Home
Forums
New Posts
Illini Basketball
Illini Football
Sports Talk
Log in
Register
What's new
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Sports
Sports Talk
The mascot debate/fandom thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oskee67" data-source="post: 1932970" data-attributes="member: 8156"><p>The answer to everything is very simple... We either have a Lincoln mascot and change our name to the Thinkin Lincolns or make Alma (just Alma, not the otter) the new symbol/mascot. </p><p></p><p>First option is mostly for jest, but the second is a serious suggestion. She's beloved by everyone associated with the university, there's already a prominent statue of her on campus, and (I haven't done any research on this, so take my next statement with a grain of salt) would likely be one of the only, if not the first, female symbols/mascots in the country. Why can't or shouldn't we make this happen?</p><p></p><p>Also, here are a couple more cents to ponder...The doughboy idea is neat on paper, but how do you make that into a cute/fun/goofy mascot in the stands or on the field, which is the whole point of this discussion? The closest comparison I guess would be sparty, but Spartan soldiers were around thousands of years ago. To make a charicature of a US soldier into a mascot is awkward at best, and, at worst, offensive to a certain segment/s of society for multiple reasons. Lastly, Kingfisher works from a color scheme, feather design, and is a bird found in Illinois, but so what? I get that a mascot doesn't have to match a university's nickname (see Ole Miss' Landshark or Stanford's cocaine tree), but if we're going to go that route, why not lean all the way in and get super random with it? Why settle for something that seems forced because it fits into some arbitrary lines?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oskee67, post: 1932970, member: 8156"] The answer to everything is very simple... We either have a Lincoln mascot and change our name to the Thinkin Lincolns or make Alma (just Alma, not the otter) the new symbol/mascot. First option is mostly for jest, but the second is a serious suggestion. She's beloved by everyone associated with the university, there's already a prominent statue of her on campus, and (I haven't done any research on this, so take my next statement with a grain of salt) would likely be one of the only, if not the first, female symbols/mascots in the country. Why can't or shouldn't we make this happen? Also, here are a couple more cents to ponder...The doughboy idea is neat on paper, but how do you make that into a cute/fun/goofy mascot in the stands or on the field, which is the whole point of this discussion? The closest comparison I guess would be sparty, but Spartan soldiers were around thousands of years ago. To make a charicature of a US soldier into a mascot is awkward at best, and, at worst, offensive to a certain segment/s of society for multiple reasons. Lastly, Kingfisher works from a color scheme, feather design, and is a bird found in Illinois, but so what? I get that a mascot doesn't have to match a university's nickname (see Ole Miss' Landshark or Stanford's cocaine tree), but if we're going to go that route, why not lean all the way in and get super random with it? Why settle for something that seems forced because it fits into some arbitrary lines? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Sports
Sports Talk
The mascot debate/fandom thread
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…