Drop Fighting Hawks name

[SWSiouxMN]

8 minutes ago, Teeder11 said:

Let's face it, the 82,000 figure was a best guess at best by the Alumni Association to come up with the potential number of stakeholder voters that might be out there. The vast majority of this 82,000-stakeholder figure would comprise alumni or anyone who has passed through the university and snatched a degree in the process (I don't think they went with the more loosely determined definition of alumni, which is anyone who matriculated to UND whether they graduated or not).  So I am excluding all non-alumni staff, non-alum faculty, non-alum donors and non-alum season ticket holders as making up the vast majority of the rest of this fabled 82,000 figure.

We know we had about 27,000-some who did vote, which leaves about 55,000 stakeholders out there who chose not to for whatever reason.

It is my contention that the vast majority of this "disgruntled" 55,000 is not disgruntled at all. Instead it is the thousands upon thousands of UND alumni, who, during their time at UND did not once think about UND athletics, did not once darken the doors of the old Ralph, the new Ralph, the old Winter Sports Center, Hyslop, the Betty, etc. They are the grad students from Timbuktu who came here to get a degree and go home. They are the philosophy majors who spent more time at the Chest Fritz Library studying then they did anywhere else on campus. They are the music majors who only ventured inside the Ralph to sing the national anthem and then left right away to do whatever else college students do who are not interested in sports. They are the drama students who knew Burtness Theatre like the back of their hand but couldn't identify Hyslop for the life of them. Bottomline, they are the ones who never would have voted anyway, the ones who haven't thought about UND since they moved away 5,10, 15, 20, 25, etc. years ago. 

I get it, sports is popular, and it's a big thing on the UND campus, I can attest to that.  I am as big a UND fan as there comes. But you will never get me to believe that much of those lost 55,000-strong group of non-voters didn't vote because they were pissed about the options or the process. Most of them simply were not going to vote no matter what the options were or process was.

 There were some who didn't do it because they were angry, I know, but my hunch is that it is a much smaller portion of the 55,000 than some on here and many in the media think/say it is.  

I wonder if we ever will get the breakdown on which stakeholders did vote. 

[Teeder11]

Just now, SWSiouxMN said:

I wonder if we ever will get the breakdown on which stakeholders did vote. 

I would love to see it. I would gladly eat crow if my hunch is proven incorrect. But with no data, I fear we'll never know.

[The Sicatoka]

8 minutes ago, SWSiouxMN said:

I wonder if we ever will get the breakdown on which stakeholders did vote. 

Then comes the next issue: If they have the raw vote data, how do you categorize folks? 

Current students? Sure, easy. 

But what about me? Alumnus. Donor. Season ticket holder. (Then imagine if I was staff/faculty also.) 

[Oxbow6]

8 minutes ago, Teeder11 said:

I would love to see it. I would gladly eat crow if my hunch is proven incorrect. But with no data, I fear we'll never know.

From what you, and others here, have seen of Kelley you think that info will ever be made public?

 

I'll set the over/under at 1% chance we see that info/data........and I'll bet the under.

[SWSiouxMN]

4 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Then comes the next issue: If they have the raw vote data, how do you categorize folks? 

Current students? Sure, easy. 

But what about me? Alumnus. Donor. Season ticket holder. (Then imagine if I was staff/faculty also.) 

I'd would think it would be a simple process. Set an order of priority, for example

Alums

Donors

Ticket Holders

Staff/Faculty 

If you aren't an alum, but you are a donor you go there.  and so on.  We can haggle on the details

despite my wishful thinking of the breakdown being made public, I don't think it will see the light of day.

 

[jdub27]

14 minutes ago, SWSiouxMN said:

despite my wishful thinking of the breakdown being made public, I don't think it will see the light of day.

I'm as curious as everyone else but is anyone even sure that the data exists? Or was everyone put into one big list and the individual links were sent out, making sure everything stayed anonymous?

[UND-FB-FAN]

17 hours ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

No one is saying don't support the university or the teams, however this New nickname is just branding at this point and if the new brand name fails to catch on the university could change it completely through another nickname selection that is less emotionally charged because it is a name that no-one will have a strong attachment too. Keep in mind that the Fighting Sioux was the University's second nickname and the the previous nickname "flicker-tails" was changed with little to no opposition. Of course at that time their was less money tied into college sports, however that could actually speed up the changing of a nickname. With a nickname and logo its all about selling merchandise , if people don't buy items with the new logo or name then the university will either look to change the nickname or just not use it as much. Look at the teams in the big ten conference, very few use their logo, most just have a monogram. If the fighting hawks gear fails to sell the university will have to take action to ensure that they are maximizing profit on merchandise sales, that means more "North Dakota", and less "Fighting Hawks". The only way the university comes out of this and keeps fighting hawks is if they figure out a way to make a generic name into an incredibly unique logo, I am not going to hold my breath for that.

Also, I have some thoughts concerning your "Get over it" argument, anything that has been around for seventy years and enjoyed mostly support from the stakeholder community isn't going to die quietly. People aren't going to just get over it, especially after the way that the old nickname was taken away and the way the the new nickname was "selected". People are going to feel sore about this for quite awhile and the whole "Get over it and move on!" attitude only serves to anger the people who are not on board and retrench them towards not accepting new nickname. Also it makes you look like an elitist jerk. So if you really want people to "get over it and move on" your probably better letting them vent their anger rather than trying to talk down to them like you are some how more enlightened because your ready to accept the new nickname. Just a thought, take it or leave it.

Your posted thoughts are based entirely on hypotheticals. Yes, of course the nickname is a branding move, but how do you know it won't sell? Wait until the identity and logo development process is at least finished before you come to that conclusion. Secondly, give the student-athletes and coaches a chance to play under the new nickname. University of North Dakota athletics consists of more students-athletes than just those within certian entitled programs that believe it's their God-given right to use the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. For example, Bubba and the football program are embracing the new identity, just as I would expect any innovative establishment would. They have used terms such as "another one lands in the nest" or "come fly with the Hawks" in recruiting, and the student-athletes (who I can't emphasize enough have a voice in this thing) embrace this. Lastly, if fans can give the identification/logo process a chance to work itself out and then watch those aforementioned student-athletes accomplish never before seen success in DI athletics for UND under that new brand, I do believe the new nickname will "catch on". Again, just offering the "what if the gear doesn't sell" argument produces no viable solutions whatsoever and it's an ignorant, complacent stance that I will not stand for.

The "Fighting Sioux" nickname has a great history and tradition; however, it does not take priority over the university and the student-athletes. I for one will do my best to promote this transition to a new identity, because supporting the alternative is nothing more than stagnant procrastination. People can grieve over this "loss", but there's no reason to discuss restarting the process. That would send a message that redundancy supersedes innovation, and I do not agree with that, nor does The University of North Dakota.

 

[jdub27]

I'll echo I love the attitude the football staff has about the situation and made the best of it by embracing the new name. It's almost as if they are a little relieved now that other teams can't throw around rumors about conference affiliations and sanctions, regardless of how far out there and unbelievable those rumors may have been.

[obborg]

16 hours ago, SWSiouxMN said:

I'd would think it would be a simple process.

Around here, the words "simple" and "process" don't belong in the same sentence.

[LuvHockey]

How about "You must be simple if you think this would be an easy process".

[darell1976]

I think if Bennett Brien designs a great logo like he did the Fighting Sioux marketing will take off. How much marketing could be done with just North Dakota, and the interlocking ND logo, not much but they did their best, now you have an actual nickname and soon an actual logo, let the gear and $$$$ start flowing again.

[Goon]

21 hours ago, Teeder11 said:

Let's face it, the 82,000 figure was a best guess at best by the Alumni Association to come up with the potential number of stakeholder voters that might be out there. The vast majority of this 82,000-stakeholder figure would comprise alumni or anyone who has passed through the university and snatched a degree in the process (I don't think they went with the more loosely determined definition of alumni, which is anyone who matriculated to UND whether they graduated or not).  So I am excluding all non-alumni staff, non-alum faculty, non-alum donors and non-alum season ticket holders as making up the vast majority of the rest of this fabled 82,000 figure.

We know we had about 27,000-some who did vote, which leaves about 55,000 stakeholders out there who chose not to for whatever reason.

It is my contention that the vast majority of this "disgruntled" 55,000 is not disgruntled at all. Instead it is the thousands upon thousands of UND alumni, who, during their time at UND did not once think about UND athletics, did not once darken the doors of the old Ralph, the new Ralph, the old Winter Sports Center, Hyslop, the Betty, etc. They are the grad students from Timbuktu who came here to get a degree and go home. They are the philosophy majors who spent more time at the Chest Fritz Library studying then they did anywhere else on campus. They are the music majors who only ventured inside the Ralph to sing the national anthem and then left right away to do whatever else college students do who are not interested in sports. They are the drama students who knew Burtness Theatre like the back of their hand but couldn't identify Hyslop for the life of them. Bottomline, they are the ones who never would have voted anyway, the ones who haven't thought about UND since they moved away 5,10, 15, 20, 25, etc. years ago. 

I get it, sports is popular, and it's a big thing on the UND campus, I can attest to that.  I am as big a UND fan as there comes. But you will never get me to believe that much of those lost 55,000-strong group of non-voters didn't vote because they were pissed about the options or the process. Most of them simply were not going to vote no matter what the options were or process was.

 There were some who didn't do it because they were angry, I know, but my hunch is that it is a much smaller portion of the 55,000 than some on here and many in the media think/say it is.  

3

Well said Teeder11, my wife is one of these people. I couldn't get her interested in the nickname vote. She's been to hockey games, she even played in the band at the old Ralph. She told me, it's just a nickname and that she could care less what their nickname is.

[UNDBIZ]

20 minutes ago, Goon said:

Well said Teeder11, my wife is one of these people. I couldn't get her interested in the nickname vote. She's been to hockey games, she even played in the band at the old Ralph. She told me, it's just a nickname and that she could care less what their nickname is.

My grandparents, parents, and several extended family members are all season ticket holders for fball, m&w bball, and hockey.  Most of them are alumni as well.  None cared enough about the nickname to vote.  They all liked the Sioux nickname, but their lack of voting in the process was out of disinterest rather than spite.  When I talked to them about it, all said they were ready for a new name and most preferred Roughriders to Hawks and Nodaks, but apparently it wasn't important enough for them to open an email, click a link, click a name, and click submit.

[Teeder11]

32 minutes ago, Goon said:

Well said Teeder11, my wife is one of these people. I couldn't get her interested in the nickname vote. She's been to hockey games, she even played in the band at the old Ralph. She told me, it's just a nickname and that she could care less what their nickname is.

Thanks, Goon!  Not saying I'm correct, just a strong hunch. I was getting a little tired of people (some on here, mostly on Facebook and some blogs) throwing out as absolute fact that the reason most of the 55,000 didn't vote was that they were ticked off at the way things went down and that their non-vote was instead a sort-of vote of protest, if you will. Again, I am sure that did happen, but not to the degree that some would argue. There's just too many alums who have passed through UND who couldn't care less. Or, there are the thousands of folks like my retirement-age mom who who loves UND athletics, but lives in the middle of Nowhere'sville, North Dakota or wherever, with no computer or Internet access, and very little ambition to vote. She's anything but PO'd about the whole thing.

[82SiouxGuy]

19 minutes ago, Teeder11 said:

Thanks, Goon!  Not saying I'm correct, just a strong hunch. I was getting a little tired of people (some on here, mostly on Facebook and some blogs) throwing out as absolute fact that the reason most of the 55,000 didn't vote was that they were ticked off at the way things went down and that their non-vote was instead a sort-of vote of protest, if you will. Again, I am sure that did happen, but not to the degree that some would argue. There's just too many alums who have passed through UND who couldn't care less. Or, there are the thousands of folks like my retirement-age mom who who loves UND athletics, but lives in the middle of Nowhere'sville, North Dakota or wherever, with no computer or Internet access, and very little ambition to vote. She's anything but PO'd about the whole thing.

I know a lot of UND alumni that had no interest at all in the nickname issue. Some of them aren't interested in sports. Some are casual sports fans, so it wasn't very important to them. And some are more interested in sports, but really just wanted the issue to be done. I believe that you're right, most of the people that didn't vote just didn't care enough about the issue, the group that didn't vote as a protest is more than likely a minority.

[ArchyAlum11]

13 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

Your posted thoughts are based entirely on hypotheticals. Yes, of course the nickname is a branding move, but how do you know it won't sell? Wait until the identity and logo development process is at least finished before you come to that conclusion. Secondly, give the student-athletes and coaches a chance to play under the new nickname. University of North Dakota athletics consists of more students-athletes than just those within certian entitled programs that believe it's their God-given right to use the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. For example, Bubba and the football program are embracing the new identity, just as I would expect any innovative establishment would. They have used terms such as "another one lands in the nest" or "come fly with the Hawks" in recruiting, and the student-athletes (who I can't emphasize enough have a voice in this thing) embrace this. Lastly, if fans can give the identification/logo process a chance to work itself out and then watch those aforementioned student-athletes accomplish never before seen success in DI athletics for UND under that new brand, I do believe the new nickname will "catch on". Again, just offering the "what if the gear doesn't sell" argument produces no viable solutions whatsoever and it's an ignorant, complacent stance that I will not stand for.

The "Fighting Sioux" nickname has a great history and tradition; however, it does not take priority over the university and the student-athletes. I for one will do my best to promote this transition to a new identity, because supporting the alternative is nothing more than stagnant procrastination. People can grieve over this "loss", but there's no reason to discuss restarting the process. That would send a message that redundancy supersedes innovation, and I do not agree with that, nor does The University of North Dakota. As I pointed out many college sports teams have a logo that dosen't refernce their nickname in any way. Goldy gopher is on U of M football helments, Ole Miss helments don't have

 

I think most people, myself included, have accepted that fact the Fighting Sioux nickname is gone and not coming back in any official capacity. As far as your assertion that the new nickname will "catch on" that remains to be seen. At this point the new nickname is just a branding concept, the university athletic department would be operating at the same level with or without it. Student athletes choose to go to UND based on the quality of the program and how much play time the feel they will get, in addition to academics because unless your going to play hockey you probably won't be going to the pro's after college. Well okay i take that back I know that a good number of UND players have gone on to play in the CFL. The point is that the use of "another one lands in the nest" or "come fly with the Hawks" in recruiting has zero impact, if anything it sounds like something out of an middle school sports brochure. You sound like an administration drone throughout most of your post by the way. "That would send a message that redundancy supersedes innovation, and I do not agree with that, nor does The University of North Dakota." What gives you the authority to speak for the University of North Dakota? You are just a fan, I am just an alum,that's it. "just offering the "what if the gear doesn't sell" argument produces no viable solutions whatsoever and it's an ignorant, complacent stance that I will not stand for." First off, no one really cares what you will or won't stand for just as I doubt anyone really cares about my predictions, also I'm just pointing out the very real possibility that as a marketing property that fighting hawks may be a dud. As I pointed out many college sports teams have a logo that doesn't reference their nickname in any way. Goldy gopher is not on U of M football helmets, Ole Miss helmets don't have a rebel on them, so is it so hard to believe that UND might end up going a similar route. I might be very pessimistic about the new nickname, but you just come off as desperate for everyone to like it.

[jdub27]

12 hours ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

At this point the new nickname is just a branding concept, the university athletic department would be operating at the same level with or without it. Student athletes choose to go to UND based on the quality of the program and how much play time the feel they will get, in addition to academics

The same argument can be made for any nickname, including UND's former one, yet there are people that can't seem to let that go.

[obborg]

22 hours ago, LuvHockey said:

How about "You must be simple if you think this would be an easy process".

Touche'.

[The Sicatoka]

OK, F'n Hawks made me smile one way today.

I looked to the southeast (where I'm at) and I saw these rainbow-ish things on either side of the sun. 

At least it's not Sundogs. 

[UND-FB-FAN]

14 hours ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

I think most people, myself included, have accepted that fact the Fighting Sioux nickname is gone and not coming back in any official capacity. As far as your assertion that the new nickname will "catch on" that remains to be seen. At this point the new nickname is just a branding concept, the university athletic department would be operating at the same level with or without it. Student athletes choose to go to UND based on the quality of the program and how much play time the feel they will get, in addition to academics because unless your going to play hockey you probably won't be going to the pro's after college. Well okay i take that back I know that a good number of UND players have gone on to play in the CFL. The point is that the use of "another one lands in the nest" or "come fly with the Hawks" in recruiting has zero impact, if anything it sounds like something out of an middle school sports brochure. You sound like an administration drone throughout most of your post by the way. "That would send a message that redundancy supersedes innovation, and I do not agree with that, nor does The University of North Dakota." What gives you the authority to speak for the University of North Dakota? You are just a fan, I am just an alum,that's it. "just offering the "what if the gear doesn't sell" argument produces no viable solutions whatsoever and it's an ignorant, complacent stance that I will not stand for." First off, no one really cares what you will or won't stand for just as I doubt anyone really cares about my predictions, also I'm just pointing out the very real possibility that as a marketing property that fighting hawks may be a dud. As I pointed out many college sports teams have a logo that doesn't reference their nickname in any way. Goldy gopher is not on U of M football helmets, Ole Miss helmets don't have a rebel on them, so is it so hard to believe that UND might end up going a similar route. I might be very pessimistic about the new nickname, but you just come off as desperate for everyone to like it.

There really is no choice but for the new nickname to "catch on". It may take several years, but it will happen. I won't fail to mention that the new nickname does not require complete riddance of "Fighting Sioux" in terms of its role and tradition; however, the new nickname does require some level of embrace. 

As for the notion that the University will be operating at the same level with or without the nickname, I do not agree with you. Several UND employees I have spoken to have reaffirmed the idea that continuing with no nickname would be detrimental. Why? Because the ideology that the state of North Dakota and UND do not need a nickname relative to every other university (including the Big Ten schools you continue mentioning) is distracting and, quite frankly, embarrassing. It took attention away from what the student-athletes were accomplishing and that is not something I can just ignore for the sake of political dialogue and intrigue.  

Your criticism of UND football's recruiting slogans are far more reflective of middle school literacy than the actual sayings themselves. How do you know they are having zero impact in recruiting? Again, quite the assumption on your part. I commend Bubba and the football program for embracing the nickname situation, rather than implying denunciation. 

Lastly, without getting into a credential battle, I am not just a fan, if that's the terminology you wish you use. I am an alumnus of the University of North Dakota (2 degrees), a season ticket holder in both football and hockey, and a lifelong UND supporter. Of course I do not speak directly for UND, as my opinions are my own, but is there something wrong with having thoughts that align with those of UND's administration? In some instances, bureaucratic stances are necessary. 

You may call me desperate, but as you stated, your opinions and predictions- as well as mine - are ultimately powerless. Nevertheless, if I can voice just a single unit of contribution towards advocacy over despair, then I will do it. I do not believe pessimism will carry UND athletics forward, so I do not regret voicing my opinion for the promotion of a positive nickname transition. My bottom line is that it is way too premature to denounce UND's efforts without at least allowing the logo development process and subsequent marketing campaign to occur. 

[The Sicatoka]

14 hours ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

The point is that the use of "another one lands in the nest" or "come fly with the Hawks" in recruiting has zero impact, if anything it sounds like something out of an middle school sports brochure. 

"Run with The Herd?" ... Anyone? 

I understand the middle school comment.

But allow me to ask: Are we sure that's not what today's (here it comes) kids are looking for? 

[UND-FB-FAN]

4 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

"Run with The Herd?" ... Anyone? 

I understand the middle school comment.

But allow me to ask: Are we sure that's not what today's (here it comes) kids are looking for? 

We've got a winner.

Universities do not need elaborate slogans to attract recruits and/or supporters, they just need something that "sticks" and promotes pride.

Pride does not cost years worth of logo history or political unrest, but rather it only requires a certain level of commitment and belief. Holding out hope that UND will do well with the new nickname is not childish, but rather both prideful and novel at the same time. 

[ArchyAlum11]

2 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

We've got a winner.

Universities do not need elaborate slogans to attract recruits and/or supporters, they just need something that "sticks" and promotes pride.

Pride does not cost years worth of logo history or political unrest, but rather it only requires a certain level of commitment and belief. Holding out hope that UND will do well with the new nickname is not childish, but rather both prideful and novel at the same time. 

And how do you make a Hawk novel or unique? Its used by so many other teams, btw I sure Dickinson State was really thrilled when Hawks made the list. I seriously doubt that they will use any of the popular designs that include feathers. The administration won't want anything that hearkens back to the old logo, they don't want more protests or bad press. I have only seen two decent ideas floating around thus far.

[The Sicatoka]

Those are about as good as this:

If you aren't sure what that is, here's your hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZDK_LG9DuU

 

[darell1976]

21 hours ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

I think most people, myself included, have accepted that fact the Fighting Sioux nickname is gone and not coming back in any official capacity. As far as your assertion that the new nickname will "catch on" that remains to be seen. At this point the new nickname is just a branding concept, the university athletic department would be operating at the same level with or without it. Student athletes choose to go to UND based on the quality of the program and how much play time the feel they will get, in addition to academics because unless your going to play hockey you probably won't be going to the pro's after college. Well okay i take that back I know that a good number of UND players have gone on to play in the CFL. The point is that the use of "another one lands in the nest" or "come fly with the Hawks" in recruiting has zero impact, if anything it sounds like something out of an middle school sports brochure. You sound like an administration drone throughout most of your post by the way. "That would send a message that redundancy supersedes innovation, and I do not agree with that, nor does The University of North Dakota." What gives you the authority to speak for the University of North Dakota? You are just a fan, I am just an alum,that's it. "just offering the "what if the gear doesn't sell" argument produces no viable solutions whatsoever and it's an ignorant, complacent stance that I will not stand for." First off, no one really cares what you will or won't stand for just as I doubt anyone really cares about my predictions, also I'm just pointing out the very real possibility that as a marketing property that fighting hawks may be a dud. As I pointed out many college sports teams have a logo that doesn't reference their nickname in any way. Goldy gopher is not on U of M football helmets, Ole Miss helmets don't have a rebel on them, so is it so hard to believe that UND might end up going a similar route. I might be very pessimistic about the new nickname, but you just come off as desperate for everyone to like it.

Just ask people in Grand Forks if Knights have caught on at Central, or Devils Lake or Wahpeton. It will take time but eventually it will grow on people, and you will start to see Fighting Hawks gear more and more at the Alerus and the Betty and eventually the Ralph when a logo is picked and if they have new Fighting Hawk hockey jerseys. "Come fly with the Hawks" is a good catch phrase and I hope it stays.