The mascot debate/fandom thread
DeonThomas
- South Carolina
Yeah, right.....
I hate the fact that the Chief is gone, likely forever. In today's "everyone's a victim"/I'm offended society, I don't see a path towards restoration of our symbol. I'll also say "WE DON'T NEED A F****N' BIRD MASCOT."
Kind of odd that in a desperate attempt at relevance the people who want to get rid of native American imagery in our culture because it's racist etc etc are actually getting completely rid of almost all the native American imagery that we have left in America. Imagery that is held with honor and respect and usually supported by the native American cultures, and at times generating income for them. When is the last time you drove around your city and saw anything dedicated to native American people. There are only little pockets/places around America who have such a thing.
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
All due respect, but I'm really confident that if you go somewhere that Native Americans live, you'll find plenty of it, and it will be authentic and representative of them. It's irrelevant if non-natives hold it with honor and respect if the Indigenous folks don't agree.
Native Americans are fully capable of managing and maintaining their imagery, culture, and legacy, and that's as it should be. Seeing native imagery in the middle of a city would be like seeing Italian imagery/symbolism in Chinatown--it just doesn't make sense to be there, no matter how much one thinks it's respectful or honoring.
Heck no. It’s not even a tough/cool bird mascot idea either.
SuperMetroid
- Evanston
Once again, this is the main point of all this. It's not a sinister plot to get rid of the name Fighting Illini. It's literally just trying to bring a little bit more fun to the gameday atmosphere (something that a certain subset of our fanbase seems chronically opposed to for god-knows-what-reason) and making connections with our future fans.
For example...except for when I've taken them to games, my kids have watched about 10 minutes of sports in their entire lives. They just aren't interested. But they know who Southpaw is, Ketchup and Mustard, Willie the Wildcat, Benny the Bull, Tommy Hawk, they even know Brutus because my wife and in-laws are OSU alums/fans. Again, I literally cannot force them to watch a game of any kind.
During the Wisconsin game there was a shot of Bucky Badger in the crowd and two kids in Illini gear were getting their picture taken with him. Wouldn't it be better if it was our own mascot?
With respect to the Kingfisher, I disagree. I believe that group 100% wants a name change. Once again, I don't believe name change is the goal of Blocky or Alma supporters (more likely, quite the opposite).
That said, I wouldn't use the word sinister to describe the Kingfisher movement. I think it's a stretch to agree the Chief needed to go but then defend everything else commonly associated with the Chief. So in that sense, I agree with Kaufman. For me, the 3 in 1 and Fighting Illini are all co-mingled with the Chief and the Chief logo. If the Chief was wrong, then it's all wrong. Of course, then there's the "where does it stop?" argument, which I fully embrace. We've stopped at the Chief, and lots of people still aren't happy. Will everyone ever all be happy at the same time? Nope. But we're not going back, so I'm in favor of stopping here.
To summarize:
1. I think mascots are stupid, with very rare exceptions. As long as they don't get in the way of the game, I couldn't care less if they exist.
2. The Chief was not a mascot. He was part of the halftime show but never on the sidelines, engaged in hijinks with other mascots, or cuddling kids. For people who want a mascot, I would suggest they stop referring to the Chief as a mascot and instead emphasize the super fun and goofy things their new mascot will do, i.e. lean into the difference.
3. I think getting rid of the Chief was a missed opportunity for a win/win, and I'm not sure there have been any tangible benefits from his demise.
4. If you just want a mascot without a name change, stop drawing logos. Do we really think in this day and age that you can't render what a mascot costume would look like without drawing a logo? Teams have logos that match their team names, and they incorporate the mascot in logos when it's synergistic.
5. Lack of branding opportunities is not a reason to have a mascot. I've lived in the Chicago area all my life, and I can't recall ever seeing anyone wearing Southpaw gear. If it's out there, it's very uncommon. Is Michigan hurting because they don't sell a lot of mascot gear? Just stop with this one, please.
6. Mascots should be intentionally stupid looking, with some combination of a big head, bulging eyes, and/or massive belly. The Kingfisher is unintentionally stupid looking, IMO. It's like they want something worthy of being a primary symbol of the university, along with a kids photo op. It doesn't work. Next, please.
7. I'm resigned to the fact that there will be a complete re-branding in my lifetime. I will probably still go to games, as long as we're competitive, but I'll spend halftime on the concourse.
Totally agree, with the caveat that Native Americans, like any other population grouping, are not in complete agreement on how best to manage and maintain their imagery, culture, and legacy.
sbillini
- st petersburg, fl
I appreciate the passion of your stance. But, to support this stance, you keep referring to FSU as the valid comparison for the Illini.
As I said last time, it’s entirely an apples and orange comparison. This has been discussed umpteen times on this board. The structure that FSU has is night and day different than what Illinois (and pretty much every other sports program) has/had. It’s not a valid comparison (and that’s on top of the fact that treating all native Americans as a single, unified entity is entirely invalid as well).
There are more Native Americans in Los Angeles than in most reservations.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
This is the best breakdown I’ve read about the Kingfisher Task Force with quotes directly from the head of the task force:
GrayGhost77
- Centennial, CO
I think the responses to that article by Robert gives a good sense of where the Illini fanbase really stands on the kingfisher. Not one response sounded decidedly for it, some were confused, and the vast majority were clearly against it.
Funny you say that because all I’ve been seeing is people getting offended by others who call the chief a “mascot” instead of a “symbol” and also getting mad at a dumb bird mascot.
If anyone base their self-worth on their dumb school mascot so much that it gives them embarassment, they probably should re-evaluate their priorities in life lol.
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
Because there's a group that thinks a void needs to be filled. Read Robert's article from this post.
I don't think people are offended by the misuse of mascot as it relates to Chief, it's a concern over the misuse itself. Words matter, and Chief was not ever a mascot in the sense that other schools have mascots.
And as far as "getting mad at a dumb bird mascot"--speaking only for myself, I'm not angry about the bird itself so much as the motivation of those insisting we need it, and the associated packaging of logos, marks, etc. for something that's just supposed to be a mascot. Someone wants a furry on the sidleines, ok, I understand (but don't agree with it). But mocking up Illini sportswear with kingfisher images goes beyond mascots, and that's what Robert is pointing out in the linked article.
I mean, what connection did Marquette have to the Golden Eagles before they changed from the Warriors? Nothing. Now, 30 years later there is a connection. It’s just a mascot. I think trying to overthink it and go for the Honest Abe’s or the Galloping Ghosts is worse. The kingfisher logos are cool looking and a connection will come with time.
Marquette
Nickname/Moniker - Golden Eagles
Mascot - Iggy the Golden Eagle
Logo - MU Monogram
So...what is it you actually want for Illinois? Is it just our version of Iggy to patrol the sidelines? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but given that you mention logos and mascots along with Marquette's moniker change, I would think not.
I ask that question not to be trapping or confrontational. It's just impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion when people are using different words to mean different things.
And FWIW, the only sweatshirt at the official Marquette University Spirt Shop with an Eagle logo is the Ugly Christmas Sweatshirt.
Have the athletes voted on any of this? After all they are the ones who will be the cup bearer and bread winners for the University. It's more or less their identity while at school. I went to school and couldn't care less what our mascot was. But the athletes put on the colors and sacrificed for the eastern Kentucky colonels. Almost beat Kansas that year in the big dance. Anyways, just curious what the student athletes want. And Josh Whitman for that matter.
This is one of the larger issues I have with the whole mascot situation. The Kingfisher task force is terrible at preventing people from being misinformed of their goal. Most of the fanbase is unsure if the current push is 1) to add a mascot AND a name change, 2) a mascot as the first step towards a name change, or 3) if they are just simply trying to have our version of Iggy. They already have a merch section of their website so it'd be as simple as having a shirt that says "Fighting Illini" available for purchase and pushing that design on their socials. When your goals are already controversial, not being adamant to separate yourself from another goal which would be even more controversial is a bad idea, and their lack of effort in this respect makes me uneasy about them.
This is coming from someone who isn't necessarily against a mascot as long as 1) It doesn't change the team name and has no way to turn it into a name change and 2) isn't a bird because my god there are just way too many bird mascots. These two reasons are why the options that have been brought up that I like the most are Blocky or even the Ghost idea, which for all we know is athletics' long-term goal with these Red Grange promotions. I still would prefer something like Gritty, Big Red (WKU) or the Blue Blob (Xavier).
mattcoldagelli
- The Transfer Portal
I would think Marquette is actually a pretty good model for the most mascot-skeptical (including the people that are weirdly compelled to use the word "furry" in every post....you might be telling on yourself!). Obviously, they had a name change first, but the Eagle has a relatively low profile in the overall brand - there are past and current versions of the "MU" lockup and they also use a lot of imagery of the state of Wisconsin. They also let just a color (powder blue, or what they call "Championship Blue") do a ton of work for them, not dissimilar to what we do with orange.
Conversely, look at Alabama, who has only had the current/official version of their elephant mascot since 1980, and Big Al is effing EVERYWHERE.
Anyway, another good moment to plug one of my other hobbyhorses: making script Illinois from the basketball jerseys a DIA/University-wide mark. It's unique and it looks fantastic - who says no? Why haven't we done it already?
Conversely, look at Alabama, who has only had the current/official version of their elephant mascot since 1980, and Big Al is effing EVERYWHERE.
Anyway, another good moment to plug one of my other hobbyhorses: making script Illinois from the basketball jerseys a DIA/University-wide mark. It's unique and it looks fantastic - who says no? Why haven't we done it already?
I’m stationed in the heart of Alabama (near Montgomery) and am surrounded by Alabama fans…plus a solid amount of Auburn fans.
Strangely enough, I’ve almost NEVER seen the elephant. And that’s with MANY civilian coworkers (including my boss) sporting Bama gear on Fridays, excessive Bama paraphernalia in offices/yards/all over local businesses, and just about every person I see wearing red on Saturdays.
I wonder if it’s more prevalent closer to campus?
I’m sure now that I write this I’ll see the elephant on the next 10 Bama fans I come across.
Marquette changed nickname/moniker and mascot. Since you're in favor of keeping Fighting Illini, Marquette seems like an odd example to put forth as the model for Illinois. Alabama, on the other hand, I agree with. Just like us, they have a nickname/moniker that is very general. They went with a miscellaneous animal that has nothing to do with the school colors or heritage of the state - pretty much the opposite of The Kingfisher plan.
Not sure if this is supposed to be some sort of slight, but you've seen Iggy, right? It's not like he's feathered or something. Just like every other conventional mascot, he's furry.
Agreed, it's a good one.