>
> Kurt Stutt wrote:
> [snip]
>
> No sense in trying to stop the wind.  The nickname will change.
> However, I have one request, addressed to the hockey-lers from
> UMass-Lowell.  How does one deal, emotionally, with the change in
> your school's nickname?
>
 
I don't have a problem with the change, but I have a loose connection to UML.
My son and I are only fans because he played for the Jr. Chiefs who had
practices right after the "big" Chiefs.  Pretty soon UML's "Youngstars"
program had sucked us in and next thing you know I'm getting to know Coach
Crowder...  So I don't have the emotional ties that an alum would.
 
Personally, I didn't see the need for the change.  Steve Weisfeldt commented
that the PC nature of the change made it more bearable for him.  I view it
in the exact opposite fashion.  I hated to give in to what I considered PC
nitwitery.  Chiefs is not a derogatory term.  (In contrast, the Washington
Redskins is absolutely hideous as is the Cleveland Indians logo.)  Much as
the Merrimack Warriors is not derogatory.  So I initially viewed it as caving
in to the knee-jerks.  I've since heard reports that although the name was not
considered inflammatory, that any logo they came up with was likely to be so,
so logo marketing may have been an issue.  If so, I don't see it as a sellout
to want to have a logo you can be happy with and market.  Personally, I like
the RiverHawks logo and consider the nickname to be head and shoulders above
all the others that were considered.
 
So I have no problem with it, but may be considered an atypical fan.
(Although I do have this red Chiefs jacket that's now useless...)
 
DaveH