Siouxperfan7 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 LEt's pretend for a second that having no nickname is NOT and option. Let's pretend that going as just "North Dakota" is not something that people will be able to vote for. Someone tell me a better nickname for UND as of right now than Roughriders? Anyone...anyone?!!! 1 1 Quote
dagies Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I'm talking more about the consultants....the people who typically cost big bucks with little results. I work in the banking industry and we have to use consultants all the time. They are hit or miss. They come in preaching the world but when you look back at their body of work it is usually average at best. I get it, but I think this is a case of "covering all bases" or even "covering your ass". I think the idea was to try and develop a process where people felt there were many inputs (people involved) into the process, and a professional (consultant, like it or not) involved to provide advice so that the end result wouldn't appear to have been dictated or railroaded by 1 person, and that there was some knowledge and experience involved in the decision making process. We can decide if we think this was a correct or valuable process and I'm not going to take a very strong stand one way or the other, but I think it was a good try, and I think that this process was a lot more difficult for the committee than we think from our view on the "outside". I think there are good people with the best of intentions who are trying their best involved. I may not be very pleased with MOST of the final options, but fortunately there is still a chance of a suitable outcome (IMO) and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. 3 Quote
dmksioux Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I get it, but I think this is a case of "covering all bases" or even "covering your ass". I think the idea was to try and develop a process where people felt there were many inputs (people involved) into the process, and a professional (consultant, like it or not) involved to provide advice so that the end result wouldn't appear to have been dictated or railroaded by 1 person, and that there was some knowledge and experience involved in the decision making process. We can decide if we think this was a correct or valuable process and I'm not going to take a very strong stand one way or the other, but I think it was a good try, and I think that this process was a lot more difficult for the committee than we think from our view on the "outside". I think there are good people with the best of intentions who are trying their best involved. I may not be very pleased with MOST of the final options, but fortunately there is still a chance of a suitable outcome (IMO) and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Agreed. I will reserve judgement until I see what the final results are. There is clearly a front runner at this point. If that front runner isn't one of the final three options, then I think criticism is warranted. And I'm not talking about "no nickname" as I don't think that's I viable option. Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Didn't no nickname or "North Dakota" get the least number of points in the last round? Not sure how the current 7th place name can make it to the top 3!! If it makes it to the final 3, then there is a problem. Quote
scpa0305 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I get it, but I think this is a case of "covering all bases" or even "covering your ass". I think the idea was to try and develop a process where people felt there were many inputs (people involved) into the process, and a professional (consultant, like it or not) involved to provide advice so that the end result wouldn't appear to have been dictated or railroaded by 1 person, and that there was some knowledge and experience involved in the decision making process. We can decide if we think this was a correct or valuable process and I'm not going to take a very strong stand one way or the other, but I think it was a good try, and I think that this process was a lot more difficult for the committee than we think from our view on the "outside". I think there are good people with the best of intentions who are trying their best involved. I may not be very pleased with MOST of the final options, but fortunately there is still a chance of a suitable outcome (IMO) and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Sure, but to many on this site it is already Rough Riders or no dice right? If anyone says anything else but Rough Riders they get mocked. I guess where I'm coming from is that the collective listing of nicknames is so bad the masses are almost forced to choose Rough Riders. It is our state motto but it is already used. By hiring consultants (and I would still like to know the $), I would have thought there would be 4-5 finalists we are all fighting over. There really isn't, there are like 2-3 and that fight is not a good one. We are settling. Some people have said all the good nicknames are taken, or you should come up with a better name. If the university has spent top $ on a consulting firm there should be, at the very least, 4-5 names that sound pretty decent. That is not the case. Of those final 15 and even the final 7, many of the nicknames are borderline awful. Quote
dmksioux Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Sure, but to many on this site it is already Rough Riders or no dice right? If anyone says anything else but Rough Riders they get mocked. I guess where I'm coming from is that the collective listing of nicknames is so bad the masses are almost forced to choose Rough Riders. It is our state motto but it is already used. By hiring consultants (and I would still like to know the $), I would have thought there would be 4-5 finalists we are all fighting over. There really isn't, there are like 2-3 and that fight is not a good one. We are settling. Some people have said all the good nicknames are taken, or you should come up with a better name. If the university has spent top $ on a consulting firm there should be, at the very least, 4-5 names that sound pretty decent. That is not the case. Of those final 15 and even the final 7, many of the nicknames are borderline awful.. The more good choices the more of a split in the masses, and ultimately less people happy with the end result. This whole process was for people to buy into one or two names tops so there is more acceptance. If the final vote was split four ways, (ie 30%, 26%, 24%, 20%) you would have 70% unhappy with result. One or two options means you have close to 50% or more that are happy with the end result. Might not seem like a good process now, but I believe it is being done the right way, and that is to build consensus around one maybe two names...right now that is happening with Roughriders. Edit: I should also say I will wait until the end to see what is selected. At this point in the process, if it's anything besides roughriders, I will be a bit disappointed. 1 Quote
Irish Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I absolutely hate the Roughriders - but I hate it slightly less than I hate the rest of the crap list known as the Final 7. 2 Quote
Oxbow6 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I absolutely hate the Roughriders - but I hate it slightly less than I hate the rest of the crap list known as the Final 7. "STAY OFF MY LAWN!!" Quote
UND1983 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 What would make this whole process worth it is if they chose to stay 'North Dakota' after 6+ months and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested. Let's do that. 1 Quote
Popular Post Teeder11 Posted June 17, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 17, 2015 Sure, but to many on this site it is already Rough Riders or no dice right? If anyone says anything else but Rough Riders they get mocked. I guess where I'm coming from is that the collective listing of nicknames is so bad the masses are almost forced to choose Rough Riders. It is our state motto but it is already used. By hiring consultants (and I would still like to know the $), I would have thought there would be 4-5 finalists we are all fighting over. There really isn't, there are like 2-3 and that fight is not a good one. We are settling. Some people have said all the good nicknames are taken, or you should come up with a better name. If the university has spent top $ on a consulting firm there should be, at the very least, 4-5 names that sound pretty decent. That is not the case. Of those final 15 and even the final 7, many of the nicknames are borderline awful. I don't think that anyone who is truly invested in this change to a new nickname ever honestly thought that in the end that we would not be settling, regardless of the final outcome. Fighting Sioux was just too damn perfect of a nickname for UND. EVERYTHING ELSE pales in comparison. But we need a true concrete nickname to latch onto or we will be doing this all over again in the future, whether that's because the NCAA, in its infinite wisdom forces us to do it, or because future UND students in the year 20?? decide that they'd like to have a true athletic nickname just like everyone else. 5 Quote
tnt Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Sure, but to many on this site it is already Rough Riders or no dice right? If anyone says anything else but Rough Riders they get mocked. I guess where I'm coming from is that the collective listing of nicknames is so bad the masses are almost forced to choose Rough Riders. It is our state motto but it is already used. By hiring consultants (and I would still like to know the $), I would have thought there would be 4-5 finalists we are all fighting over. There really isn't, there are like 2-3 and that fight is not a good one. We are settling. Some people have said all the good nicknames are taken, or you should come up with a better name. If the university has spent top $ on a consulting firm there should be, at the very least, 4-5 names that sound pretty decent. That is not the case. Of those final 15 and even the final 7, many of the nicknames are borderline awful. You really thought there would be two or three we would be fighting over? If you go through the threads from day one, someone would suggest a name, and there would be some that like it and some that hate it. There was no way that a name like Cornhuskers, Hoosiers, Sooners, or the like was ever going to gain traction because they don't sound right initially. Do you think anyone would have chosen a name like that if they were available? It is even harder when you had a great name in place for so long. Do you think a name like Badlanders or Sodbusters would ever be able to muster up enough support to move forward and have the chance to become popular down the road? I don't think any unique name was going to gain popularity because those names like I mentioned just sound odd until they become synonymous with that school. 1 Quote
jimdahl Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 You really thought there would be two or three we would be fighting over? If you go through the threads from day one, someone would suggest a name, and there would be some that like it and some that hate it. There was no way that a name like Cornhuskers, Hoosiers, Sooners, or the like was ever going to gain traction because they don't sound right initially. Do you think anyone would have chosen a name like that if they were available? It is even harder when you had a great name in place for so long. Do you think a name like Badlanders or Sodbusters would ever be able to muster up enough support to move forward and have the chance to become popular down the road? I don't think any unique name was going to gain popularity because those names like I mentioned just sound odd until they become synonymous with that school. Explorers, for example, had never even crossed my mind until it somehow made the final 15. When I gave it some thought (i.e. imagine a world in 10 years in which UND has been the explorers for 10 years), I decided it was one of those unique names that could work. Of course, the committee then dismissed it because, as you said, it didn't sound right initially. I personally came around on cavalry in the same way. The structure of the process that we can point to as the cause of that is that the first round of winnowing involved going through the whole list and advancing a name if someone on the committee gave it a "yes" vote. That precluded many truly out-of-the-box names from advancing, leaving us only with things like "spirit" and "force" as non-traditional possibilities (which then appropriately got culled in the elimination round). Quote
scpa0305 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I don't think that anyone who is truly invested in this change to a new nickname ever honestly thought that in the end that we would not be settling, regardless of the final outcome. Fighting Sioux was just too damn perfect of a nickname for UND. EVERYTHING ELSE pales in comparison. But we need a true concrete nickname to latch onto or we will be doing this all over again in the future, whether that's because the NCAA, in its infinite wisdom forces us to do it, or because future UND students in the year 20?? decide that they'd like to have a true athletic nickname just like everyone else. Sure that makes sense. I simply thought there would be a couple interesting names that would come out of this. There are none. Quote
jdub27 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 scpa0305, on 17 Jun 2015 - 1:35 PM, said:scpa0305, on 17 Jun 2015 - 1:35 PM, said: Sure that makes sense. I simply thought there would be a couple interesting names that would come out of this. There are none. When you give everyone a voice and try to make sure everyone is happy, that's what you're going to end up with. I thought there were some really good ones that had a lot of potential but getting something unique and instantly liked/accepted out of this process was never going to happen, which is unfortunate but reality. Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 When you give everyone a voice and try to make sure everyone is happy, that's what you're going to end up with. I thought there were some really good ones that had a lot of potential but getting something unique and instantly liked/accepted out of this process was never going to happen, which is unfortunate but reality. Agreed. Names like Roughnecks, Badlanders, and Nokota were very unique names that don't look so bad know looking at what we have left. Many names were dismissed too quickley and we get stuck with the 7 we have left. Unfortunate. 2 Quote
UNDBIZ Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Agreed. Names like Roughnecks, Badlanders, and Nokota were very unique names that don't look so bad know looking at what we have left. Many names were dismissed too quickley and we get stuck with the 7 we have left. Unfortunate. I think Frost Giants could've been kinda cool too. It's been growing on me with the list we have left (Riders excluded). Quote
Hambone Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I think Frost Giants could've been kinda cool too. It's been growing on me with the list we have left (Riders excluded). Sadly, as the lists were being narrowed down I was at the point where I thought Wooly Mammoth was kinda cool/unique. Quote
BigGame Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 LEt's pretend for a second that having no nickname is NOT and option. Let's pretend that going as just "North Dakota" is not something that people will be able to vote for. Someone tell me a better nickname for UND as of right now than Roughriders? Anyone...anyone?!!! Maybe for what is left to choose from but I would rather we didn't end up with a turd for a name even if it happened to be the best of the available turds. Quote
dagies Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Agreed. I will reserve judgement until I see what the final results are. There is clearly a front runner at this point. If that front runner isn't one of the final three options, then I think criticism is warranted. And I'm talking about "no nickname" as I don't think that's I viable option. I also agree. The story's last chapter hasn't yet been told and that will define the success of the "book". We shall see..... Explorers, for example, had never even crossed my mind until it somehow made the final 15. When I gave it some thought (i.e. imagine a world in 10 years in which UND has been the explorers for 10 years), I decided it was one of those unique names that could work. Of course, the committee then dismissed it because, as you said, it didn't sound right initially. I personally came around on cavalry in the same way. The structure of the process that we can point to as the cause of that is that the first round of winnowing involved going through the whole list and advancing a name if someone on the committee gave it a "yes" vote. That precluded many truly out-of-the-box names from advancing, leaving us only with things like "spirit" and "force" as non-traditional possibilities (which then appropriately got culled in the elimination round). Since none of my suggestions made it all that far it was clearly a flawed process. I do think you have hit on it, though. There's no good way to solve for this, but I think there are names, like you reference, that given a little more thought and attention might have been big hits. For example, we could provide 140 characters in support of a nickname, but if a nickname proposal actually had someone stand up and do a 1 minute presentation on the reasons for and merits of, those nickname options may have started to ring better in the minds of the committee. Unfortunately, how do you winnow several hundred suggestions down using a process like that? Quote
jimdahl Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I do think you have hit on it, though. There's no good way to solve for this, but I think there are names, like you reference, that given a little more thought and attention might have been big hits. For example, we could provide 140 characters in support of a nickname, but if a nickname proposal actually had someone stand up and do a 1 minute presentation on the reasons for and merits of, those nickname options may have started to ring better in the minds of the committee. Unfortunately, how do you winnow several hundred suggestions down using a process like that? Agreed. I think that's why some people are complaining about the consultants adding minimal value, in that they just seem to be trying to minimize downside risk by recommending the safe ("fighting green", "_____ hawks") names instead of helping vet unusual names that could really give the school a unique and powerful brand. 2 Quote
dagies Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Jim, that last is a really good point that I hadn't considered. Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 And if they wouldn't have gone through this process and just changed the name to Roughrider what would this thread be saying? I agree that using a committee to come up with a nickname is not a process that lends itself to coming up with something truly unique but then again the torch and pitchfork crowd would have been very busy if a small group appointed by Kelly would have been given the job. I still haven't heard anyone share a process that would have been better than this, one that everyone would have been happy with. We know it doesn't exist. what most people mean about the consultants is the money we are paying them to forward the "insert color" and hawks nickname when the committee could have and should have been formed with non-paid people like lowell and karl and the such...the consultants have brought little to this process to validate their pay... 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.