petey23 Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 The only ones I've seen have been the Chicago Blackhawks logo transforming into the hawk logo we've all seen. The "logo by a und student" is the same logo with the feathers colored differently. Nice of the bison blogger to write up that article though. Dave Kolpack works for the associated press and is Jeff's older brother....By the way, Dave is a UND Grad. Quote
Teeder11 Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 The only ones I've seen have been the Chicago Blackhawks logo transforming into the hawk logo we've all seen. The "logo by a und student" is the same logo with the feathers colored differently. Nice of the bison blogger to write up that article though. you're probably thinking of Jeff Kolpack. Dave is Jeff's twin brother and works for the Associated Press. Dave is the smart one. He graduated from UND. Jeff didn't go to UND. ( : Quote
jdub27 Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Please tell me where I am wrong in thinking this? It all makes sense. Why else would President Kelley allow three names to advance when the rules clearly said only two names would advance? And that whole 112 vote margin excuse was just that....an excuse, a cover story. The only reason we are having a third vote (if needed) is that people voiced their outrage and there was too much of it to ignore. Please share with us what you think really happened if I am so wrong; you seem to think you have all the answers to everything anyway.Not just this particular thing, but you throw a lot of accusations of conspiracies around. Occam's razor has never applied. Kelley let three names advance because #2 and #3 were incredibly close. From his point of view, he thought that being more inclusive would help what has become an incredibly divisive process. I don't agree with him but I at least understand the point of view even if I think its wrong. If it was a conspiracy, are you also claiming the 116 vote margin was made-up as well? If that is the case, then you're accusing Qualtrics of being in on the whole thing as well, basically putting their reputation at stake. Or was it that once the vote totals were tallied and presented to UND, they decided to completely change course from putting the "fix" in for Sundogs to coming up with a completely new conspiracy of giving Fighting Hawks the leg up. The e-mails sent by people (myself included) expressing their frustration with the change helped them realize the importance of having a majority winner. They fixed a self-created mistake. 1 1 Quote
UNDBIZ Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Dave Kolpack works for the associated press and is Jeff's older brother....By the way, Dave is a UND Grad.you're probably thinking of Jeff Kolpack. Dave is Jeff's twin brother and works for the Associated Press. Dave is the smart one. He graduated from UND. Jeff didn't go to UND. ( :Oh shoot. My bad. Quote
tnt Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) So let me get this straight, the same consultant company that pushed Fighting Hawks is also going to design the logo? Is that the case? The pushers of the generic name so nobody is offended will somehow come up with a unique and exciting logo? How about that word getting out! Oh, but we the people picked the name, so it all looks so legitimate! Edited November 2, 2015 by tnt 1 Quote
Stinger_UND Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 I wonder what other logos hes referring to? I've only see "the one."I've also seen one that's only a little different from that blackhawks bird logo everyone has been seeing. It's green and more angular with the feathers from the Sioux logo in the same order. I just tried searching for 10 minutes to find it, but had no luck. I just saw it last week so it's driving me nuts I can't track it down again. Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Not just this particular thing, but you throw a lot of accusations of conspiracies or backroom dealing around. Occam's razor has never applied. Kelley let three names advance because #2 and #3 were incredibly close. From his point of view, he thought that being more inclusive would help what has become an incredibly divisive process. I don't agree with him but I at least understand the point of view even if I think its wrong. If it was a conspiracy, are you also claiming the 116 vote margin was made-up as well? If that is the case, then you're accusing Qualtrics of being in on the whole thing as well, basically putting their reputation at stake. Or was it that once the vote totals were tallied and presented to UND, they decided to completely change course from putting the "fix" in for Sundogs to coming up with a completely new conspiracy of giving Fighting Hawks the leg up. The e-mails sent by people (myself included) expressing their frustration with the change helped them realize the importance of having a majority winner. They fixed a self-created mistake.I never said anything about the 116 vote margin being "made up". I said it provides a convenient justification to allow three votes to advance instead of two. It is simply INEXCUSABLE to change the voting criteria after the fact. I don't care what Kelley's "point of view" is on this; you simply don't do that. I have zero sympathy for the President because when you change the rules in the middle of the game, you are just asking for speculation on why you did what you did. It adds to the distrust our fans and stakeholders have for this entire process since it started.And, for the record, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not a 9/11 "truther", I don't think the moon landing was staged in the desert and I don't think FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened. I do think the Warren Report on JFK's assassination is full of holes, but I am far from the only person in the world that believes that. But when something smells fishy, it probably is rotten fish that someone forgot to put in the fridge or freezer.You are WAY too trusting of "The Authorities" in almost every situation. And Kelley has earned nothing less than the total mistrust of the UND family with how this whole nickname selection process has been (mis)managed. If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck, then it probably IS a duck. Not a fistful of roses. Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 So let me get this straight, the same consultant company that pushed Fighting Hawks is also going to design the logo? Is that the case? The pushers of the generic name so nobody is offended will somehow come up with a unique and exciting logo? How about that word getting out! Oh, but we the people picked the name, so it all looks so legitimate!Careful, you'll be branded a conspiracy theorist by jdub27. Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Not just this particular thing, but you throw a lot of accusations of conspiracies around. Occam's razor has never applied. Kelley let three names advance because #2 and #3 were incredibly close. From his point of view, he thought that being more inclusive would help what has become an incredibly divisive process. I don't agree with him but I at least understand the point of view even if I think its wrong. If it was a conspiracy, are you also claiming the 116 vote margin was made-up as well? If that is the case, then you're accusing Qualtrics of being in on the whole thing as well, basically putting their reputation at stake. Or was it that once the vote totals were tallied and presented to UND, they decided to completely change course from putting the "fix" in for Sundogs to coming up with a completely new conspiracy of giving Fighting Hawks the leg up. The e-mails sent by people (myself included) expressing their frustration with the change helped them realize the importance of having a majority winner. They fixed a self-created mistake.And I forgot to add, they were going to eliminate the majority vote requirement in the 2nd round and allow the winner to be selected with a plurality (33%+1) of the vote. Why they ever thought that was a good idea, I'll never know. But it also fits into my theory that it would help Fighting Hawks win without having to beat out Roughriders or Nodaks one-on-one, which I have some doubts it could do. Quote
SWSiouxMN Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 I dont buy hawks winning. Seems to be a growing nodak voice amongst students today. Quote
Old Time Hockey Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Just curious, what kind of hawk is that? That's a rodent-killing (gopher) hawk....it could also be a harrier hawk, which ironically belongs to the Genus "circus". Edited November 2, 2015 by Old Time Hockey Quote
SiouxVolley Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Not just this particular thing, but you throw a lot of accusations of conspiracies around. Occam's razor has never applied. Kelley let three names advance because #2 and #3 were incredibly close. From his point of view, he thought that being more inclusive would help what has become an incredibly divisive process. I don't agree with him but I at least understand the point of view even if I think its wrong. If it was a conspiracy, are you also claiming the 116 vote margin was made-up as well? If that is the case, then you're accusing Qualtrics of being in on the whole thing as well, basically putting their reputation at stake. Or was it that once the vote totals were tallied and presented to UND, they decided to completely change course from putting the "fix" in for Sundogs to coming up with a completely new conspiracy of giving Fighting Hawks the leg up. The e-mails sent by people (myself included) expressing their frustration with the change helped them realize the importance of having a majority winner. They fixed a self-created mistake.Kelley changed the rules in the middle of the game. By not eliminating NoDaks, it almost assured Fighting Hawks the winner.That is unconscionable and appears to be pure politics, even though it might not be. In politics, there is nothing wrong with insinuating a belief. That is what was done here. If Kelly or the consultants are for Fighting Hawks as the least offensive name, the students and most alumni will be against it because they don't want to be for what Kelley wants. It's now a political campaign whether we like it or not. Obama is still running against Bush and Kelley has the Bush tag himself now. Quote
TrueSioux2000 Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 The Nodak mascot would be some rube, hick or yokel scratching his fat belly with a grin showing off his one remaining tooth. Isn't that Alabama's mascot? BOOM, ROASTED Or maybe I'm remembering it wrong. Perhaps it was the Ole Miss mascot. BOOM, ROASTED AGAIN. Ha ha ha I don't like the deep south is what I'm trying to say Quote
runaroundsioux Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Just curious, what kind of hawk is that? That my friend, is a Bad Ass hawk. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.