Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Recommended Posts

Have also saw this on various social media platforms today. If people truly are hanging their hat on that logo, they are going to be incredibly upset and claim they were sold a false premise even though UND has had zero to do with that logo floating around.

im sure it will look some generic like this...climate_hawk_logo.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 776
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

Kelly won't follow HIS original policy but we can.  I voted for Nodaks but will vote for RR this time around.  I have always liked both names so it is an easy change for me.  I suggest that unless you

This is getting (more) ridiculous. Nothing against NoDaks per se, but you just can't change the rules midstream after announcing the process. You JUST CANT DO IT. You have just lost the VERY small amo

Posted Images

I agree with everyone that we do need another run-off vote now should one of these not get at least 50%.  Let's just say it goes FH - 40%, RR - 33%, and Nodaks - 27%.  Yes, Fighting Hawks got the most votes, but it's a nickname that 60% of the people do not want.  So much for being unifying.  Narrow it down to two options, and you can get a true majority vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick... Someone create a Roughrider logo with feathers on it to pass along to the lemmings via social media... :0

start with the horse head and color in the mane...

 

 

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the magic number during the next vote?  How much will the leading nickname need to win by to be declared the winner?  126 votes? 250 votes?  1,000 votes?  Or will it be deemed to close to declare a winner and we have another round of voting.  What a shyt show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there a Sioux, Cherokee, Arikara, Hidatsa, Mandan, or any other tribal chief named "Fighting Hawk"?

 

it may not be as politically correct as people are assuming. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there a Sioux, Cherokee, Arikara, Hidatsa, Mandan, or any other tribal chief named "Fighting Hawk"?

 

it may not be as politically correct as people are assuming. 

Perhaps, but there was a Thunderhawk, and that may be the reason that was left off.  At least that would have differentiated us a bit, as we could have been T-Hawks for short.  Don't think we'll be the F-Hawks for short.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should actually try and get the Herald to survey the students to see if they think voting 

for "Fighting Hawks entails that hawk logo...

add a 2nd question as to if you voting for fighting hawks because it has the word "fighting" in it... which could easily change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but there was a Thunderhawk, and that may be the reason that was left off.  At least that would have differentiated us a bit, as we could have been T-Hawks for short.  Don't think we'll be the F-Hawks for short.  

I can't stand the generic nature of Fighting Hawks and when jesting about it, I have been calling it F-Hawks for the past few weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone that we do need another run-off vote now should one of these not get at least 50%.  Let's just say it goes FH - 40%, RR - 33%, and Nodaks - 27%.  Yes, Fighting Hawks got the most votes, but it's a nickname that 60% of the people do not want.  So much for being unifying.  Narrow it down to two options, and you can get a true majority vote.

Disclaimer: Not picking on the post I'm quoting, it's just the most recent to say the same thing.

Can we stop with the X% don't want?  Just because it may be their second choice, doesn't mean they don't want it, it just means they like something else (maybe even as slightly as 51-49%) better.  I've said before I dislike Nodak.  Simply will not vote for it.  I'm not fond of RR, but with limited choices left, am considering it.  I may also vote FH.  I guess I probably don't want any of them, but have to pick something...

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Been off these forums for a long time, so this has already been covered I'm sure. However,

I don't like Fighting Hawks as a name, if it's a bird, but who ever said it was a bird? Couldn't it be a plane or a helicopter?  That would make it much more palatable in my opinion Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk?  I know the RAF had a fighter nicknamed the Hawk, couldn't use that obviously, but I don't know much about the US military aviation history.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Fans could shout Fighting Sioux, when Announcer says Fighting Hawks.

What a horrible reason to pick FH. So anytime someone says 'hawks' were suppose to yell Sioux? How long will that good times last? As time passes this impulse to yell 'Sioux' will fade - sorry to say. But that bland, unimaginative name will still remain. Remember, this decision is forever (theoretically) 

Edited by NDinCO
missed some text
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a horrible reason to pick FH. So anytime someone says 'hawks' were suppose to yell Sioux? How long will that good times last? As time passes this impulse to yell 'Sioux' will fade - sorry to say. But that bland, unimaginative name will still remain. Remember, this decision is forever (theoretically) 

to be clear those aren't my words, it was something I quoted from earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been off these forums for a long time, so this has already been covered I'm sure. However,

I don't like Fighting Hawks as a name, if it's a bird, but who ever said it was a bird? Couldn't it be a plane or a helicopter?  That would make it much more palatable in my opinion Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk?  I know the RAF had a fighter nicknamed the Hawk, couldn't use that obviously, but I don't know much about the US military aviation history.

I was thinking the same thing earlier today! We could make the logo an UAS drone or something. That would be a nice tie-in to the GFAFB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently chatted with someone who is reasonably familiar with Twamley. Their take: 

There's no point in defining a process if you're simply going to ignore it.

Kelley's just doing what he always does: Manipulating the situation in an attempt to get the outcome he desires.

Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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...