And then there were three....

[fightingsioux4life]

You didn't answer my question 

I am thinking he can't or doesn't want to name his sources.

[ericpnelson]

I'd be a big instant run off guy considering the switcheroo

[Cratter]

If they changed the rules again...it should only be to go back to the original rules and use the top two.

[siouxfan512]

If they changed the rules again...it should only be to go back to the original rules and use the top two.

I'm not saying that switching the rules in the first place was the right thing to do. But by doing it this way, you are essentially taking the idea of doing this vote, then a final vote, and combining the results into one. It would be more efficient.

For example I intend on voting Nodak. Though if there is a third vote, and Nodaks does not make it I would then vote roughriders. Rather than extending this process out, I could just make both votes at the same time, and the who process could be expedited. I think it would also ensure that the winner would actually get a majority win too. At least this is how I am understanding.

[Stinger_UND]

i think Jim summed up Fighting Hawks perfectly months ago...

http://blog.siouxsports.com/2015/07/22/fighting-hawks/

The comments on that article have a post from Gridiron Labs. They said they worked this summer and have designs for a couple of the top 5 names. Did anyone ever see what they had created?

[mksioux]

While Dr. Kelley never should have changed the voting process after the vote took place, I could accept the instant runoff plan suggested by Tom Dennis of the Herald.  It's probably the best solution we can hope for at this point.  I assume Qualtrac could easily handle that on short notice, but someone can correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

  

 

[Blackheart]

Hey, let me know when they figure out which of the next 2 or 3 votes is the one that really counts and I'll make sure to cast my vote again.  

[ericpnelson]

While Dr. Kelley never should have changed the voting process after the vote took place, I could accept the instant runoff plan suggested by Tom Dennis of the Herald.  It's probably the best solution we can hope for at this point.  I assume Qualtrac could easily handle that on short notice, but someone can correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

  

 

idk... it's kinda Qualtrics job to make such a thing work...

it would require a hair of logic, as to not use the 2nd choice if the first choice is still available,but again... that's literally their job.

[TrueSioux2000]

All this nonsense has me feeling like Bill O'Reilly that one time

 

[UNDBIZ]

its pretty clear now and I guess it should have been earlier to everyone that Kelly and his wife want fighting hawks (which I gurantee you will be shortened to just hawks by Kelly and his wife) was he predetermined choice from the beginning....nodaks lost...fair and square....as much as some dislike RR it still beat nodaks...if we go thru this process and FH wins....Kelly and his wife win.

Hopefully if Fighting Hawks wins it is shortened to just Hawks. Then eventually it can take on a half decent name like Prairie Hawks or something. Fighting Hawks is just a garbage attempt to hold onto "Fighting."

[Cratter]

Prairie Hawks or something. 

Then we can switch it to a half decent name like Prairie Dogs.

Then maybe switch it back the Flickertails.

[Jeremy_und2004]

I sent my email; 

To: robert.kelley@UND.edu, peter.johnson@UND.edu
Subject: Nickname voting process. Few concerns/suggestions
 

Mr. Kelley and Mr. Johnson, 

First I would like to thank you for your time in reading this, and I would appreciate if you would give great thought to what I (and probably some others) feel about the nickname voting process.

The selection process in the beginning was fair. All names submitted by the public were given a chance before the committee (although when reading through the list it appeared some names were submitted without the Universities best interest in mind) and the elimination process was above and beyond fair and orderly. The best thing that occurred during this process was involvement of the public and the availability of the process to the public. All of the suggested names, even ones that were obscene, were made public to give the process credibility. After names were eliminated, a new list was made public and details of the elimination were made available. This process, although slow and redundant, showed everything that was involved in the process and left no room for inconsistencies. 

Fast forward to the final five nicknames. The process was clear. 5 names chosen, select members of the community decided upon as eligible voters, timeline of voting, and contingency plan if there is not a nickname receiving majority. I have no complaints of the process up until that point. Once again, the public was given all of the information of the process, and nothing was left up to guessing. 

Then the vote. Voter turnout seemed quite low, which I feel has nothing to do with the selection process but rather by individuals who do not want change or have no interest in participating. All five nicknames received a significant percentage, with none of them receiving a majority so as per process there will be a run off vote between the top two nicknames. The second and third place were extremely close, and it was decided that there will be a three nickname run off vote rather than two. 

I feel this has damaged the whole process and the credibility of everything that has been done up to this point in selection of a new nickname. I understand that it was done due to the close vote margin, but it gives the public an opportunity to have doubt in the process. What if one name received 50.01% of the votes and the margin between the first and second place was less than 100 votes? Would a nickname be finalized as per the agreed process, or would there be a run off? 

I feel that the process was initially in place to make sure that whichever name gets chosen, it will be chosen with a majority vote. If there was no majority in the first round, then the run off between the top two nicknames guarantees a majority. When you place three nicknames in a run off, you no longer have a guarantee that there will be a nickname receiving a majority. This ruins public opinion of the process, as a name could be chosen that did not receive a majority. How can you trust the public to support a nickname that does not receive a majority, and why should they? The public is already sceptical and hesitant to welcome a new nickname, and this does not help us move forward. 

Because of this, I suggest you strongly take the following suggestions to thought;

1) Eliminate the third place nickname. Whether you lose by an inch or a mile, you still lost. The process was set up for a two nickname run off. There will be a majority winner. The process will be completed next week. The University and the public can finally move forward. 

2) If the top three nicknames go to vote and if there is not a majority, then a two nickname run off must occur. There must be a nickname that receives a majority. If a nickname is chosen that only receives 36% of public votes, that nickname will have a tough time being accepted. 

I once again thank you for your time in reading this. I hope you give thought to my words. 

Sincerely, 

Born Grand Forks, ND and raised East Grand Forks, MN.

Bleed Green and White. UND Alumni. Class of 2006.  

 

[ForeverAndEverSioux]

I think President Kelley still has a chance to do the right thing (since the rules are always changing anyways)! Let the people vote to get to the top two nicknames, most likely Roughriders and Fighting Hawks. Then have a runoff vote that includes North Dakota (no nickname) as an option. I think this would bring back some credibility and more people would be happier with whatever the outcome was.

[Blackheart]

I think President Kelley still has a chance to do the right thing (since the rules are always changing anyways)! Let the people vote to get to the top two nicknames, most likely Roughriders and Fighting Hawks. Then have a runoff vote that includes North Dakota (no nickname) as an option. I think this would bring back some credibility and more people would be happier with whatever the outcome was.

He can do the right thing but I sincerely doubt he will...He's shown no inclination in the past so why would he start now?

[MafiaMan]

For those amongst us grumbling about logos, let's imagine for a moment that we're the University of Miami of the late 1970's (if I recall correctly) and we're re-branding our image...

 

 

...and we introduce the orange and green 'U' logo... 

 

 

 

...this board would laugh that right back to the drawing board as being the worst logo we'd ever seen.

 

 

That simple logo is never going anywhere. Regardless of the nickname, the LOGO is what can become iconic.

 

 

I'm willing to give each of these three remaining choices a chance.  

[iluvdebbies]

 

 

 

I'm willing to give each of these three remaining choices a chance.  

Didn't we already give Nodaks a chance?

[jdub27]

I think President Kelley still has a chance to do the right thing (since the rules are always changing anyways)! Let the people vote to get to the top two nicknames, most likely Roughriders and Fighting Hawks. Then have a runoff vote that includes North Dakota (no nickname) as an option. I think this would bring back some credibility and more people would be happier with whatever the outcome was.

I agreed with you until you got to part where somehow a nickname that was eliminated by the committee should get a bye straight into the finals?  Not sure how that makes any sense or adds credibility.

[GreenWing]

The gf herald poll is currently:

Fighting Hawks- 42.05% with 2117 votes 

Nodaks- 30.98% with 1560 votes

Roughriders- 26.97% with 1358 votes

[mksioux]

Whichever Hawks supporter had the idea to add Fighting to it was a genius.  I get the feeling that people would have voted for anything that had Fighting in it.  For example, if it were Hawks vs. Fighting Nodaks, I don't think Hawks would stand a chance.  It's really unfortunate that we're going to get stuck with a generic unoriginal nickname just because it has the word Fighting in front of it.  

It just goes to show that people really invested in this can come up with a 5-page dissertation on why they think a particular nickname should be chosen, but the average voter probably gives it about 5 seconds worth of thought. 

[Oxbow6]

Whichever Hawks supporter had the idea to add Fighting to it was a genius.  I get the feeling that people would have voted for anything that had Fighting in it.  For example, if it were Hawks vs. Fighting Nodaks, I don't think Hawks would stand a chance.  It's really unfortunate that we're going to get stuck with a generic unoriginal nickname just because it has the word Fighting in front of it.  

It just goes to show that people really invested in this can come up with a 5-page dissertation on why they think a particular nickname should be chosen, but the average voter probably gives it about 5 seconds worth of thought. 

Exactly........the fact that so many are pinning their vote on an ADJECTIVE is just another layer of insanity and embarrassment to this already certifiable circus!

[obborg]

Then we can switch it to a half decent name like Prairie Dogs.

Love it.

[tnt]

Whichever Hawks supporter had the idea to add Fighting to it was a genius.  I get the feeling that people would have voted for anything that had Fighting in it.  For example, if it were Hawks vs. Fighting Nodaks, I don't think Hawks would stand a chance.  It's really unfortunate that we're going to get stuck with a generic unoriginal nickname just because it has the word Fighting in front of it.  

It just goes to show that people really invested in this can come up with a 5-page dissertation on why they think a particular nickname should be chosen, but the average voter probably gives it about 5 seconds worth of thought. 

... and for this I blame the committee and the consultant for pushing things forward that had no basis if they would have adhered to their own criteria.  Don't give us the "unique, tied to the state, source of pride" crap if you have no intention of using that in your evaluation.  

[Fetch]

I don't know about Genius but above average for sure 

[CMSioux]

I've always wondered how it was determined that "FIghting Hawks" fit the original criteria that was laid out for the committee and how not one person on the committee ever asked that question. 

[fightingsioux4life]

I've always wondered how it was determined that "FIghting Hawks" fit the original criteria that was laid out for the committee and how not one person on the committee ever asked that question. 

Because when you are paying a consultant lots of money, you have to pretend that Fighting Hawks fits the original criteria so the expenditure can be justified.