And then there were three....

[Teeder11]

This just keeps getting worse.....

Leadership, integrity?

Fire Kelley!

To what end? He's basically done in 45 days. Save on the inevitable Golden Parachute that a firing would bring (you know how the NDUS works), and let him slink outta here quietly on his way back to New Mexico over x-mas vacation when no one is around to care. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SiouxVolley]

So now a sampling of voters here is akin to a Gallup poll?  

It's small, but not informed.  That's all that was said but you added more.

[SIOUXFAN97]

This is a unique situation that quite frankly needs to be flexible. I want a nickname that everyone wants and accommodating that by allowing 3 finalist because 2 were essentially tied is only practical. I think the winner needs to have 50 percent of the vote so I hope that there is a third if the November 2nd vote doesn't get that. 

And I thought sundogs was the establishment choice? Or is the establishment choice any that siouxsports.com doesn't agree with? 

 

[Sodacker]

I'm sure you were pissed at the process from the beginning then right? There are 2 winners from the vote! What is America coming too.

I expect your obnoxious support to now transfer to the fighting Hawks because if you ain't first you're last. 

[The Sicatoka]

I respect the original process laid out for the voting.  Not following the plan just adds another level of frustration and skepticism for the passionate fans/alumni/donors.

Hasn't happened much lately, but here we agree. Follow the process. If it's not followed here what "Don Adam" thing will be used next. 

[The Sicatoka]

It seems to me  over 100 votes is a lot for how many votes were cast between Roughriders and Nodaks.  The question needs to be asked where was he going to draw the line.    

Exactly. Was it 100? 200? 250? Top two means top two. With five options a small gap between numbers two and three should've been easily considered and expected. The process as laid out handled it: top two. 

The process needs to be followed as advertised and this "Don Adam" (make this ---- up as I go) stuff has to stop. 

[TrueSioux2000]

All I ask is that we don't follow the script laid out by the former Native American logo'd schools before us. I have nothing against birds, but as a logo and nickname it's well trodden territory. It's upsetting that people find it ok to go that route as if we're being unique in any way. What sets UND apart from any other bird based school? Literally nothing. At all. But hey it has Fighting in it right?!? MAYBE WE'LL GET FIGHTING SIOUX BACK!!!!! Or not. I had to explain to some students that if we became FS again we'd be kicked out of the NCAA and that would no doubt ruin our athletic program, so I called them out on being UND fans who are really non-UND fans. They got upset. So I said, get bent. 

[Sodacker]

Exactly. Was it 100? 200? 250? Top two means top two. With five options a small gap between numbers two and three should've been easily considered and expected. The process as laid out handled it: top two. 

The process needs to be followed as advertised and this "Don Adam" (make this ---- up as I go) stuff has to stop. 

This isn't some presidential election that has been refined over decades. This is a unique situation and setting some hard precedent is a disservice to everyone because it was set by people who aren't experienced in this (because no one is experienced in this). 

This whole thing needs to be flexible and not being fluid now because other parts of the process were done poorly is just adding to the problem, not helping it. 

[Siouxphan27]

What is the traditional margin of error needed before a recount in an election.  It seems to me  over 100 votes is a lot for how many votes were cast between Roughriders and Nodaks.  The question needs to be asked where was he going to draw the line.  Kelley just continues to cause dissent in the UND fan and Alumni base by his lack of foresight.  

I figured since this is strictly an email election, there really couldn't be any error.  it's not like there's hanging chads, or someone screwed up the rest of their ballot while voting for county sheriff and their entire ballot got rejected, etc.   he's mucking up the process.  the sad part is he doesn't even realize it.    

[Teeder11]

This isn't some presidential election that has been refined over decades. This is a unique situation and setting some hard precedent is a disservice to everyone because it was set by people who aren't experienced in this (because no one is experienced in this). 

This whole thing needs to be flexible and not being fluid now because other parts of the process were done poorly is just adding to the problem, not helping it. 

Spot on!

[TBR]

I am in the group that could get behind either RRs or Nodaks. Not happy about the capricious midstream rule change that makes it unlikely we get either. We will likely have a cliche for a name.

[The Sicatoka]

Bologna. 

The final process was defined and advertised. 

If this was only an advisory vote and the rules could be changed on the fly it should've been advertised as such. If Kelley wanted an advisory vote he should've said that. 

Instead, we have a blatant renege on the process that was defined and advertized by Dr. Kelley.

"Renege" is a nice way of saying we've all been lied to. 

When will it happen again. 

[UNDhoops]

we should show kelley the door and start the process over. this was bound to go poorly the minute the committee was announced

[Siouxphan27]

Bologna. 

The final process was defined and advertised. 

If this was only an advisory vote and the rules could be changed on the fly it should've been advertised as such. If Kelley wanted an advisory vote he should've said that. 

Instead, we have a blatant renege on the process that was defined and advertized by Dr. Kelley.

"Renege" is a nice way of saying we've all been lied to. 

When will it happen again. 

exactly.    what happens if during the run off vote, all three names finish within 116 votes of each other?   do we just say "You're all Winners!"  and move forward with three nicknames?  

 we can't even define a "winner" or a "loser", without fear of offending some of those losers who were good tryers and came so close to winning!  

modern day academia at its finest. 
 

[MafiaMan]

"Renege" is a nice way of saying we've all been lied to. 

When will it happen again?

When Kelley decrees that he's resurrecting "Sundogs" from the boneyard and making it UND's new nickname?

[tnt]

This isn't some presidential election that has been refined over decades. This is a unique situation and setting some hard precedent is a disservice to everyone because it was set by people who aren't experienced in this (because no one is experienced in this). 

This whole thing needs to be flexible and not being fluid now because other parts of the process were done poorly is just adding to the problem, not helping it. 

Yes it needs to be flexible at the whims of one individual!  That my friend is how you get the conspiracy theories.  When you've got people who have defended vehemently a choice that happened to be third, and they are saying stick to the process, you know the process has been unacceptable.  

[nodakhoops]

We need to demand the process that was defined be followed. 

Tell him. 

robert.kelley@und.edu

Pretty much the only way I don't see UND becoming the fighting Hawks. Assuming the 23% from the other names gets split up between the 3.

If you don't like fighting Hawks I suggest you email kelly and ask for the top 2 names. I realize Nodaks has a following but if he makes the switch it will be for the top 2. 

Again I don't mind fighting Hawks but I much prefer Roughriders to it. If RR came in 3rd I'd say the same b/c that's the right thing to do, but I'd probably vote Hawks instead of Nodaks.

Should be 2 names and Riders all the way.

[Cratter]

Looks like most of SiouxSports is actually in agreement about something regarding UND's new nickname.

That the process should have followed the actual process layed out. 

That's a first here. 

[petey23]

I will campaign again that nodaks should be switched to fighting nodaks...

 

If it's fighting hawks vs rough riders vs fighting nodaks....I believe fighting hawks would come in last as the only reason that people like it is for the "fighting" in front of generic-sports-name

I agree....kind of. Move the "Fighting" off of the Hawks and onto Nodaks. Replace it with Green or White or Prairie, cut roughriders and vote....OK, I know you can't cut roughriders but I would be fine with either of the other 2.

[Sodacker]

Bologna. 

The final process was defined and advertised. 

If this was only an advisory vote and the rules could be changed on the fly it should've been advertised as such. If Kelley wanted an advisory vote he should've said that. 

Instead, we have a blatant renege on the process that was defined and advertized by Dr. Kelley.

"Renege" is a nice way of saying we've all been lied to. 

When will it happen again. 

This process is ment to get the best name for und. If that means that a vote to get a runoff turns into an advisory vote because of a tie, I'm okay with that. There's a good chance that there will be 3 votes and now those who voted for sundogs and Northstars will get a larger influence in determining what their team name is, and I'm okay with that. 

Everyone has taken a side and now it's not about getting the best name for UND, it's about their side winning. That's what's not good for the University. 

[tnt]

Spot on!

If you think it needs to be flexible, I suppose you agree with the outrage by many, that a third vote is warranted.  Guarantee you that won't happen, even though it should.  There is a reason we wanted to narrow it down to two-- to get the name that the majority wants.  That may happen, but it's possible you won't know for sure with three names.

[Sioux94]

This isn't some presidential election that has been refined over decades. This is a unique situation and setting some hard precedent is a disservice to everyone because it was set by people who aren't experienced in this (because no one is experienced in this). 

This whole thing needs to be flexible and not being fluid now because other parts of the process were done poorly is just adding to the problem, not helping it. 

Actually didn't they hire consultants whom have done this several times before?  I'd think the consultants would have a pretty refined process and could have given a suggestion about declaring beforehand that if second in third are close they will go with three.   It should flat out take 50% plus on whatever the final vote is for the new nickname.  I think this is absolutely him changing the rules to satisfy Nodak people, and probably to ensure that it ends up being Fighting Hawks.  Why a guy heading out the door gets to make this important of a decision is beyond me. 

[dagies]

Having voted for Nodaks I'm actually not pleased that the rules were changed to allow the choice on the ballot, but I think I can understand why.   Kelley's created a s-storm by changing the rules now, but he likely avoided another by a constituency that really wants Nodaks as the final choice.   Being the tally was quite close, I can see some logic in that decision.

That said, from my perspective this is decision only make it more likely Fighting Hawks ends up winning.    I suspect most Nodak and RR voter would vote for the other one, rather than Fighting Hawks.   So if Nodaks didn't make the cut, I'm guessing most of those votes would go to RR.  Hopefully enough to win the final vote.  Similarly, had the tables been turned and Nodaks was #2 and RR #3, I suspect RR voters would have voted for Nodaks.    I'd be happy to vote RR to keep Fighting Hawks from being the final selection. 

Unfortunately now I am afraid that there will be voters cancelling each other out to the benefit of Fighting Hawks.

 

I also think Kelley is making a big mistake by not requiring the final selection to have 50% or more of the vote.  I don't care if that does extend the process, I'll be a lot more made if Fighting Hawks is chosen by 40% of voters while 60% wanted anything else.  To me that's not a good way to select a nickname and will lead to lingering bad feelings (yes, I know, any choice will).

 

 

[SIOUXFAN97]

This isn't some presidential election that has been refined over decades. This is a unique situation and setting some hard precedent is a disservice to everyone because it was set by people who aren't experienced in this (because no one is experienced in this). 

This whole thing needs to be flexible and not being fluid now because other parts of the process were done poorly is just adding to the problem, not helping it. 

thank you mrs. kelly.  you may leave the state anytime now and return to your commune at cal-berkley

[NDinCO]

I propose a new nickname, the 'University of North Dakota Dog & Ponies'.

This is insulting. The first big ELEPHANT in the room that this process is a joke was the inclusion of SunDogs in the final 5 - which had a snowball chance of winning, just pacifies a certain interest group. Next ELEPHANT not including what the MAJORITY wants, i.e just 'North Dakota'. But I went along hoping there was some integrity in the process - I was wrong. 

The committee/process/'leadership' (big italics) is putting on a big charade - they DO NOT CARE what the majority wants - only what they perceive as 'best'

OK - FINE! Then they should have have just formed a select committee and announced their decision and SPARE us this discourteous farce.