Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Mark Kennedy new, but soon to be old CU President - Official CU president Thread

Clean Undies said:
Amidst all of the hand wringing around the candidate’s politics, is there any indication one way or the other about Kennedy’s potential impact on the athletic department?

Is he better or worse than Benson in this regard?

My gut tells me Kennedy < Benson:

-1 NDU AD program cuts
-2 reports of sour NDU booster relationships
-3 absence of any quotes / pictures showing any kind of passion for sports.
-4 no reports of writing large checks to any AD.

What it would take for me to be interested...
1) Rick George and/or any P5 fan base showing respect and envy around how Kennedy is exactly what the CUAD needs
2) A sense of what happens next to Phil DeStefano and some comment about how the chancellor of the Boulder campus must fight hard to fix the P12 Network problem:
3) A sense that this guy is the best that CU is capable of hiring.


I’m having trouble getting behind Kennedy knowing that his ties to both CU and his passion for athletics appear to be slim to none. Add in the circus surrounding his voting record and red flags from NDU, and things aren’t adding up.

I’d be more foregiving about the political red flags if the guy led a peer university that made it to a final four and/or cheered on a football program with a bunch of 10+ win seasons.
Click to expand...
From what I have been told, his interviews have all been very Pro athletic department.
 


This thread is interesting. It does sound like the Regents have inserted themselves more directly into the search committee. It makes sense then that is has become politicized.
 
dio said:


This thread is interesting. It does sound like the Regents have inserted themselves more directly into the search committee. It makes sense then that is has become politicized.
Click to expand...

Fair amount of bias, and a lot of fiction in that thread.
 
What bias? She sourced articles going back years to illustrate how we got here, and I don't see her expressing an opinion on what happened or is happening
 
SuperiorBuff said:
From what I have been told, his interviews have all been very Pro athletic department.
Click to expand...

Words and deeds. Anyone can say they strive for athletic excellence.

Any notion of what those pro-athletic sentiments are? Do they correlate with a history of noteworthy accomplishments?

I mean when I think about a good football story out of ND, it’s NDSU.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
Blow me
Click to expand...
2-andy.w1200.h630.jpg
 
dio said:
What bias? She sourced articles going back years to illustrate how we got here, and I don't see her expressing an opinion on what happened or is happening
Click to expand...
She is regurgitating spoon-fed propaganda from Shoemaker. Shoemaker has, and always has had, an agenda which does not necessarily coincide with the best interest of the board or the University. As I mentioned prior, Shoemaker was not on the committee and cannot speak as to what happened in the committee.
 
Clean Undies said:
Words and deeds. Anyone can say they strive for athletic excellence.

Any notion of what those pro-athletic sentiments are? Do they correlate with a history of noteworthy accomplishments?

I mean when I think about a good football story out of ND, it’s NDSU.
Click to expand...
Outside of what I've been told, I can't answer that. I do share your reservations.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
She is regurgitating spoon-fed propaganda from Shoemaker. Shoemaker has, and always has had, an agenda which does not necessarily coincide with the best interest of the board or the University. As I mentioned prior, Shoemaker was not on the committee and cannot speak as to what happened in the committee.
Click to expand...


Uhhh, quotes in the various articles

As regents shared their frustrations and ideas, Regent Steve Ludwig, a Democrat in an at-large seat, called out a question that momentarily quieted the room.
"Are we willing to give up our nonsense behavior to be more functional?" Ludwig said. "What's the cost of this dysfunction? How many students are we not serving because the board can't get along better?"
Click to expand...

"I wonder if there's a way we can do both," said Regent Heidi Ganahl, a Republican in an at-large seat. "If we can honor people having an individual interest but still have a board that works on strategic goals. Is there a way we can be creative and innovative about what our one issue is and maybe the whole board has to agree to play nice, yet we're all still working collectively?"
Click to expand...

Board Chair Sue Sharkey, a Republican from Castle Rock, agreed, adding that regents should be able to ask questions and brainstorm but not move further with attempting to craft policies unless there was more of a board consensus.
Regent Irene Griego, a Lakewood Democrat, felt that some regents put their political affiliation before their role as regent.
"I think it's dangerous when we do that, but I think it's hard for some regents not to do it at certain times," Griego said. "What's going on now, nationally, where we have pretty strong political agendas on both sides — that makes it difficult. I think we need to understand that and be respectful, but also be aware of what's important for us as a board."
Click to expand...

Regent Sue Sharkey, a Republican from Castle Rock, argued for even more regent representation on the search committee, asking why five regents couldn't join the committee that is currently made up of two regents; one dean of a school, college or library; four faculty; one staff member; one student; two alumni; and four community members.
"This is the most important decision the board has to make," Sharkey said. "I believe it should be a majority of the board members that should be involved in that decision. Regents need to be carrying a heavier weight on that committee than any other groups of people. This is our decision and whoever is the president of the university will be a reflection of the board."
Click to expand...

Regent Irene Griego, a Lakewood Democrat, said it was "awkward" that there were more faculty and community members weighing in than regents.
"It seems we don't have proper representation," she said.
Click to expand...

Some board members were concerned regents didn't play a large enough role in the presidential selection.
Ganahl suggested letting any regent who wants to be on the search committee join it.
Regent John Carson, a Republican from Highlands Ranch, wanted to change the search committee's minimum number of regents to three instead of two.
He previously passed a policy changing the search committee composition from one to two.
"If we don't make it policy, it's going to turn into a whole political thing if we just decide to add more regents," Carson said.
"Oh, it's going to get political," responded Regent Steve Ludwig, a Democrat in an at-large seat.
Click to expand...

For this reason, Regent Jack Kroll, a Denver Democrat, wanted to keep the search committee as is.
"The board decision will be incredibly scrutinized, and the more regents we infuse into the process earlier, the less the rest of the campus community and stakeholders will feel they had a say," Kroll said. "Ultimately, it's our decision, but we have to at least create the perception that there was a good amount of input from the community."
Irene Griego, a Lakewood Democrat, felt regents already had the final say in choosing a president and didn't need added committee representation.
"It's so important to get feedback from our community," Griego said. "This is a president that has to work with every part of our university and represent us on a national and state level."
Click to expand...

Regent Glen Gallegos, a Grand Junction Republican, repeatedly said he wanted to hear more from Benson both during the board retreat and day-to-day.
"Well, pick up the phone," Benson responded. "My door is always open."
Gallegos said it was a two-way street.
As Thursday's meeting wrapped up, regents spoke in whispers about wanting to know what Benson's goals were and what he wanted from the board.
"Bruce needs to put down the fence," Ganahl said.
Griego agreed.
Click to expand...

So.... these are all direct quotes from people who aren't Shoemaker over the years. Did you even read the articles? These are just news articles
 
dio said:
Uhhh, quotes in the various articles

















So.... these are all direct quotes from people who aren't Shoemaker over the years. Did you even read the articles? These are just news articles
Click to expand...
Those quotes are completely accurate. Those type of disagreements with inhabited we happen when you have it's an elected group made up of different parties. I should have clarified that my reply is based on her comments about the committee proceedings.
 
dio said:


This thread is interesting. It does sound like the Regents have inserted themselves more directly into the search committee. It makes sense then that is has become politicized.
Click to expand...

1) I do not see any way that this ends well. The Kennedy tour through all 4 campuses will be a ****show if not an outright disaster. Running this university system cannot possibly be as ****ing hard as CU always makes it.

2) We get the regent board we deserve. When we couldn't get Lucky in over Kroll, we should have known **** like this was going to happen. **** Jack Kroll forever.
 
Denver_sc said:
1) I do not see any way that this ends well. The Kennedy tour through all 4 campuses will be a ****show if not an outright disaster. Running this university system cannot possibly be as ****ing hard as CU always makes it.

2) We get the regent board we deserve. When we couldn't get Lucky in over Kroll, we should have known **** like this was going to happen. **** Jack Kroll forever.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can get Hickenlooper
 
Heard an interview this morning with Kennedy on CPR. Was fairly benign with some obvious prepared answers about the marriage vote and such.

Then the interviewer asked him about the texas tech no race in admissions thing.

You could almost SEE him start sweating. On the radio.

Fumbled all over himself, then asked if he could not answer the question, then answered it, sort of, anyways.

Pretty sure I know which way he leans on that one, and isn't willing to say it.
 
Here is the interview that Zandi references

https://www.cpr.org/news/story/buff...te-says-he-ll-be-a-champion-for-welcoming-all

Zandi is right that this guy is just a snake - clearly just trying to answer questions to get the job rather than on his principles. He knows he can't answer how he wants to answer on Affirmative Action.

Finally, he says he wants technology to be a focus of his administration. If that is the goal, then go get a technologist - his background certainly isn't that.
 
“I don't feel safe with him being on campus, nor do any of my other friends or classmates, having a man that we know actively went against our rights,” said Naya O’Reily, a student in environmental studies and a leader in the school’s LGBTQ community.
Click to expand...

Never change Boulder, never change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top