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

dio said:
Because I personally have more vested interest in CU than athletics, and Ganahl is part of the overall BoR issue.

She has also done more than send a tweet about Polis. She described the people opposing Kennedy as the mob, she confirmed that Kennedy serves an important role in balancing conservative thought at the University, and she discounted hascriticism of him as politically motivated. She has also leveraged her position on the BoR to advance her political position in the state - highlighted by her advancement of Trump at GOP state conventions and attacks on Polis.
Click to expand...
Well boulder could definitely benefit from more conservative thinking so I don’t see an issue with that.

She is pretty right about the mob though. These regents approved him and they knew about the issues before they voted him in. And then there was outrage about his voting record from forever ago and they decided to use that to cause a big issue despite being unified before that. Our favorite two regents are probably the ones who lead the ****ing charge.

I understand the issues with him, and I have stated them on here multiple times. But the grandstanding that took place after they already made a decision was an absolute **** show that I’m sure was noticed around the country.
 
dio said:
She supports athletics, for sure, which I appreciate..... But she plays politics as much as anyone on the board and is a primary driver for the Kennedy fiasco.

I voted for her last time. Won't vote for her again
Click to expand...
You don’t even know who her opponent would be.
 
Pretty much every Regent is complicit in the Kennedy fiasco. None are spared from criticism. There are some who are supportive of athletics.
 
dio said:
Because I personally have more vested interest in CU than athletics, and Ganahl is part of the overall BoR issue.

She has also done more than send a tweet about Polis. She described the people opposing Kennedy as the mob, she confirmed that Kennedy serves an important role in balancing conservative thought at the University, and she discounted hascriticism of him as politically motivated. She has also leveraged her position on the BoR to advance her political position in the state - highlighted by her advancement of Trump at GOP state conventions and attacks on Polis.
Click to expand...
To each his own. The academic institution of CU will be perfectly fine regardless of President and BOR going forward. I’m not so confident about the Athletic Department, if the BOR goes the way of the anti-athletic members.
 
TSchekler said:
To each his own. The academic institution of CU will be perfectly fine regardless of President and BOR going forward. I’m not so confident about the Athletic Department, if the BOR goes the way of the anti-athletic members.
Click to expand...
The President of the University can do some serious damage to the academic reputation of the school.
 
Not Sure said:
Why not? That’s at the top of my list of concerns about the guy.
Click to expand...
Because it’s in everyone’s (Dem, Rep, President, BOR) best interest for the academic reputation to remain strong. That’s not the case with the AD, which is the only thing keeping me connected to the university.
 
Last edited:
onealcd said:
Well boulder could definitely benefit from more conservative thinking so I don’t see an issue with that.

She is pretty right about the mob though. These regents approved him and they knew about the issues before they voted him in. And then there was outrage about his voting record from forever ago and they decided to use that to cause a big issue despite being unified before that. Our favorite two regents are probably the ones who lead the ****ing charge.

I understand the issues with him, and I have stated them on here multiple times. But the grandstanding that took place after they already made a decision was an absolute **** show that I’m sure was noticed around the country.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't agree with any of your analysis, but that's ok. Your dismissal of the issues is part of the problem, and exactly what the Republican members of the BoR did to get us into this mess.

If you call a group raising very really concerns a mob, it makes it easy to just out your head down and make a political decision.

The bottom line for me is that Kennedy is an awful hire that was done to provide a political victory for the GOP. I can't support Regents who hammered him thru after everything came to light.
 
dio said:
Well, I don't agree with any of your analysis, but that's ok. Your dismissal of the issues is part of the problem, and exactly what the Republican members of the BoR did to get us into this mess.

If you call a group raising very really concerns a mob, it makes it easy to just out your head down and make a political decision.

The bottom line for me is that Kennedy is an awful hire that was done to provide a political victory for the GOP. I can't support Regents who hammered him thru after everything came to light.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree he is a bad hire, we have talked about this before lol. I’m just saying when all of them agreed upon him and then they use the backlash to reverse their decision a couple weeks later despite no new information it makes them look dumb. You can’t say they forced something through when they all agreed in the first place and that’s exactly what the democratic regents did. Ganahl and company didn’t force anything through they just proceeded with the agreed upon candidate and weren’t going to put up with the **** that the other stirred up.
 
onealcd said:
Yeah I agree he is a bad hire, we have talked about this before lol. I’m just saying when all of them agreed upon him and then they use the backlash to reverse their decision a couple weeks later despite no new information it makes them look dumb. You can’t say they forced something through when they all agreed in the first place and that’s exactly what the democratic regents did. Ganahl and company didn’t force anything through they just proceeded with the agreed upon candidate and weren’t going to put up with the **** that the other stirred up.
Click to expand...
Lots of new information came to light. That is the purpose of the public phase. Also, you get a chance to seem him in public, and he failed very badly in many interviews and his performance in the Q&As was awful.

You and I just have a different view on the purpose of the public phase and how much information was available to the BoR prior to it
 
I’m not convinced that a lot of new stuff came to light. They knew about it, didn’t think it mattered, and only after a bunch of folks raised a fuss did they backpedal. My concern is that they didn’t feel like the stuff that became public later wasn’t enough to disqualify him at the beginning of the process.
 
dio said:
Lots of new information came to light. That is the purpose of the public phase. Also, you get a chance to seem him in public, and he failed very badly in many interviews and his performance in the Q&As was awful.

You and I just have a different view on the purpose of the public phase and how much information was available to the BoR prior to it
Click to expand...
You honestly believe new information came up? I highly doubt that. The info this board got was from google, they hired a search firm that no doubt told them everything about these candidates and Ganahl even said so in her podcast with Adam. You can’t sit here and tell me they found out about that after the fact.

I do agree with you about the public phase but so many of the public problems were about his voting record. I’m absolutely on board with the questions about his vision and fundraising
 
onealcd said:
You honestly believe new information came up? I highly doubt that. The info this board got was from google, they hired a search firm that no doubt told them everything about these candidates and Ganahl even said so in her podcast with Adam. You can’t sit here and tell me they found out about that after the fact.

I do agree with you about the public phase but so many of the public problems were about his voting record. I’m absolutely on board with the questions about his vision and fundraising
Click to expand...
Well, Faculty Council raised a bunch of issues. He also demonstrated a lack of knowledge about a number of basic issues surrounding Higher Ed. And the most important feedback was from the campus constituents. Kennedy failed every campus' feedback process.

It wasn't even Boulder who was most sour on him (because everyone likes to discount what Boulder folks say), it was Anschutz. I would call that ramming someone through.

Finally, Ganahl can say they had all the info. But she is a politician. Shoemaker says they didn't have all the information. So we have two Regents with differing stories. I have no reason to believe Ganahl over Shoemaker. They are both trying to serve their own interests as politicians.
 
dio said:
Well, Faculty Council raised a bunch of issues. He also demonstrated a lack of knowledge about a number of basic issues surrounding Higher Ed. And the most important feedback was from the campus constituents. Kennedy failed every campus' feedback process.

It wasn't even Boulder who was most sour on him (because everyone likes to discount what Boulder folks say), it was Anschutz. I would call that ramming someone through.

Finally, Ganahl can say they had all the info. But she is a politician. Shoemaker says they didn't have all the information. So we have two Regents with differing stories. I have no reason to believe Ganahl over Shoemaker. They are both trying to serve their own interests as politicians.
Click to expand...
So you really believe that the group that hired a search firm didn’t have all of the info that this group found in a simple google search? If shoemaker didn’t know this she is a complete moron (which we all know she is).

I understand the issues with him like I have said. But so many of the issues with his open forums were about his voting record which is a garbage thing to argue about and an issue only CU would magnify.

If Kennedy tried to pass anything anti lgbq that would go over about as well as trying to baptize a cat. It’s something not to worry about in this situation and it was a total abuse of power by the regents we hate.
 
onealcd said:
So you really believe that the group that hired a search firm didn’t have all of the info that this group found in a simple google search? If shoemaker didn’t know this she is a complete moron (which we all know she is).

I understand the issues with him like I have said. But so many of the issues with his open forums were about his voting record which is a garbage thing to argue about and an issue only CU would magnify.

If Kennedy tried to pass anything anti lgbq that would go over about as well as trying to baptize a cat. It’s something not to worry about in this situation and it was a total abuse of power by the regents we hate.
Click to expand...
His voting record is secondary to me, but it isn't a garbage issue. If you are doing STEM cell research, or are gay and actively harmed by his time in Congress, it is important. You can't discount that when he is hired as the President. Why does he just get a pass there? He was one of very few people with the power to actually do harm to folks, and he did it.

As far as the search firm stuff.... I absolutely believe they missed things.... Maybe even many things. I mean, we have seen the search firms be pretty awful in hiring coaches for the AD in the past. I refuse to make the fallacy of appealing to their authority.

But even if they did have all the info, that makes it almost worse and just goes to show that they rammed thru a ****ty candidate.

And finally, the only reason that CU would fight about a voting record (which I don't grant as being unique to CU - UCF didn't hire him for that reason) is because we have the ****tiest governance structure in the country. I doubt a proper Board of Trustees with broad, non-partisan expertise hires this guy
 
If he wasn't a republican politician, would he have even been considered as a candidate?
 
dio said:
Lots of new information came to light. That is the purpose of the public phase. Also, you get a chance to seem him in public, and he failed very badly in many interviews and his performance in the Q&As was awful.

You and I just have a different view on the purpose of the public phase and how much information was available to the BoR prior to it
Click to expand...
Bull****, no new info came out .
 
dio said:
His voting record is secondary to me, but it isn't a garbage issue. If you are doing STEM cell research, or are gay and actively harmed by his time in Congress, it is important. You can't discount that when he is hired as the President. Why does he just get a pass there? He was one of very few people with the power to actually do harm to folks, and he did it.

As far as the search firm stuff.... I absolutely believe they missed things.... Maybe even many things. I mean, we have seen the search firms be pretty awful in hiring coaches for the AD in the past. I refuse to make the fallacy of appealing to their authority.

But even if they did have all the info, that makes it almost worse and just goes to show that they rammed thru a ****ty candidate.

And finally, the only reason that CU would fight about a voting record (which I don't grant as being unique to CU - UCF didn't hire him for that reason) is because we have the ****tiest governance structure in the country. I doubt a proper Board of Trustees with broad, non-partisan expertise hires this guy
Click to expand...
It is absolutely a garbage issue. 60 percent of the country opposed gay marriage in the early 2000’s. People need to grow up about that ****, this country has changed a lot in the last 20 years. To go after a person about that is complete and utter bull****.

I know you paid attention to all of his town hall sessions and how many questions were actually about stuff that mattered? Maybe 10%? The rest of it was a bunch of liberals going ape **** about something he voted on 20 years ago. And the democratic regents had a lot to do with that.

If you honestly believe the regents didn’t know about this stuff then it is pointless to even argue about and you are being even more stubborn just to protect your political agenda.
 
The remaining question is how will Mark Kennedy unite the factions and lead effectively?

This will require immense EQ and acumen.

Does he have it?

Time will tell.
 
dio said:
Well, Faculty Council raised a bunch of issues. He also demonstrated a lack of knowledge about a number of basic issues surrounding Higher Ed. And the most important feedback was from the campus constituents. Kennedy failed every campus' feedback process.

It wasn't even Boulder who was most sour on him (because everyone likes to discount what Boulder folks say), it was Anschutz. I would call that ramming someone through.

Finally, Ganahl can say they had all the info. But she is a politician. Shoemaker says they didn't have all the information. So we have two Regents with differing stories. I have no reason to believe Ganahl over Shoemaker. They are both trying to serve their own interests as politicians.
Click to expand...

Come on. The difference is Ganahl is not trying the undermine an important part of the university like Shoemaker is the football program.

Shoemaker is the new age Cindy Carlisle, who along with Lesley Smith and Kroll, want to disable the football program. Such a coincidence that they are all Democrats.
 
buffs233 said:
Come on. The difference is Ganahl is not trying the undermine an important part of the university like Shoemaker is the football program.

Shoemaker is the new age Cindy Carlisle, who along with Lesley Smith and Kroll, want to disable the football program. Such a coincidence that they are all Democrats.
Click to expand...

She is using her current position as Regent as a potential springboard to other positions in statewide politics. I would be wary of all the motives of each and every Regent.
 
Duff Man said:
She is using her current position as Regent as a potential springboard to other positions in statewide politics. I would be wary of all the motives of each and every Regent.
Click to expand...
True, but it doesn’t change the fact that Ganahl is one of the true AD/football supporters on the BOR and voting against her because of her backing of Kennedy, while fine if you truly have such strong convictions about CU beyond athletics, is probably not the wisest move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top