Because we can do better. Non of this from the day we decided to entertain getting rid of the chief to the day we entertained getting the bird has been handled well. The chief is gone "officially"... Fine. If we are going to be serious about something with major rippling effects, just do better.
The mascot debate/fandom thread
This is my point. A bunch of middle aged (or older) men who frame as a matter of vital importance the decision of what costume is going to walk around high-fiving kids and shooting T-Shirts from a cannon into the crowd.
i dont care if i'm the only old guy yelling stay off my lawn.
i would point out that it is ridiculous to say that you need a
mascot to have high level sports. what a dumb argument.
i'm also the only one here disagreeing with you. nobody rioting.
what is your agenda here?
im done with this topic. wish i hadn't pointed out my feeling.
this is just about the kids? kids have a great time at the illinois
games. you should go.
i would point out that it is ridiculous to say that you need a
mascot to have high level sports. what a dumb argument.
i'm also the only one here disagreeing with you. nobody rioting.
what is your agenda here?
im done with this topic. wish i hadn't pointed out my feeling.
this is just about the kids? kids have a great time at the illinois
games. you should go.
Halftime Red Grange can do the same.
Also middle aged or older men (without facts, pure speculation) are probably the largest investers in the university. I've been inclusive all of my posts. Don't start demographic arguments. Give everyone a chance to he heard once and for all. Do better.
Curbelo Fanboy
BERTBALL IS LIFE
Caught me - I read the caption on the pic and it clearly says otter & then I read it as beaver & responded accordingly. Doofus of the day award for me. Maybe I am a closet Oregon State fan & just love the Beavers. There's an HR inappropriate joke in there somewhere.
Battle89
- Cary-Grove, the better Trojan team
I'll reply, though anyone who has spent more than twelve seconds in here knows my feelings already...even I am getting annoyed with myself.
I don't see the need for any mascot, and think they are a bit silly. Maybe more so for us, whether that be because of our former symbol or because our name represents soldiers fallen in battle, both reflecting more solemn thinking. Others feel mascots are fun, help bring in the next generation, etc. - all good points, I just feel differently.
Nothing against birds at all and think kingfishers are pretty good looking. There's an alternate universe where the Chief never existed and I am arguing in favor of the kingfisher.
But where I suppose you can accuse me the most of tin-foil-hatting is that I do not believe it stops with the mascot. Show me all the Robert moniker articles or other declarations from those favoring the change that you want, and I will still not buy that the ultimate goal is not changing the name. And having a bird mascot in O&B already on the sideline just opens wide that door. Nobody fights as hard as those groups have done to just add a dancing bird to the sideline.
Yes
3 point girl
- texas
Bring the Chief out 1 time at halftime & the students will forget the Kingfisher in a heartbeat.
I understand this conversation doesn't need to be "the chief or nothing." But voting turn out when given the opportunity to keep the chief was more than double your 4500.( There have been multiple, actually) And the majority vote went to supporting the chief. If that vote doesn't matter then neither does your point.
Attachments
Because they aren’t real.
chiefini
- Rockford, Illinois
@Battle89 You are not alone with those feelings. I totally agree.I'll reply, though anyone who has spent more than twelve seconds in here knows my feelings already...even I am getting annoyed with myself.
I don't see the need for any mascot, and think they are a bit silly. Maybe more so for us, whether that be because of our former symbol or because our name represents soldiers fallen in battle, both reflecting more solemn thinking. Others feel mascots are fun, help bring in the next generation, etc. - all good points, I just feel differently.
Nothing against birds at all and think kingfishers are pretty good looking. There's an alternate universe where the Chief never existed and I am arguing in favor of the kingfisher.
But where I suppose you can accuse me the most of tin-foil-hatting is that I do not believe it stops with the mascot. Show me all the Robert moniker articles or other declarations from those favoring the change that you want, and I will still not buy that the ultimate goal is not changing the name. And having a bird mascot in O&B already on the sideline just opens wide that door. Nobody fights as hard as those groups have done to just add a dancing bird to the sideline.
altgeld88
- Arlington, Virginia
... because the ultimate goal of course is changing the name.I'll reply, though anyone who has spent more than twelve seconds in here knows my feelings already...even I am getting annoyed with myself.
I don't see the need for any mascot, and think they are a bit silly. Maybe more so for us, whether that be because of our former symbol or because our name represents soldiers fallen in battle, both reflecting more solemn thinking. Others feel mascots are fun, help bring in the next generation, etc. - all good points, I just feel differently.
Nothing against birds at all and think kingfishers are pretty good looking. There's an alternate universe where the Chief never existed and I am arguing in favor of the kingfisher.
But where I suppose you can accuse me the most of tin-foil-hatting is that I do not believe it stops with the mascot. Show me all the Robert moniker articles or other declarations from those favoring the change that you want, and I will still not buy that the ultimate goal is not changing the name. And having a bird mascot in O&B already on the sideline just opens wide that door. Nobody fights as hard as those groups have done to just add a dancing bird to the sideline.
Apart from that, however, the conversation appears to miss the central issue: mascots are organic. They're a result of ideas bubbling up from the grassroots market and something sticking because it resonates widely and gains traction. Alma Otter was a lark and completely unserious but it stuck to some degree because it resonated. The kingfisher? Not from what I can tell. Alma Otter's great IMO because it and F1GHT1NG 1LL1N1 (just kidding about the font) can coexist easily. And, it can also be For the Children(TM).
Michigan doesn't have or want a mascot and its fans seem happy. Indiana didn't miss having one at all until it revived, as an afterthought and a la Jurassic Park, the bison from the 50s (or whenever it became extinct at IU.) The bison makes sense. It's the symbol on the state flag and appears in various places around Indiana (in the span of eight hours last August I encountered bison statues on the lawn of the town hall in Batesville in SE Indinia, and outside The Beef House in Covington.) Plus, the Hoojin faithful appear to dig it. I mean, the woman in front of us on that horrific recent September evening, the one whose horror I won't ever be able to cleanse from my soul, turned around and somewhat sheepishly explained the bison's origin to us (which was sweet), but people in the stadium really seemed to be into him. I think he's cool, particularly when parasailing into the stadium.
A grassroots, uncoordinated groundswell that results in an Illini mascot (and I do mean Illini): great. One that's the result of astroturfing methods or, almost as bad, committee? He!! no. Regarding a committee or university administration deciding this matter, I'm reminded of Robert Conquest's Third Law of Politics: the behavior of any bureaucratic organization can most simply be explained by assuming that a cabal of its enemies control it.
In the absence of a genuine popular movement for a specific mascot, assume that whatever we'll get will be what Iowa, IU, Purdue, Wisconsin, OSU or Michigan would choose for us as they rubbed their hands with malevolent glee. For instance (and yes, I picked this one specifically because of the sign):
So, should they vote again in 5 years and change it again?
mattcoldagelli
- Script Illinois Enthusiast
And here is where I come in and say to those who are worried that "They" want to change the name....the safest bet you can make to prevent that is embracing a new mascot.
altgeld88
- Arlington, Virginia
I disagree to an extent. Leaving the status quo alone seems safest. If I'm wrong and the mascot is a necessary but insufficient condition for preventing the name change, then sufficiency results only from legitimacy of the mascot.
Can you explain why you believe that a mascot alone, regardless of origin, prevents the name change?
mattcoldagelli
- Script Illinois Enthusiast
The position (as I understand it) of the University is - "Fighting Illini" is not a specific Native American name, it predates the Chief, it functioned as sort of a self-referential demonym for students. There is no "Illini" tribe, per se. Reasonable people can - and have - disagreed on this point, but let's use this as the jumping-off point.
The uncharitable interpretation of the status quo is "Sure, there's no official imagery, but you can't walk into a campus t-shirt shop without seeing the Chief everywhere. People still wear regalia to games. Nothing is taking its place to back up the claim that this is just what we call a member of the U of I community. They look kind of half-pregnant to me, guess the only thing left to do is retire the team name, as well." That's - by far - the much easier path to getting rid of the name than cooking up some 4D chess of a kingfisher-related bait-and-switch.
altgeld88
- Arlington, Virginia
That's interesting. I've experienced you as a thoughtful, insightful commentator on this and other topics (branding in particular), so appreciate your perspective.
However, I was in three separate campus stores on two separate occasions in August and September (after having visited campus only once, in 2022, since 2000) and didn't notice a single image of the Chief. (And I looked because I'm curious about the topic.) I haven't been to a home football or basketball game since 2000 so can't comment on what people wear there. However, I do go to a handful of road basketball and football games every season; don't see any Chief imagery there at all (saw one guy with a Chief logo hockey jersey in MSG in 2019 at the MD game, none before or since). I'll take your word for it that it's common in Memorial Stadium and the SFC Center. Am curious about what you see regularly there.
I have no idea how the kingfisher mascot idea arose. However, to scoff at the idea that a bureaucratic push exists to use it or something else as a forcing function to eliminate the FI name is to ignore how power within bureaucracies not subject to competition operates, as well as to disregard how effectively it has been executed in such bureaucracies widely in the past 50 years. I've experienced it even in corporations subject to competition. And I've certainly seen it consistently in government (from the inside and outside), primary and secondary schools, and universities since I was on campus in the '80s. Universities are the worst, and I say that as the son and former spouse of career professors, and as an adjunct one myself. I've got a robust, longitudinal data set on those institutions over 40+ years of grokking what's going on around me.
It's not a fever dream; it's reality. You lose me completely (not only with the mocking "4D chess" quip) when you write off the idea that groups within the UIUC bureaucracy are intent on eliminating the FI name as tin foil conspiracy theory. Astroturfing is an effective, road-tested political vector for manufacturing short-term consent and moving the Overton window. People within bureaucracies who are motivated by institutional and political control wield it most effectively.
If indeed Chief imagery at university sporting events is rampant (or even simply scattered) among the old folks, and if this raises hackles within the university bureaucracy (including motivated faculty), then perhaps adopting a mascot as pre-emption might stave off elimination of the FI name. For a bit. The two matters seem separate, however. Special interests motivated to effect change via political power generally get their way simply because the interests of dispersed populations aren't effectively marshalled. Kingfisher or no kingfisher. And frankly, widely-loved new mascot or not.
Agree and agree about your earlier comment that a mascot needs to come into being organically. To me the Kingfisher is exactly opposite of that. It has been contrived to absolutely subvert/replace past imagery which makes it one step closer to replacing Fighting Illini. It is the worst of all of the suggested mascots. Suggestions like the silly Alma Otter or the one man campaign for Blocky don't pose the same threat.
mattcoldagelli
- Script Illinois Enthusiast
It's not meant to be mocking, just a statement that this could be done right now. You don't need mascot trojan horse to do it.
Also, want to be clear, big Alma Otter fan here. I can't remember where the rendering of him wearing a sailor cap and boxing gloves (?) was, but that was extremely my jam.
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
Will, the artist, used to post here and work for the University, I believe. This is my preference, too. Otters are dope. Super kid-friendly. Has a bit of moxie with the grimace and boxing gloves to fit the moniker. I'd grab a shirt with this guy on it in a heartbeat. But I have no doubt it'll be disliked by many in this thread.
Last edited:
mattcoldagelli
- Script Illinois Enthusiast
Battle89
- Cary-Grove, the better Trojan team
Gosh darn all the reasonable and good-natured debate above! Now I don't know whether I should wear my Chief gear to games any more.
If we must have one, Alma Otter is not terrible. You know I'm halfway there any time a Dad joke / bad pun is involved.
I too have not seen any Chief gear in campus stores for many years. Most of my Chief-labeled stuff is very old. But you can find Chief items online still to this day, here's one I got just a couple years ago (replacing a near-identical and decades-old one that had finally worn out).
If we must have one, Alma Otter is not terrible. You know I'm halfway there any time a Dad joke / bad pun is involved.
I too have not seen any Chief gear in campus stores for many years. Most of my Chief-labeled stuff is very old. But you can find Chief items online still to this day, here's one I got just a couple years ago (replacing a near-identical and decades-old one that had finally worn out).
"River otters are more common in Alaska than they are in Illinois! Rabble rabble rabble!"
BTW love Alma Otter and love these logos.
One possible solution here that I'm sure people will LOVE is, why not have multiple mascots? Kingfisher, Alma Otter, Blocky the I, whatever. Have a bunch. And during breaks in the action, they can enact out cartoonish WWE style dramas and fights (adding weight to the 'Fighting' moniker) for the amusement of fans. And here's the upside - you can't justify a change in the name if you have multiple mascots, because which one are you going to name it after?
Seriously though, I take the kids to Chicago Dogs games all the time, and they have two mascots. One is a furry yellow mustard bottle, and the other is a dastardly, villainous bottle of ketchup. Kids love it.
Now that I've come up with a plan everyone can get behind, we can finally focus on the important things, like debating whether or not Lane Kiffin is going to leave the Ole Miss Landsharks to go to LSU, or whether Andrew Luck can ever turn around the Stanford Tree football program. Not to mention all the great basketball coming up. I'm hoping we can beat UConn, not to mention those Tennessee Dogs.
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
Last edited:
