Students Spearhead Effort for Fighting Hawks Mascot

[DamStrait]

3 hours ago, UND1983 said:

You downvote way to f'n much.  

Infinitely preferable, I should think - for all involved - than for me to have responded to each of those posts with “you’re full of crap”.  

[darell1976]

12 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Wonder if there are fans in Marquette telling the Warriors Forever crowd to "get over it"?

http://host.madison.com/news/local/and-then-there-were-two-marquette-university-nickname-choices-are/article_bd40c864-ebfb-5e83-8c9f-b576eb56b522.html

 

Imagine that, they could have had an old nickname (Hilltoppers), but chose a “generic, overused, name Golden Eagles. UND could have had an old nickname (Nodaks) but chose a generic, overused name Fighting Hawks. Those bitching about the name had a chance to pick something else, but didn’t. The name is final, there is no going back, and the only thing that may change is the possibility of a secondary logo mimicking the mascot.

[DamStrait]

3 hours ago, ChrisUND1 said:

How much do you think this would cost?

Private donors would foot bill, I assume?

Who would get to choose the new name and logo?

I'll hang up and listen...

In order:

1.  Ultimately much, much less than keeping the current horsecrap one.

2.  Sure, why not start there.

3.  In a perfect world, me.  Let’s see...Fighting Scouts with a Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery theme.  Done!  I’ll even give in on the “Fighting”, just to show how reasonable I am.  

[DamStrait]

3 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Tough to put it all on the committee when students, faculty and staff (including retirees), alumni, donors and season ticket holders were the ones who actually picked it. Complain all you want that the committee (chaired by former hockey player Karl Goehring) failed by leaving it in the finalist group, but the blame lies on those that voted for picking it over Nodaks, North Stars, Roughriders and Sundogs. 

Looking at how the committee actually ranked the 7 original finalists using the criteria you mentioned, they preferred Roughriders (48 points) followed by Sundogs and North Stars (46 points), Nodaks (42), Fighting Hawks (41), Green Hawks (35) and no nickname (21).

The people that voted had two different chances to eliminate Fighting Hawks, when the list was narrowed from 5 to 3 and the final vote. Yet it came out on top both times. Again, the committee may have left it on there but it wasn't them that picked it.

I said UND, not the committee (which is/was a part of UND), but ultimately the responsibility and blame lies on the university president at the time.

[jdub27]

9 minutes ago, DamStrait said:

I said UND, not the committee (which is/was a part of UND), but ultimately the responsibility and blame lies on the university president at the time.

Did he rig the voting? People wanted a voice, so they were given input. No one forced the stakeholders to compound and then finalize something that you can claim as a mistake the committee made. They were tasked with coming up with a new nickname and gave people 5 options and the vote of the stakeholders is why we are where we are. This blaming the President or the committee is a complete cop-out. The stakeholders picked Fighting Hawks as their top choice twice.

[stoneySIOUX]

18 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

http://host.madison.com/news/local/and-then-there-were-two-marquette-university-nickname-choices-are/article_bd40c864-ebfb-5e83-8c9f-b576eb56b522.html

 

Imagine that, they could have had an old nickname (Hilltoppers), but chose a “generic, overused, name Golden Eagles. UND could have had an old nickname (Nodaks) but chose a generic, overused name Fighting Hawks. Those bitching about the name had a chance to pick something else, but didn’t. The name is final, there is no going back, and the only thing that may change is the possibility of a secondary logo mimicking the mascot.

But I wonder if there are fans in Marquette telling the Warriors Forever crowd to "get over it"?

[iramurphy]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 10:39 PM, Frozen4sioux said:

Funding is coming from the Alumni Association and Foundation, which does provide scholorships to students including student athletes correct??....

So my point is correct, instead of supporting a student academically.....

funds are being used to buy a $35,000 halloween costume.  

Private funding means that people have indicated the willingness for their money to go for a specific project in this case the mascot project.  The donations may be flowing through the Alumni Assn. but I don't believe they are coming from the Associations non-designated funds.   I believe it was similar when a number of  people donated to the fund to fight the legal battle to keep the Fighting Sioux name. Why should we care what others wish to do with their money?  I could care less about the mascot.  I don't care that much about the logo and name either.  It changed....  who the hell cares?  I do care that we support our teams, athletes and coaches.  We need a brand and someone else decided it should be the Fighting Hawks with the present logo.  I have trouble understanding why people make it so much more than it is.  Our resources are better spent on coaches salaries, facilities, scholarships, uniforms, and the programs.  It is none of my business if someone wants to spend money on the mascot.  They aren't doing it to hurt something, they are doing it cuz they think it is something to help the University.

[Siouxphan27]

1 hour ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Wonder if there are fans in Marquette telling the Warriors Forever crowd to "get over it"?

I'm guessing there's two or three on their message board who keep telling others to get over it over and over and over and over again. 

[darell1976]

1 hour ago, stoneySIOUX said:

But I wonder if there are fans in Marquette telling the Warriors Forever crowd to "get over it"?

There probably is, but it doesn't matter because if they went back to Warriors the NCAA would force them to change it or make Warriors non Indian associated like the NBA's Golden State Warriors. 

[UND1983]

37 minutes ago, Siouxphan27 said:

I'm guessing there's two or three on their message board who keep telling others to get over it over and over and over and over again. 

More than two or three, I'm guessing.

[CarpeRemote]

48 minutes ago, iramurphy said:

Private funding means that people have indicated the willingness for their money to go for a specific project in this case the mascot project.  The donations may be flowing through the Alumni Assn. but I don't believe they are coming from the Associations non-designated funds.   I believe it was similar when a number of  people donated to the fund to fight the legal battle to keep the Fighting Sioux name. Why should we care what others wish to do with their money?  I could care less about the mascot.  I don't care that much about the logo and name either.  It changed....  who the hell cares?  I do care that we support our teams, athletes and coaches.  We need a brand and someone else decided it should be the Fighting Hawks with the present logo.  I have trouble understanding why people make it so much more than it is.  Our resources are better spent on coaches salaries, facilities, scholarships, uniforms, and the programs.  It is none of my business if someone wants to spend money on the mascot.  They aren't doing it to hurt something, they are doing it cuz they think it is something to help the University.

Please don’t mess this topic up with a cogent argument.

But thank you anyway. 

[SWSiouxMN]

1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

Did he rig the voting? People wanted a voice, so they were given input. No one forced the stakeholders to compound and then finalize something that you can claim as a mistake the committee made. They were tasked with coming up with a new nickname and gave people 5 options and the vote of the stakeholders is why we are where we are. This blaming the President or the committee is a complete cop-out. The stakeholders picked Fighting Hawks as their top choice twice.

Was it rigged? No. 

Now the whole adding Nodaks because it finished .1% behind the top 2 after the first round(when it was drummed in our heads that the top 2, and only the top 2, advanced) didn’t help matters. It didn’t change anything in the end but it wasn’t a good look.

Now imagine had that name won.....

[90siouxfan]

Quite the thread....

 

Ever wonder if all the "nickname drama" for the most part basically exists on this board and it's members?

 

Ever wonder what happens if the NCAA is dethroned?

 

Carry on.

[Oxbow6]

8 hours ago, UND1983 said:

What do you want it to look like?

Not like the big steaming pile of **** it currently is right now. That would be a good start...........

[darell1976]

26 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Not like the big steaming pile of **** it currently is right now. That would be a good start...........

Then what should it look like, just like UND 1983 said. You say it’s !@#$ but offer no alternative.

[petey23]

9%

[Hayduke]

They all look the same to me.  I hope it goes over well with the kids going to UND sporting events.  It'll help them become lifelong UND fans.  

 

The world won't end if we get this mascot. 

[darell1976]

24 minutes ago, Hayduke said:

They all look the same to me.  I hope it goes over well with the kids going to UND sporting events.  It'll help them become lifelong UND fans.  

 

The world won't end if we get this mascot. 

Bingo. Mascots are geared towards kids. Especially little ones who can’t sit still or get bored really quickly. I see a mascot at FM Redhawk games and Timberwolves games get mobed by little kids and the kids walk away with a huge smile on their face. Isn’t that what it’s all about....making fans especially kids happy.

[DamStrait]

13 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Did he rig the voting? People wanted a voice, so they were given input. No one forced the stakeholders to compound and then finalize something that you can claim as a mistake the committee made. They were tasked with coming up with a new nickname and gave people 5 options and the vote of the stakeholders is why we are where we are. This blaming the President or the committee is a complete cop-out. The stakeholders picked Fighting Hawks as their top choice twice.

Yes, there was a complete cop-out - by the university president at the time (a feckless putz if ever there was one) - it was incumbent upon him to point out to the committee that none of the names under consideration met the criteria they had established, and demand that it be rectified.  The party that decided that the modifier "Fighting" was to precede Hawks and only Hawks deserves a significant portion of the culpability as well.

[Siouxperfan7]

[darell1976]

5 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Good, give it a name and reviel it at the Potato Bowl.

[UND1981]

21 hours ago, UND1981 said:

1 minute ago, darell1976 said:

Good, give it a name and reviel it at the Potato Bowl.

And 2 tomahawks to slay a bison, yote or jackrabbit!

 

 

 

[UND1983]

11 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Is that Z?  

[darell1976]

2 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Is that Z?  

Looks like it 

[tnt]

1 hour ago, DamStrait said:

Yes, there was a complete cop-out - by the university president at the time (a feckless putz if ever there was one) - it was incumbent upon him to point out to the committee that none of the names under consideration met the criteria they had established, and demand that it be rectified.  The party that decided that the modifier "Fighting" was to precede Hawks and only Hawks deserves a significant portion of the culpability as well.

I agree.   The biggest problem I had with the whole thing was that I was certain that the writer that told us our nickname was going to be a bird or a color or combination of the two well ahead of this whole process was going to be wrong based on the criteria set.  Turns out he called it perfectly because they totally ignored that criteria.