision between the actual nickname choices.

[scpa0305]

I think we are all in the same boat on that but as much as we all would have like it to, it was never going to happen. The disagreements on the names submitted were just as much as they are on the finalists.  You aren't going to come up with something unique and then have a majority buy in because everyone has their own idea of unique.  Add the consultants into the mix and you see what happens.  If they would have had 100% say, I doubt that Roughriders or Sundogs would have made it this far.  It doesn't fit <adjective> <unoffensive animal/object>.

 

 

 

I guess I'm not sure what your reference to what the PC folks are doing means but even though I'm fully in favor of choosing a new nickname, I have zero intention of hiding from or being ashamed of UND's past.  I will display my Fighting Sioux memorabilia next to whatever is chosen.  It's not that I (or many other) want to move on from the past, it just happens to be what is best for the University of North Dakota for many reasons and on many levels.

As will I.

 

As to your last statement, this is where we differ.  There are many people who think the sky will fall if we don't choose one of these generic names.  The reasons you give simply don't hold water to me.  But this is only my opinion.

[Finn flick]

I can't find Sicatoka's Post about the new team owned by Be Elze Bub so I can't quote him. Just heard the new coach Mr. Lucifer promised to have one hot team this year.

[snova4]

The crowd noise at an average hockey game was lacked from my perspective (admittedly, I'm not carrying around a decibel meter or anything). I think part of it has to do with not having a go-to chant. The ol' Let's Go Sioux never gets the traction it did in the past. I really think that Fargo regional was the exception and not the rule, and I have decent sample size with having made most of the available treks from Williston to Grand Forks for football and hockey games. It's a minor deal and not something that the whole situation should hang on (before I get accused of basing this decision on this minor detail), I just thought it was worth mentioning. I think the air has been slowing sneaking out of the Ralph this past few years, despite having great teams to watch. This isn't the end all be all, but it doesn't help the atmosphere.

I remember big moments a few years ago when the Let's Go Sioux chant would get almost spooky loud. Now, half the crowd won't get into it (save the regional), and it kinda sucks.

I think the crowd noise has more to do with the fact that games have become more of a social status is Grand Forks than really for fans. I know a lot of people that go just to hang out, almost like a night at the club. They couldn't care less about the game itself.

[DamStrait]

I agree that you can't draw definite conclusions from the reactions on social media. In the post I mentioned social media I was using his own arguments against the poster. He has talked about all of the support for no nickname on social media, yet tried to say that only a small part of the people that want to go without a nickname are doing it to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname alive. So I pointed out that most of the people on social media that are trying to keep the no nickname option are also posting Fighting Sioux Forever or something else about keeping the Fighting Sioux name.

 

I base my opinion that less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND want to go with no nickname on the total information I have available to me. I base it on what I've seen and heard from all sources. It is my opinion. From all of my experience and reading, a strong majority of the public are ready to move on from this whole nickname debate. One of the problems with keeping it in a vote is that the vote right now would be 6 ways. No nickname could possibly get a plurality under these conditions, which would help keep it alive. Besides, elections are like sporting events, the best option (or team) doesn't always win. If people aren't all excited about a single nickname choice, they may not vote in the election. At the same time, the group promoting no nickname could get all of their supporters to vote. So apathy for a specific nickname could throw the vote to the no nicknames even though a large majority want something chosen.

 

Most of all, keeping no nickname as an option clouds the entire issue. A lot of the people that are supporting the no nickname option are not going to drop their support of the Fighting Sioux nickname or their opposition to any new nickname whether no nickname loses in an election or not. I have outlined some of the reasons that having a nickname are important. Going without a nickname shouldn't even be an option. This process should be about what is best for the University and the athletic department, going without a nickname is not what is best for either. Even the nickname choice committee agreed with that position after spending many hours working on the process. It is time to drop that option and make a decision between the actual nickname choices.

I understand your clarification on the social media aspect.  Thanks

 

Otherwise, I have put into bold what I consider to be the key portions of the rest of your post - I've always loved the argument "damn the will of the majority - I know what is best" - it does have the unfortunate side effect of opening one up to the criticism of acting like a pompous ass, however.

[jdub27]

As to your last statement, this is where we differ.  There are many people who think the sky will fall if we don't choose one of these generic names.  The reasons you give simply don't hold water to me.  But this is only my opinion.

 

I guess I don't know how you define the sky falling but the number of negatives associated with going forward with "no nickname" continues to grow, regardless of how small or unrealistic some may perceive them to be. They are real. People on the committee admitted it. People that work for UND, including in the athletic department, admit it.  Players and coaches admit it.  There are real consequences and issues that "no nickname" brings that the five options that are officially left don't. Why voluntarily put any of those in play when there is a simple solution to it? So that people can selfishly hold on to an inanimate object?  Or because they somehow think it will be "sticking it" to the NCAA, when in reality they are only putting the University of North Dakota at a disadvantage, regardless of how small or large it may end up being? The biggest issue is that "no nickname" does not resolve the nickname issue one bit.  It is what the committee came to understand in their hours of work and why it was eliminated.  It will continue to waste time, resources and money that could be much better spent elsewhere.

[Ranger]

Just for clarification, what are these factual negatives no nickname presents?

[scpa0305]

I guess I don't know how you define the sky falling but the number of negatives associated with going forward with "no nickname" continues to grow, regardless of how small or unrealistic some may perceive them to be. They are real. People on the committee admitted it. People that work for UND, including in the athletic department, admit it.  Players and coaches admit it.  There are real consequences and issues that "no nickname" brings that the five options that are officially left don't. Why voluntarily put any of those in play when there is a simple solution to it? So that people can selfishly hold on to an inanimate object?  Or because they somehow think it will be "sticking it" to the NCAA, when in reality they are only putting the University of North Dakota at a disadvantage, regardless of how small or large it may end up being? The biggest issue is that "no nickname" does not resolve the nickname issue one bit.  It is what the committee came to understand in their hours of work and why it was eliminated.  It will continue to waste time, resources and money that could be much better spent elsewhere.

Again, it's he said she said. I will need concrete examples.  The only decent one I've ever heard was the argument that IF the NCAA is mad we don't choose a nickname they could overlook our bids for NCAA sanctioned events (i.e regional sites in Fargo).

[Siouxperfan7]

Again, it's he said she said. I will need concrete examples.  The only decent one I've ever heard was the argument that IF the NCAA is mad we don't choose a nickname they could overlook our bids for NCAA sanctioned events (i.e regional sites in Fargo).

 

The NCAA could have no legal action against UND for not picking a new nickname.  But they do have control over several things that affect UND athletics very directly.  One being awarded regional sites for hockey.  Another being awarded bids to host playoff games for football.  Seeded teams automatically get to host, and then higher seeded teams host if seeded teams play each other.  However, unseeded teams bid to host playoff games.  Doesn't just go to the team with the better record.  UND could make a higher bid than our opponent, but they could easily give the bid and the game to the other school.  They have every right to do that.  Still think "sticking it to the NCAA" is worth it?  Not being rewarded to host a playoff game is a really big deal.  The NCAA may not be able to force us to have a nickname, but the reprocutions of not having one are something that they can control.  You may be willing to deal with those, but the athletic department deffinitely is not.