Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
it’s likely not legit , but I don’t know if the DIA was ever officially connected to the Chief , either
The mascot debate/fandom thread
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this logo was on our players' shorts for a few years:
chiefini
- Rockford, Illinois
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
the circle Chief logo was fully embraced by UI and the sports teams (DIA) . but I don’t think the student who portrayed Chief Illiniwek was decided by or governed by the DIA .
i’m not sure who the Chief “reported” to.
chiefini
- Rockford, Illinois
The Chief was part of the Marching Illini. He got one credit hour in band…
Quick story. As you know, Sun-Times columnist Rick Telander was a very vocal Chief critic for many years. Probably because we didn't offer him a football scholarship coming out of high school. Anyway, many years ago, I decided to call up Mike North on WSCR and let Chicago media/sports fans know about the real Rick Telander. Telander, like myself, lived in Lake Forest at the time (I don't anymore). I let Mike know that the mascot for the Lake Forest Scouts' high school teams was an Indian wearing a loin cloth. And Telander at the time was very vocal about his son playing football at Lake Forest (wrote about it in SI). The football helmet had a decal of a spear with a feather. I also let Mike North know that Telander's local junior high team mascot was an Indian brave as well - loin cloth and all. The Score made fun of Telander's hypocritical stance for many, many years after my call. I also wrote a letter to the Lake Forester (local Pioneer Press), detailing efforts by some Chicago journalists to get rid of the Chief, and what it would eventually mean for our beloved Lake Forest Scout logo. Telander never wrote about the Chief again.
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
Isn't that Indiana's future mascot?
It's their current mascot. He just can't find his was to the stadium or Assembly Hall.
Nothing better than a Duck mascot.
Last edited:
As an outsider, Orange Krush seems like a logical mascot name then just make an appropriate costume. Get creative have fun with it. As a Duck having a cartoon character as a mascot is a lot of fun. Let the mascot create it's own personality.
mattcoldagelli
- The Transfer Portal with Do Not Contact Tag
You’re of course correct but a quick perusal of this thread will show that a sizable chunk of its participants are actually anti-fun.
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
It's not that people don't want to have fun. We just don't need a cartoonish character that has the singular purpose of being the opposing cheerleaders' target to "goalpost".
altgeld88
- Arlington, Virginia
I'm also among those who have opposed the effort of creating a mascot because, frankly, I have over my long life found most to be irredeemably stupid. My formative experience was with Brutus Buckeye; while I enjoyed the '70s portrayal as a little boy, when he became a man with a nut for a head in the '80s I saw the bar for surmounting idiocy plummet to near ground level.
However... I've changed my tune somewhat this spring. My daughter's a sophomore at Virginia Tech. The Hokie Bird is beloved there. It's the first time I've been around a mascot I enjoy to any degree. We attended a men's basketball game together at the end of the season. The students and fans absolutely adore the mascot. In fact, it intermittently roams around campus and Hokie Bird sightings are coveted. The university has even erected numerous Hokie statues around campus adorned in various artistic ways. I've been around far too many universities over the years; I've never seen one with such skillful branding and marketing.
Accordingly, after more than four decades since Brutus' metamorphosis, I've seen a ray of light on the topic. (And, no, this isn't some sort of Stockholm Syndrome resulting from VT having colonized my checkbook for a four-year period.) I wouldn't object to an Illinois mascot; however, the entire problem is the choosing of it. It's a strawman argument that many of those who oppose adopting a mascot are simply grumpy, elderly killjoys. (I mean, of course I am a grumpy, elderly, killjoy but that's beside the point.) Many of us understand how disastrously sideways the venture could drift. We can summon ample examples of this from various D-1 programs supporting our caution.
VT has been blessed over the past 30 years with brilliant marketing of its brand. I've never seen remotely such acumen within UIUC or the DIA. We might end up with a cherished mascot. And we could very well end up with a cringeworthy disaster.
Given those choices, I'm not going to lose sleep if we remain mascot-less. As I've noted, neither Michigan nor Indiana have suffered from the lack of a mascot. Nor have we, IMO. I'd be fully on board if we hit a HR like the Hokie Bird. Spare me anthropomorphic rodents or fruit. Alma Otter... I could see that one working.
Last edited:
altgeld88
- Arlington, Virginia
I don't think you and many others understand. Chief Illiniwek is part of Illinois' heritage. He's not a goofball. We've never had a goofball. It's not our personality. The Chief was on the field for two minutes. Yes, you can time it. But those two minutes electrified the stadium. It was a matter of respect, of honor, of something to be proud of. Can you be proud of a goofy mascot?
Look at Florida State now. We once had our equivalent. It's want we want. It's what we believe in.
Last edited:
I get through 8 years of tuition checks without ever having been drawn into wanting something like this.
First, I can absolutely be proud of the Donald Duck mascot, he's fun, he's tough, he's well known and represents well most of the time... Second, as for the Chief, I may have a misunderstanding here, I made the assumption that this issue centered around native American issues and being required to find a new or different mascot. My apology if I misunderstood the issue.
I was a charter member of the “no Chief, no check” club. With that battle long since lost, I’m firmly in the no mascot group. Not to mention, banning the war chant was a bridge too far.
mattcoldagelli
- The Transfer Portal with Do Not Contact Tag
Knew I could count on you guys to prove me right!
altgeld88
- Arlington, Virginia
IMO the central portion of my post was this:
VT has been blessed over the past 30 years with brilliant marketing of its brand. I've never seen remotely such acumen within UIUC or the DIA. We might end up with a cherished mascot. And we could very well end up with a cringeworthy disaster.
Emphasis on "never remotely seen such acumen within UIUC or the DIA" and "cringeworthy disaster."
No mascot is the right answer. But not because it has anything to do with the Chief.
I've been drifting through and not following threads closely, but I did want to elaborate on a comment I made calling the war chant racist. And since you find getting rid of the war chant a bridge too far, I thought I'd at least explain why I called it racist and offer evidence of why you're wrong, racist or not.
I saw a few of the responses, including a couple on the evolution of music itself, leading to the claim that all music is a form of cultural appropriation. While that's compelling-sounding argument, it completely misses the point(s).
The first point is that war chant isn't racist because of its musical attributes or name. It's racist because it played sound track to branding deemed disrespectful towards native Americans. UIUC has never been associated with a tribe in the way FSU's equivalent to Seminole nation profits from that alliance, so FSU is a false equivalence.
The second point is how effective adminstrators become effective: they draw clear lines. Why? Because those are easy to enforce. When it was deemed the Chief had to go, the whole identity package had to go. The lines were made as clean, and tight, as possible.
And frankly, they appear to have nailed it. Want evidence?
Look at the threads during the Sweet 16 run, and compare the engagement level there relative to the engagement level of threads talking about the Chief. Now ask yourself, how many times did threads go sideways bickering about how this announcer or that reporter hardly even mentioned the game, instead focusing on their dislike for the Chief, and belief it was past time to retire it?
If the Chief were still around the Chief debate would be louder than ever and it wouldn't suck the air out of the room in every interview. It would eat countless bandwidth doing nothing but turning people off.
How many great transfers would want to come to Ilinois if they knew any moments in the spotlight of their college playing career would likely be drowned out by discussions about the Chief? How can you not see how massively detrimental having the Chief still associated with the program would be to the program you claim to have loved. Well, the war chant was part of the Chief's identity package, when viewed through the lens of how the brand was administered. They could have gone a lot further, and said the fighting had to go, and do an entire re-brand with some effing squirrel mascot or whatever, to make a clear break.
The war chant invites the Chief debate distraction. Why ruin the fan experience with that nonesense, and undermine the health of the program at the same time? It's ridiculous. But oppsing a mascot is an idea we can agree on.
I've been drifting through and not following threads closely, but I did want to elaborate on a comment I made calling the war chant racist. And since you find getting rid of the war chant a bridge too far, I thought I'd at least explain why I called it racist and offer evidence of why you're wrong, racist or not.
I saw a few of the responses, including a couple on the evolution of music itself, leading to the claim that all music is a form of cultural appropriation. While that's compelling-sounding argument, it completely misses the point(s).
The first point is that war chant isn't racist because of its musical attributes or name. It's racist because it played sound track to branding deemed disrespectful towards native Americans. UIUC has never been associated with a tribe in the way FSU's equivalent to Seminole nation profits from that alliance, so FSU is a false equivalence.
The second point is how effective adminstrators become effective: they draw clear lines. Why? Because those are easy to enforce. When it was deemed the Chief had to go, the whole identity package had to go. The lines were made as clean, and tight, as possible.
And frankly, they appear to have nailed it. Want evidence?
Look at the threads during the Sweet 16 run, and compare the engagement level there relative to the engagement level of threads talking about the Chief. Now ask yourself, how many times did threads go sideways bickering about how this announcer or that reporter hardly even mentioned the game, instead focusing on their dislike for the Chief, and belief it was past time to retire it?
If the Chief were still around the Chief debate would be louder than ever and it wouldn't suck the air out of the room in every interview. It would eat countless bandwidth doing nothing but turning people off.
How many great transfers would want to come to Ilinois if they knew any moments in the spotlight of their college playing career would likely be drowned out by discussions about the Chief? How can you not see how massively detrimental having the Chief still associated with the program would be to the program you claim to have loved. Well, the war chant was part of the Chief's identity package, when viewed through the lens of how the brand was administered. They could have gone a lot further, and said the fighting had to go, and do an entire re-brand with some effing squirrel mascot or whatever, to make a clear break.
The war chant invites the Chief debate distraction. Why ruin the fan experience with that nonesense, and undermine the health of the program at the same time? It's ridiculous. But oppsing a mascot is an idea we can agree on.