And then there were three....

[Oxbow6]

From https://www.facebook.com/myUND?fref=nf

Will this next round be winner take all?

University of North Dakota Yes, the outcome of the next vote will be the final nickname.

If none of the 3 get 50% or more of the vote it will be a complete travesty then.

[choyt3]

Born: Union Hospital, Mayville, ND

I find Nodak, when used by a non-North Dakotan toward a North Dakotan, is used as a derogatory term intended to mean "backwards" or "hick". 

Born: Mercy Hospital, Devils Lake, ND

Raised in a town of 220 people in North Dakota.

Resided in MN for the last 18 years. Been referred to as a Nodak plenty of times since venturing across the Red River, but never felt as though it was with a negative undertone. Maybe I need to re-evaluate.

[Sodacker]

If none of the 3 get 50% or more of the vote it will be a complete travesty then.

It truly will be. If one wins with 40 percent of the vote it will be a huge disservice to everyone. 

I don't believe the nickname will last if there isn't 50 percent vote. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Sodacker

[SIOUXFAN97]

From https://www.facebook.com/myUND?fref=nf

Will this next round be winner take all?

University of North Dakota Yes, the outcome of the next vote will be the final nickname IF THE NICKNAME WITH HIGHEST % IS THE ONE THAT FUHRER KELLY WANTS.

[Siouxperfan7]

 

I got a response back from Peter Johnson saying he appreciated my email.  The are listening people...please voice your concerns.  

 

robert.kelley@UND.edu

peter.johnson@UND.edu

[UNDhoops]

If none of the 3 get 50% or more of the vote it will be a complete travesty then.

i do wonder how long any of them will last anyway

[darell1976]

I'm no fan of Rough Riders, but if the SEC can successfully market 3 Tigers and 2 Bulldogs, then I'm guessing UND could figure out how to differentiate itself from a CFL team in Saskatchewan, a local high school, and a minor league hockey team in Iowa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Rough_Riders

 

Don't forget Ottawa, up until 1996 there were 2 RR teams in the CFL.

Edited October 26, 2015 by darell1976

[UNDhoops]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Rough_Riders

 

Don't forget Ottawa!!!

they dont exist anymore

[jimdahl]

The problem is that it doesn't matter what they claim is the planned process anymore when they're obviously willing to modify the process based on how they feel about the result of the vote. They're going to have us all vote again, eyeball the numbers, and decide what to do then.

[jdub27]

There is a runoff because none of the choices reached the 50% mark. 
In the runoff, the winner doesn't have to reach the 50% mark. 

Seems illogical that the reason that triggered the runoff may not actually be fulfilled by the runoff and yet there could still be a winner.

[darell1976]

they dont exist anymore

I know but if marketing is tough for RR, how could the CFL do it with 2 Roughrider teams through 1996.

[choyt3]

There is a runoff because none of the choices reached the 50% mark. 
In the runoff, the winner doesn't have to reach the 50% mark. 

With how the rules are currently amended, why is there a runoff?

Exactly.

Dear Pres. Kelley,

Just pick the fricken name that you want and we can move on. 

Signed, 

The rest of us that are still going to be here in two months

[jimdahl]

There is a runoff because none of the choices reached the 50% mark. 
In the runoff, the winner doesn't have to reach the 50% mark. 

With how the rules are currently amended, why is there a runoff?

Agreed. The whole point of the runoff was to get a name to 50%. Now that they've abandoned that principle, why not just declare Fighting Hawks the winner, as it had a clear lead over the other two? What's the point of seeing how the Sundogs and Northstars votes get distributed across the remaining three, but not seeing how the Nodaks votes would get distributed across Roughriders and Fighting Hawks.

[Oxbow6]

 

I got a response back from Peter Johnson saying he appreciated my email.  The are listening people...please voice your concerns.  

 

robert.kelley@UND.edu

peter.johnson@UND.edu

I haven't heard back from either one...............could be a reason though.

[siouxfan512]

Agreed. The whole point of the runoff was to get a name to 50%. Now that they've abandoned that principle, why not just declare Fighting Hawks the winner, as it had a clear lead over the other two? What's the point of seeing how the Sundogs and Northstars votes get distributed across the remaining three, but not seeing how the Nodaks votes would get distributed across Roughriders and Fighting Hawks.

Always the logical view Jim. I think we can all agree that UND and Kelley are definitely not going to win any ethics awards with this process. However, seeing as we (the voters) are at the mercy of the process (whatever process that happens to be), I'm really hoping for two more votes. I'll go Nodaks with the first, and the second (if it is still available). Otherwise I'll go Nodaks then Roughriders.  Not a fan of fighting hawks at all.

[UND1981]

Always the logical view Jim. I think we can all agree that UND and Kelley are definitely not going to win any ethics awards with this process. However, seeing as we (the voters) are at the mercy of the process (whatever process that happens to be), I'm really hoping for two more votes. I'll go Nodaks with the first, and the second (if it is still available). Otherwise I'll go Nodaks then Roughriders.  Not a fan of fighting hawks at all.

I totally agree!  FH is awful.

[Sodacker]

Agreed. The whole point of the runoff was to get a name to 50%. Now that they've abandoned that principle, why not just declare Fighting Hawks the winner, as it had a clear lead over the other two? What's the point of seeing how the Sundogs and Northstars votes get distributed across the remaining three, but not seeing how the Nodaks votes would get distributed across Roughriders and Fighting Hawks.

That's why I think there will be a third vote if someone doesn't get 50 percent. It would have been easier to just announce fighting Hawks the winner and be done with it if that is the end game

[Stinger_UND]

Agreed. The whole point of the runoff was to get a name to 50%. Now that they've abandoned that principle, why not just declare Fighting Hawks the winner, as it had a clear lead over the other two? What's the point of seeing how the Sundogs and Northstars votes get distributed across the remaining three, but not seeing how the Nodaks votes would get distributed across Roughriders and Fighting Hawks.

Exactly my thoughts since the beginning. I posted this to the UND facebook page comments as well. 

[The Sicatoka]

The problem is that it doesn't matter what they claim is the planned process anymore when they're obviously willing to modify the process based on how they feel about the result of the vote. They're going to have us all vote again, eyeball the numbers, and decide what to do then.

That defines arbitrary and capricious. You don't trust organizations that behave in that manner (cough - NCAA - cough). 

And that is why Twamley must go back to the voting process as originally defined. 

[The Sicatoka]

What happens when in this farcical three-way race the top two are within 126 votes of each other and none has a majority. 

They've dug themselves quite a hole. 

Top two. Vote. Done. 

[tnt]

That's why I think there will be a third vote if someone doesn't get 50 percent. It would have been easier to just announce fighting Hawks the winner and be done with it if that is the end game

You have a lot more faith in them than I do.  If they want to get it down to one more vote, then have each person pick their top two favorites in the order they like them, then assign points to them.  If Hawks had a lot of first place votes but just as many 3rd place votes, it would be a better representation on how a third vote would go. 

[mksioux]

Only 116 votes separated Nodaks and Roughriders.  I'm no fan of Kelley, but he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with this one.

I guess I fail to see how he's damned if he sticks to the process that was laid out in black and white prior to the vote.  If he wanted wiggle room for a close vote, he didn't have to say the top-2 finalists would go into a runoff.  He could have said the top 2 or 3.  But when you lay out a specific process, you need to stick to that process if you want to maintain any credibility.  

[SWSiouxMN]

I guess I fail to see how he's damned if he sticks to the process that was laid out in black and white prior to the vote.  If he wanted wiggle room for a close vote, he didn't have to say the top-2 finalists would go into a runoff.  He could have said the top 2 or 3.  But when you lay out a specific process, you need to stick to that process if you want to maintain any credibility.  

Bingo. 

[mujack]

I've always felt Nodaks was derogatory. And have had a few run-ins with certain big city fans  that really set that in stone ...

[Vegas_Sioux]

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.    

minus th fact no one said the email wasn't coming from und and spam filters and blockers didn't clear the email. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Vegas_Sioux