And then there were three....

[MafiaMan]

The waffling on "just North Dakota" and the sudden course change on the runoff has depleted any ounce of credibility this guy had.  This will linger on, a la Marquette University.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/sports/ncaabasketball/at-marquette-hawks-dont-fly-and-gold-doesnt-glitter.html

I remember that fiasco - changing the name to "Marquette Gold" to coincide with the move to The Big East for basketball. They sure did strike gold at Marquette - COMEDY GOLD!

[Siouxperfan7]

So I felt compelled to send Peter Johnson and Robert Kelley another email regarding my disappointment for changing the process and  the importance of the new name getting at least 50% support thru the vote.  Here is the email and his response: 

 

Mr, Johnson and Mr. Kelley,

 

I have to follow up with another email to you.  I just read in the Herald where you said that you "don't see it as a negative" that the procedure was changed.  I respectfully disagree. (Along with the overwhelming majority of stakeholders that I have talked to and that have expressed their opinions publicly.  

 

The winner of this nickname vote has to get 50% support.

 

That was the basis of the vote from the beginning.  If no name reached that mark, there would be a runoff.  What is the reason for a runoff if the reason you are doing it is not going to be obtained?!!  

 

This process has had its fair share of scrutiny, but there was one thing that was going to make it pure and truly fair.  It was the vote.  Now that is being changed and tarnished.  

 

The winner of the nickname vote has to get 50% support.

 

If one of the 3 names wins with 38% of the vote, that would not be a good way to start out the era of the new nickname at UND.  We need a name that at the bare minimum has the support of half the people that chose to vote.

 

So I am asking you to reconsider the voting process that has been changed and have President Kelley either go back to the voting guidelines that were laid out weeks ago and just go with the final 2 in the next vote, or announce that if no name gets 50%, a third vote will be done with the top 2 names to ensure at least 50% will be reached for the winner.

 

We need to do this right.  TheUND stakeholders, it's fans, the community needs this process to be done right.  This is the name of our beloved University that we all are going to live with for the rest of our lives.  I am asking you to please reconsider the change that was made and make it so the winner has to recieve 50% of the vote.

 

Thanks you for your time

_________________________________________________

 

Thanks for the email.  I appreciate the feedback on this, and I understand your perspective.  It is true that I don't see adding the third option as a negative, given the slim margin that separated them.  For me, the closeness of the votes made that a logical decision -- whatever names would have been in those positions.  In fact, while I haven't shared what I voted for, I will share that I didn't vote for Nodaks.  

 

Again, I understand and appreciate your comments, and although you have already sent them to President Kelley, I am doing he same through this email.

 

Peter

 

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Siouxperfan7

[dagies]

I unfortunately have resigned myself to get ready for the new nickname to be FH due to the manipulation and underhandedness by those in charge of this process. 

Given the current course it's hard to see the final selection will be accepted as legitimate.  And I'd say that even if my choice, Nodak's was to win with 47% of the vote.

 

[siouxfan512]

Given the current course it's hard to see the final selection will be accepted as legitimate.  And I'd say that even if my choice, Nodak's was to win with 47% of the vote.

 

I my choice (Nodaks) won with 47%, I'd still be critical of the process and way this has been handled and changed, but I'd still be happy about the name.

It really does looks like we will be stuck with Fighting Hawks though. Yuck.

[dmksioux]

So I felt compelled to send Peter Johnson and Robert Kelley another email regarding my disappointment for changing the process and  the importance of the new name getting at least 50% support thru the vote.  Here is the email and his response: 

 

Mr, Johnson and Mr. Kelley,

 

I have to follow up with another email to you.  I just read in the Herald where you said that you "don't see it as a negative" that the procedure was changed.  I respectfully disagree. (Along with the overwhelming majority of stakeholders that I have talked to and that have expressed their opinions publicly.  

 

The winner of this nickname vote has to get 50% support.

 

That was the basis of the vote from the beginning.  If no name reached that mark, there would be a runoff.  What is the reason for a runoff if the reason you are doing it is not going to be obtained?!!  

 

This process has had its fair share of scrutiny, but there was one thing that was going to make it pure and truly fair.  It was the vote.  Now that is being changed and tarnished.  

 

The winner of the nickname vote has to get 50% support.

 

If one of the 3 names wins with 38% of the vote, that would not be a good way to start out the era of the new nickname at UND.  We need a name that at the bare minimum has the support of half the people that chose to vote.

 

So I am asking you to reconsider the voting process that has been changed and have President Kelley either go back to the voting guidelines that were laid out weeks ago and just go with the final 2 in the next vote, or announce that if no name gets 50%, a third vote will be done with the top 2 names to ensure at least 50% will be reached for the winner.

 

We need to do this right.  TheUND stakeholders, it's fans, the community needs this process to be done right.  This is the name of our beloved University that we all are going to live with for the rest of our lives.  I am asking you to please reconsider the change that was made and make it so the winner has to recieve 50% of the vote.

 

Thanks you for your time

_________________________________________________

 

Thanks for the email.  I appreciate the feedback on this, and I understand your perspective.  It is true that I don't see adding the third option as a negative, given the slim margin that separated them.  For me, the closeness of the votes made that a logical decision -- whatever names would have been in those positions.  In fact, while I haven't shared what I voted for, I will share that I didn't vote for Nodaks.  

 

Again, I understand and appreciate your comments, and although you have already sent them to President Kelley, I am doing he same through this email.

 

Peter

 

 

You should follow up with another email asking what will happen if the top two are separated by 116 or less votes??

[Vegas_Sioux]

You should follow up with another email asking what will happen if the top two are separated by 116 or less votes??

it will be a vote until you get it "right" that way it's the nice easy nondescript PC approved animal. 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Vegas_Sioux

[Siouxphan27]

I'd much rather see another vote if none reach 50% in round 2.  (Or better yet take nodaks off right now since it finished third.). But if the new name is chosen without a majority, it would be a fitting end to this entire long debacle;  minority opinion + political correctness resulted in loss of our nickname, so why not have a minority opinion determine the new name?

augh!!!!!

[tnt]

You should follow up with another email asking what will happen if the top two are separated by 116 or less votes??

I was going to ask him to find out from them what a closeness of the vote will allow for this time?  Where would have that threshold been in the last round?  Kind of arbitrary isn't it?

[tnt]

So I felt compelled to send Peter Johnson and Robert Kelley another email regarding my disappointment for changing the process and  the importance of the new name getting at least 50% support thru the vote.  Here is the email and his response: 

 

Mr, Johnson and Mr. Kelley,

 

I have to follow up with another email to you.  I just read in the Herald where you said that you "don't see it as a negative" that the procedure was changed.  I respectfully disagree. (Along with the overwhelming majority of stakeholders that I have talked to and that have expressed their opinions publicly.  

 

The winner of this nickname vote has to get 50% support.

 

That was the basis of the vote from the beginning.  If no name reached that mark, there would be a runoff.  What is the reason for a runoff if the reason you are doing it is not going to be obtained?!!  

 

This process has had its fair share of scrutiny, but there was one thing that was going to make it pure and truly fair.  It was the vote.  Now that is being changed and tarnished.  

 

The winner of the nickname vote has to get 50% support.

 

If one of the 3 names wins with 38% of the vote, that would not be a good way to start out the era of the new nickname at UND.  We need a name that at the bare minimum has the support of half the people that chose to vote.

 

So I am asking you to reconsider the voting process that has been changed and have President Kelley either go back to the voting guidelines that were laid out weeks ago and just go with the final 2 in the next vote, or announce that if no name gets 50%, a third vote will be done with the top 2 names to ensure at least 50% will be reached for the winner.

 

We need to do this right.  TheUND stakeholders, it's fans, the community needs this process to be done right.  This is the name of our beloved University that we all are going to live with for the rest of our lives.  I am asking you to please reconsider the change that was made and make it so the winner has to recieve 50% of the vote.

 

Thanks you for your time

_________________________________________________

 

Thanks for the email.  I appreciate the feedback on this, and I understand your perspective.  It is true that I don't see adding the third option as a negative, given the slim margin that separated them.  For me, the closeness of the votes made that a logical decision -- whatever names would have been in those positions.  In fact, while I haven't shared what I voted for, I will share that I didn't vote for Nodaks.  

 

Again, I understand and appreciate your comments, and although you have already sent them to President Kelley, I am doing he same through this email.

 

Peter

 

 

Logical?  Logical?   Wouldn't it be logical to follow your own criteria for choosing a nickname and eliminating names that don't remotely follow that criteria?  Wouldn't it be logical in any election to have a firm policy, and follow it?  I cannot for the life of me believe that any of these people have any sense whatsoever.  If this is what a degree at UND or anywhere else gets you -- I have to believe college isn't that beneficial after all!

[Yote 53]

As an outsider looking in this process has been totally jacked up.  In the end I would think you all want a nickname you can accept and rally behind.  IMO, either Nodaks or Roughriders work best for UND.  In time the majority of people will come to accept either one because they are both unique and the people of North Dakota can come to identify with them and proudly call themselves a Rider or a Nodak.  Fighting Hawks?  What a complete joke.  Go through all of this to come up with the most non-descript, generic bird.  This is a nickname for a major university, not a U8 girls soccer team.  You might as well just saved yourself some grief and called yourself the color Green.  How is anybody going to identify with Fighting Hawks?

[iluvdebbies]

As an outsider looking in this process has been totally jacked up.  In the end I would think you all want a nickname you can accept and rally behind.  IMO, either Nodaks or Roughriders work best for UND.  In time the majority of people will come to accept either one because they are both unique and the people of North Dakota can come to identify with them and proudly call themselves a Rider or a Nodak.  Fighting Hawks?  What a complete joke.  Go through all of this to come up with the most non-descript, generic bird.  This is a nickname for a major university, not a U8 girls soccer team.  You might as well just saved yourself some grief and called yourself the color Green.  How is anybody going to identify with Fighting Hawks?

There will be no point in time that I will ever call myself a Nodak.

[Nodaker]

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 are totally against RR to do the same because right now it looks like a vote for Nodaks is a vote for FH.

This was not a logical decision as many of the minions suggest.  It is only a manipulation of the vote to give the outcome that Kelly wanted a better chance of happening.  There must be a reason Kelly wants to split the Nodaks and RR vote again.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Nodaker
entered my screen name, not the nickname

[tnt]

As an outsider looking in this process has been totally jacked up.  In the end I would think you all want a nickname you can accept and rally behind.  IMO, either Nodaks or Roughriders work best for UND.  In time the majority of people will come to accept either one because they are both unique and the people of North Dakota can come to identify with them and proudly call themselves a Rider or a Nodak.  Fighting Hawks?  What a complete joke.  Go through all of this to come up with the most non-descript, generic bird.  This is a nickname for a major university, not a U8 girls soccer team.  You might as well just saved yourself some grief and called yourself the color Green.  How is anybody going to identify with Fighting Hawks?

Can you tell the students at UND that?  " Oh, look, a neat logo, let's be that!"  If only they knew how other people like yourself and others think about the less than imaginative name.  The fact that the consultant pushed this through and convinced the committee to make it a finalist is a joke as well.  Like I said, don't make criteria for selecting a nickname if you have no intention of following it.

[Yote 53]

Let's just say that as a Coyote who battled the Sioux on the gridiron for many years and witnessed the battles for many more years after my playing days were done, Fighting Hawks is a less than underwhelming nickname.

 

Just an outsiders perspective.

[Teeder11]

Let's just say that as a Coyote who battled the Sioux on the gridiron for many years and witnessed the battles for many more years after my playing days were done, Fighting Hawks is a less than underwhelming nickname.

 

Just an outsiders perspective.

kinda like a lowly Jackrabbit, if that had not been taken and we would have chosen something like that, huh?  

Edited October 27, 2015 by Teeder11

[SiouxVolley]

Let's just say that as a Coyote who battled the Sioux on the gridiron for many years and witnessed the battles for many more years after my playing days were done, Fighting Hawks is a less than underwhelming nickname.

 

Just an outsiders perspective.

Yeah, Kelley seems to like Dickinson State's example, Blue Hawks.

[siouxfan512]

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 are totally against RR to do the same because right now it looks like a vote for Nodaks is a vote for FH.

This was not a logical decision as many of the minions suggest.  It is only a manipulation of the vote to give the outcome that Kelly wanted a better chance of happening.  There must be a reason Kelly wants to split the Nodaks and RR vote again.

I'm still going Nodaks. If there is a second runoff vote, then I will vote Nodaks 1st and Roughriders 2nd. Anything but Fighting Hawks

 

[Teeder11]

Yeah, Kelley seems to like Dickinson State's example, Blue Hawks.

Wait, I thought he was a Sundogger, or was that before he was a FH guy... I can't keep up with the ever changing versions of which nickname Kelley wants.  They change as much as Kelley's voting "rules."  

Edited October 27, 2015 by Teeder11

[UND1981]

I'm still going Nodaks. If there is a second runoff vote, then I will vote Nodaks 1st and Roughriders 2nd. Anything but Fighting Hawks

 

Me too.  If FH wins, I will say a prayer that the logo is not an animal but a plane, helicopter or UAV.

[zonadub]

Me too.  If FH wins, I will say a prayer that the logo is not an animal but a plane, helicopter or UAV.

good luck with that. 

[SiouxVolley]

Wait, I thought he was a Sundogger, or was that before he was a FH guy... I can't keep up with the ever changing versions of which nickname Kelley wants.  They change as much as Kelley's voting "rules."  

Sundogger was always the first choice of Twamley/the Herald.  Fighting Hawks is a clear 2nd.

Kelley seems to have a problem with understanding how voting works.  It's not horseshoes.

[NDinCO]

I'm still going Nodaks. If there is a second runoff vote, then I will vote Nodaks 1st and Roughriders 2nd. Anything but Fighting Hawks

 

IF there is a second runoff vote.... That's a big if. Voters need to rally around RR, the 2nd leading vote getter, or it will be FH... forever! 

And you will never hear me cheer 'Lets go Hawks'. Does that make me a bad supporter? Probably. But Hawks is just sooooo lame. 

[UND1983]

IF there is a second runoff vote.... That's a big if. Voters need to rally around RR, the 2nd leading vote getter, or it will be FH... forever! 

And you will never hear me cheer 'Lets go Hawks'. Does that make me a bad supporter? Probably. But Hawks is just sooooo lame. 

Didn't the article say that this 2nd vote is IT.  Most votes wins?

No "IF".

 

[UNDhoops]

Me too.  If FH wins, I will say a prayer that the logo is not an animal but a plane, helicopter or UAV.

found something worse than a generic bird logo

[SWSiouxMN]

Didn't the article say that this 2nd vote is IT.  Most votes wins?

No "IF".

 

IF... there isn't another change