The mascot debate/fandom thread

[the juiceman cometh]

If the Chief is coming back, it will be soon.

BTW the Kingfisher will never ever be the mascot.....

Real "the South will Rise Again" energy on this thread today.

Accept it and move on. I enjoyed the Chief and personally had no gripes with it. But the thing is there is so much more to the University of Illinois and Illinois athletics than the Chief, and honestly by the end it was a distraction and not helpful in promoting the University of its athletic programs. I don't understand a portion of this fanbase's obsession with making this small part of the history of Illinois athletics central to their identity.

Also, I couldn't care less about the Kingfisher vs. other options, but does anyone have an objection to the Kingfisher that's not simply "it's not the Chief?" And I guess the real question: "is there any mascot you would accept other than the Chief?" Because if the answer to that is "no," then honestly you're just putting your own desire for a thing you liked above what's actually good for Illinois athletics.

 

[SuperMetroid]

Alma Otter or nothing...

I mean, it would please EVERYONE.

 

[Curbelo Fanboy]

I mean, it would please EVERYONE.

This one or Blocky the I as someone else suggested would fit the bill of a humorous character that would be for kids. The beaver could help the football defense as he builds a dam to protect the end zone from enemy invaders.

 

[TentakilRex]

1. I should have emphasized in the "If it happens, it will happen soon" part that it might take 50-100 years before any Chief comeback if he does not come back soon. This is a very reactionary era.
2. In reality, the Chief's heir apparent if there is even one has not been invented yet. Heck if a time traveler brought back a shirt from the year 2040 with the Illini "logo" on it, most of us would not even think it had anything to do it with the school lol.
3. Alma Otter has a 10000 time better chance than the Kingfisher being the heir apparent. He has the meme potential. Heck there is better chance of the Tully Monster being the school mascot from that bird and the state fossil is one ugly critter.

4. Gut feeling if the Chief returns, he is going to look different and maybe more historically accurate.

 

[Point-Illinois]

I’m all in on Blocky the I. I’d run for a seat in congress with Blocky the I as my platform. Send it.

Regarding the Kingfisher, the argument for me isn’t that “it’s not the Chief” but more that it’s too close to an actual school/team name. Like there is too easy of a logical step for the Kingfisher group to propose it as our official athletic name. There are Eagles, Hawks, Falcons, Blue Jays, Ravens, Cardinals…etc all around sports.

In my opinion, adding a Kingfisher as a simple mascot could drive a desire for actual team name change. Maybe the athletic department would never give in, but I’m just sure there would be a loud group that advocates for it.

And, once again in my opinion, I like our name as is with as little traction towards changing it as possible. (Whether that change could ever succeed or not)

So to me, it’s gotta be deliberately goofy and somewhat absurd. A walking Block I with a cane and a monocle is perfect.

 

[SKane]

I vote for a human symbol carrying a weapon.

Maybe a pioneer with a flintlock, a cavalry officer with a sword or a Chicago gangster with a Tommy gun.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Regarding the Kingfisher, the argument for me isn’t that “it’s not the Chief” but more that it’s too close to an actual school/team name. Like there is too easy of a logical step for the Kingfisher group to propose it as our official athletic name. There are Eagles, Hawks, Falcons, Blue Jays, Ravens, Cardinals…etc all around sports.

In my opinion, adding a Kingfisher as a simple mascot could drive a desire for actual team name change. Maybe the athletic department would never give in, but I’m just sure there would be a loud group that advocates for it.

I see this fear on here all the time, and I don't get it. Can anyone point to even a single example of this happening? I can point to several examples of teams that have mascots that have nothing to do with their name.

 

[Rap47]

I see this fear on here all the time, and I don't get it. Can anyone point to even a single example of this happening? I can point to several examples of teams that have mascots that have nothing to do with their name.

Did you see the chief perform at a game?

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Did you see the chief perform at a game?

I did, but I fail to see the relevance of that to the fear that people will change the Fighting Illini name.

There's as much reason to be scared of the "pro name change" camp as there is of werewolves and vampires. All very scary, but for the fact that they don't actually exist.

 

[Quixotic Illini]

There is no replacement for the Chief. As Alice In Chains sang…”When it’s all worn out, I’d rather go without”. Go Illini!

 

[IlliniFaninHoosierLand]

Yes, this. Mascots are for kids, and kids are good. Bringing kids to games is good. Kids enjoying games is good. Not just because they're future fans and $$$$ and all that. But also because isn't this kind of what we want to be as a society? Welcoming and supportive of kids and families?

Exactly. This guy has a lot of fans in the Charleston area and the kids like him:

 

[Point-Illinois]

I see this fear on here all the time, and I don't get it. Can anyone point to even a single example of this happening? I can point to several examples of teams that have mascots that have nothing to do with their name.

A year or two ago there was a tweet that had all the B1G mascots (at least those with mascots) that showed them all climbing a mountain or something.

It was meant to be a “who will get to the mountain top this year” sort of thing. I recall it being from an official(ish?) account because it used the Kingfisher to represent Illinois and was taken down quickly. (I can’t find the tweet, maybe someone can find a screen grab?)

Not sure how the kingfisher was selected or by whom or what any sort of motive was (or if it was simply inadvertent) but it didn’t take much to put it out there as the symbol that represents Illinois.

To add to this, the kingfisher proposal came with distinct logo/decal mock-ups along with the costume. In my opinion, someone isn’t spending time on all that without at least some desire to see those decals and that branding on uniforms/official gear.

Even if we kept our name, I still wouldn’t want the Kingfisher used as the symbol on the side of a helmet or in branding.

That’s why it feels like an easy leap for brand and/or name changes.

Just my $.02.

 

[lstewart53x3]

My two cents on the mascot debate:

1. The chief isn’t coming back. I wish he would since that was such a big part of my childhood, but outside of this thread, I don’t spend too much of my day to day life thinking about that.

2. As to whether or not I’d be happy with a new mascot:

If they rebrand “Fighting Illini” or use the new mascot as a symbol/logo of the program, I’d be very unhappy.

If they simply have the new mascot shoot t-shirts into the stands at games and dance around with the kids, I’d be fine with that. And I’m not really too attached to as to what mascot is. I could be sold on pretty much anything, Kingfisher included.

 

[lstewart53x3]

I see this fear on here all the time, and I don't get it. Can anyone point to even a single example of this happening? I can point to several examples of teams that have mascots that have nothing to do with their name.

Robert wrote an article about this: (why some might fear a moniker / team symbol change)

Mascots And Monikers

IlliniBoard is a website covering the University of Illinois athletic teams from a fan's perspective.

www.illiniboard.com

From the article:

This was written in the initial proposal in 2020:

WHEREAS, this resolution does not seek to change the 'Fighting Illini' moniker.

And the final paragraph of the 11-page resolution:

While some colleges ultimately decided to change the team's name in addition to adding a new mascot, this mascot proposal is NOT intended to serve as a team name change. Rather, it is a singular yet critical step in the right direction of creating new, inclusive traditions for students and our entire community.

— Pointing towards a mascot change only, not a moniker or team symbol change.

— But then this was written in the press release in 2023:

On July 20th, 2023, Evan Lemberger of the Kingfisher Task Force spoke to the University Board of Trustees in support of a new mascot for the Urbana-Champaign campus. Going 17 years without an official mascot, students and faculty have been vocal about finding a new replacement. In 2020, both the students and faculty agreed on the institution of the Belted Kingfisher as the next mascot, but no action on the administrative level has since been taken.

Lemberger demonstrated how the campus at large is "ready to move on." In his presentation, he went over the mascot referendums and votes, different ways the Kingfisher has gained popularity on campus, Native empowerment organizations that have endorsed the Kingfisher or at least some replacement, and the endowment performances of other Universities that have gone through similar mascot changes. He also touched upon how the legacy of the "hostile and abusive" former mascot is still visible even though it's no longer official.

— Which lead Robert to these thoughts:

• "Ready to move on"? From.. the Chief? The Chief was retired 17 years ago. They must be talking about the name Fighting Illini.
• "Other Universities who have gone through similar mascot changes"? I'm aware of several moniker changes. Are we talking about a moniker change here?”

— Robert then emailed the head of the task force for clarification and this his response:

Any possible name change for the University is outside of the scope of our work. Our priority is that a new mascot, a new symbol be incorporated for the University. Obviously, we think the Belted Kingfisher is the best candidate for the next mascot.

— Robert then wrote:

I was still confused (and I hope you can see why). The first sentence states that the efforts fall under No. 1 above (add a mascot). The second sentence -- "a new symbol be incorporated for the University" -- reads to me like No. 2 above (moniker change). So I still don't have an answer.

I went back through the initial press release and thought that maybe the universities studied as part of "other universities that have gone through similar mascot changes" would be No. 1 (mascot change), not No. 2 (moniker change). So I asked him to provide the universities in the study. He responded this morning with a list of universities and all were universities which underwent a moniker change (Marquette, Arkansas State, St. John's, etc.). So if they're presenting to the Board of Trustees that there was no evidence of endowment erosion at these schools which all changed their monikers, the goal here must be a moniker change, yes?

— Later in the article:

The central focus of this article -- is the elimination of the name. Stanford changed to "Cardinal" and then debated whether to switch to the Robber Barons, the Sequoias, the Trees, the Cardinals, the Railroaders, the Spikes, or the Huns. They ultimately chose to stay with the Stanford Cardinal, and the band's mascot -- the Stanford Tree -- became the mascot on the sideline during games.

I've been under the impression that the Kingfisher movement is one of perhaps several proposals give us a Stanford Tree. But then I read the press release and wondered if we were having our own "Robber Barons or Railroaders?" debate. I'm looking at orange and blue bird logos which mimic the old Chief logo (see above) and not proposed mascot outfits which seems to suggest that this effort is to eventually replace Fighting Illini with whatever otter or kingfisher is chosen.

— Robert then emailed him again for clarification and this was his response:

I included those universities that underwent a name change as well as a mascot change because I wanted to focus on the schools that had to take on the most financial burden in their rebranding efforts. It was an effort to eliminate as many variables as possible. If Illinois wanted to adopt a new mascot without changing the name, and my assessment is reflective of the true nature of things, that would demonstrate to the board that our transition could actually be cheaper than most other schools.

Including new logos are standard procedure for a new mascot. The previous mascot had its own logo, so there's no reason we can't create and promote our own.

— So it sounds like they’re aiming for a mascot change only, not a moniker/symbol change, but the communication hasn’t been great.

 

[Bucktown]

Robert wrote an article about this: (why some might fear a moniker / team symbol change)

Mascots And Monikers

IlliniBoard is a website covering the University of Illinois athletic teams from a fan's perspective.

www.illiniboard.com

From the article:

This was written in the initial proposal in 2020:

And the final paragraph of the 11-page resolution:

— Pointing towards a mascot change only, not a moniker or team symbol change.

— But then this was written in the press release in 2023:


— Which lead Robert to these thoughts:

• "Ready to move on"? From.. the Chief? The Chief was retired 17 years ago. They must be talking about the name Fighting Illini.
• "Other Universities who have gone through similar mascot changes"? I'm aware of several moniker changes. Are we talking about a moniker change here?”

— Robert then emailed the head of the task force for clarification and this his response:

— Robert then wrote:

I was still confused (and I hope you can see why). The first sentence states that the efforts fall under No. 1 above (add a mascot). The second sentence -- "a new symbol be incorporated for the University" -- reads to me like No. 2 above (moniker change). So I still don't have an answer.

I went back through the initial press release and thought that maybe the universities studied as part of "other universities that have gone through similar mascot changes" would be No. 1 (mascot change), not No. 2 (moniker change). So I asked him to provide the universities in the study. He responded this morning with a list of universities and all were universities which underwent a moniker change (Marquette, Arkansas State, St. John's, etc.). So if they're presenting to the Board of Trustees that there was no evidence of endowment erosion at these schools which all changed their monikers, the goal here must be a moniker change, yes?

— Later in the article:

The central focus of this article -- is the elimination of the name. Stanford changed to "Cardinal" and then debated whether to switch to the Robber Barons, the Sequoias, the Trees, the Cardinals, the Railroaders, the Spikes, or the Huns. They ultimately chose to stay with the Stanford Cardinal, and the band's mascot -- the Stanford Tree -- became the mascot on the sideline during games.

I've been under the impression that the Kingfisher movement is one of perhaps several proposals give us a Stanford Tree. But then I read the press release and wondered if we were having our own "Robber Barons or Railroaders?" debate. I'm looking at orange and blue bird logos which mimic the old Chief logo (see above) and not proposed mascot outfits which seems to suggest that this effort is to eventually replace Fighting Illini with whatever otter or kingfisher is chosen.

— Robert then emailed him again for clarification and this was his response:

— So it sounds like they’re aiming for a mascot change only, not a moniker/symbol change, but the communication hasn’t been great.

Crazy that a moniker change is even being discussed. I am curious if ANYONE on this board would support a moniker change.

Also, I know there is a large 'let's move on' contingent but would anyone on this board be adamantly against bringing back the Chief.

 

[Actually...]

This one or Blocky the I as someone else suggested would fit the bill of a humorous character that would be for kids. The beaver could help the football defense as he builds a dam to protect the end zone from enemy invaders.

Hey buddy, I don't know how to ask this gently, do you think that otters and beavers are the same animal ?

 

[LocalChief505]

Hey buddy, I don't know how to ask this gently, do you think that otters and beavers are the same animal ?

 

[Rap47]

I did, but I fail to see the relevance of that to the fear that people will change the Fighting Illini name.

There's as much reason to be scared of the "pro name change" camp as there is of werewolves and vampires. All very scary, but for the fact that they don't so you wa

The Fighting Illini kingfishers does have a certain ring to it.

 

[TheChief4Life]

The Chief isn't coming back, and it's weird that so many people keep trying to force the issue. I have always enjoyed the historical imagery of the Chief and the name "Fighting Illini", and I'd be lying if I said the Chief halftime show is the reason I started getting season tickets 20+ years ago. But honestly, that era has passed (the era of using human stereotype imagery as mascots), and probably needs to be removed from all team mascots regardless of "who is okay with it".

These days, as a fan, I'm actually glad it's gone because a lot of the other things that came along with it actually killed the game vibe in my opinion. I mean, I'm sorry.... but the 3rd down war chant had to be the least intimidating thing I've ever seen/heard on an important 3rd down.

I concur with whoever said it's just old people holding on that yell Chief at the games. And thank god that group is getting smaller and smaller each year.

Final thought: I'm okay with no mascot whatsoever. the kids love them, so if we were to get something, it almost just needs to be a "game day mascot" and not like anything "university based". I don't know how to say what I'm trying to say, but I think you all get it.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

The Chief isn't coming back, and it's weird that so many people keep trying to force the issue. I have always enjoyed the historical imagery of the Chief and the name "Fighting Illini", and I'd be lying if I said the Chief halftime show is the reason I started getting season tickets 20+ years ago. But honestly, that era has passed (the era of using human stereotype imagery as mascots), and probably needs to be removed from all team mascots regardless of "who is okay with it".

These days, as a fan, I'm actually glad it's gone because a lot of the other things that came along with it actually killed the game vibe in my opinion. I mean, I'm sorry.... but the 3rd down war chant had to be the least intimidating thing I've ever seen/heard on an important 3rd down.

I concur with whoever said it's just old people holding on that yell Chief at the games. And thank god that group is getting smaller and smaller each year.

Final thought: I'm okay with no mascot whatsoever. the kids love them, so if we were to get something, it almost just needs to be a "game day mascot" and not like anything "university based". I don't know how to say what I'm trying to say, but I think you all get it.

username does NOT check out

 

[LocalChief505]

The Chief isn't coming back, and it's weird that so many people keep trying to force the issue. I have always enjoyed the historical imagery of the Chief and the name "Fighting Illini", and I'd be lying if I said the Chief halftime show is the reason I started getting season tickets 20+ years ago. But honestly, that era has passed (the era of using human stereotype imagery as mascots), and probably needs to be removed from all team mascots regardless of "who is okay with it".

These days, as a fan, I'm actually glad it's gone because a lot of the other things that came along with it actually killed the game vibe in my opinion. I mean, I'm sorry.... but the 3rd down war chant had to be the least intimidating thing I've ever seen/heard on an important 3rd down.

I concur with whoever said it's just old people holding on that yell Chief at the games. And thank god that group is getting smaller and smaller each year.

Final thought: I'm okay with no mascot whatsoever. the kids love them, so if we were to get something, it almost just needs to be a "game day mascot" and not like anything "university based". I don't know how to say what I'm trying to say, but I think you all get it.

Don't be hatin on granny, turncoat.

 

[splitter]

The Fighting Illini kingfishers does have a certain ring to it.

ANNOYING

 

[Battle89]

username does NOT check out

#1 all-time category leader

 

[Battle89]

Don't be hatin on granny, turncoat.

Yeah I love the old person rules on here from the younger generations. Not just the post or posters today but a common theme. Let’s see if I’ve got them right:

1. Old rich people should buy season tickets.
2. But not attend games, because elders like to sit and stay quiet.
3. Old people should make large contributions on top of ticket purchases.
4. For goodness sake if you must go to the game get up and yell!
5. But don’t yell Chief. And please hurry up and die so your group gets smaller.
6. Oh and before you expire, would you please leave your money to the program in your will, thanks.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

Yeah I love the old person rules on here from the younger generations. Not just the post or posters today but a common theme. Let’s see if I’ve got them right:

1. Old rich people should buy season tickets.
2. But not attend games, because elders like to sit and stay quiet.
3. Old people should make large contributions on top of ticket purchases.
4. For goodness sake if you must go to the game get up and yell!
5. But don’t yell Chief. And please hurry up and die so your group gets smaller.
6. Oh and before you expire, would you please leave your money to the program in your will, thanks.

yea
7. imply that EVERYTHING we post is negative or against true popular opinion as they define it