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

Remember when many of us here were appalled that the University of Colorado system couldn’t find an actually qualified candidate to become its President?

Oh, you’re saying that there were several interested candidates who were in the final 30 who were MUCH more qualified than Kennedy?

Color me shocked. The whole selection process stunk from the outset. This only confirms that the BoR screwed the pooch on this one.
 
What a ****ing embarrassing read. Hired a cut-rate search firm that conducted embarrassing phone interviews with the candidates, acted less than professionally throughout the entire process, and just "happened" to end up with 8/11 candidates in the 3rd round and 5/6 candidates in the 4th round with strong GOP ties. The only good news might be that Kennedy may have plans to use this job to get another and shining some light on this may help to ensure it doesn't happen again.
 
I'm on the outside looking in at this, but have a question. Why does it seem like the BoR find a way to **** things up a lot of times? I'm not just talking about the current members either. It's like they have a ****ing history of this kind of ****.
 
Denver_sc said:
What a ****ing embarrassing read. Hired a cut-rate search firm that conducted embarrassing phone interviews with the candidates, acted less than professionally throughout the entire process, and just "happened" to end up with 8/11 candidates in the 3rd round and 5/6 candidates in the 4th round with strong GOP ties. The only good news might be that Kennedy may have plans to use this job to get another and shining some light on this may help to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...

Why is it that whenever left-wing folk don't get their way, there's always something wrong with the "process"?
 
Uncle Luko said:
I'm on the outside looking in at this, but have a question. Why does it seem like the BoR find a way to **** things up a lot of times? I'm not just talking about the current members either. It's like they have a ****ing history of this kind of ****.
Click to expand...
My take on that is that it’s a flawed system that appoints Regents, and therefore we get flawed Regents as a result. Sometimes we get some pretty good ones (Steve Bosley comes to mind), but most of the time we get people with who view the position as a platform for them to spout their personal agendas. Personal agendas rarely align with the best interests of the school. The best we can hope for is that through compromise, they eventually settle on what is best for the school. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t.

CU has managed to grow and even flourish for over 100 years in spite of this system.
 
Not Sure said:
I think motive is always relevant.
Click to expand...

How? The leaker could have any of a number of motives, from selfless to selfish to vindictive. None of that would change the story written by the journalist.

Daniel Ellsburg could have conscientiously opposed the Vietnam war, or he could've been pissed off that McNamara didn't give him a promotion. It wouldn't have mattered why he leaked the Pentagon papers.
 
BuffsNYC said:
How? The leaker could have any of a number of motives, from selfless to selfish to vindictive. None of that would change the story written by the journalist.

Daniel Ellsburg could have conscientiously opposed the Vietnam war, or he could've been pissed off that McNamara didn't give him a promotion. It wouldn't have mattered why he leaked the Pentagon papers.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif

Joking aside, yes, motive is important. There’s a reason for putting that stuff out there. I like to know what that reason is.

And no, it doesn’t change what the journalist wrote. I agree with you there.
 
Not Sure said:
My take on that is that it’s a flawed system that appoints Regents, and therefore we get flawed Regents as a result. Sometimes we get some pretty good ones (Steve Bosley comes to mind), but most of the time we get people with who view the position as a platform for them to spout their personal agendas. Personal agendas rarely align with the best interests of the school. The best we can hope for is that through compromise, they eventually settle on what is best for the school. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t.

CU has managed to grow and even flourish for over 100 years in spite of this system.
Click to expand...

CU regents are elected, and not appointed, so there's always going to be a bit of politics going on when decisions are made. What I find interesting on a sports message board is the trashing of this new president who looks to be a big supporter of the CU Ath Dept. The football fans on this site could have it much worse. As far as Kennedy's support of Prop CC, he's in the education business and support for more funding just goes with the territory. I doubt he knows much TABOR history or the Colorado residents' weltanschauung on taxation generally.
 
^
This response is why motive is important.

Was it leaked to expose the flawed system or to undermine Kennedy?

exposing the flawed system is noble. Undermining Kennedy at this point is counterproductive.
 
Not Sure said:
My take on that is that it’s a flawed system that appoints Regents, and therefore we get flawed Regents as a result. Sometimes we get some pretty good ones (Steve Bosley comes to mind), but most of the time we get people with who view the position as a platform for them to spout their personal agendas. Personal agendas rarely align with the best interests of the school. The best we can hope for is that through compromise, they eventually settle on what is best for the school. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t.

CU has managed to grow and even flourish for over 100 years in spite of this system.
Click to expand...

On this we agree. You create a political process for a system that really shouldn't be political. Then you get folks who are severely underqualified to serve on the BoR (Kroll) and who use it as a jumping off point to future political positions (Ganahl). It is fugly and we are one of just a handful of Universities in the nation who are subject to this garbage.
 
TSchekler said:
Because the process led to choosing a far less qualified candidate out of a pretty big pool of highly qualified individuals. How can you deny that there was something very wrong with the process?
Click to expand...
Have you seen how we end up with a POTUS? I'd argue about starting off with highly qualified individuals.
 
Not Sure said:
^
This response is why motive is important.

Was it leaked to expose the flawed system or to undermine Kennedy?

exposing the flawed system is noble. Undermining Kennedy at this point is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Motive is completely irrelevant to this story. The Independent would’ve written the same article had they been accidentally CC’d on the email.

It may seem like I’m beating a dead horse, but this “motive” bull**** is regularly used to obscure or question the truth. The truth is that there were apparently many well qualified applicants not chosen and few reasons given for why.
 
BuffsNYC said:
Motive is completely irrelevant to this story. The Independent would’ve written the same article had they been accidentally CC’d on the email.

It may seem like I’m beating a dead horse, but this “motive” bull**** is regularly used to obscure or question the truth. The truth is that there were apparently many well qualified applicants not chosen and few reasons given for why.
Click to expand...
Yeah I still don’t understand why motive matters and Not Sure hasn’t provided a reason for why it does either. It’s completely irrelevant.
 
Buffnik said:
OK.

I'm also not an alum. Also, most donation dollars to CU (athletics and otherwise) are not coming from alums. Most season tickets are not bought by alums. Alums have a different and important connection to the school that is different from how non-alums relate, but I don't see how any of that relates to your recent posts. You did some good research, citing sources, and made some points in this thread that were valuable to the conversation. Within that, you made a strange comment about not caring about it. Then that morphed into some feelings you have about non-alums being undervalued.

I'm kind of at a loss on where you're coming from.
Click to expand...

I have a take on Jalapeño's subject matter. I think that CU Alums who came to CU from out of state might be more emotionally invested in CU generally than Alums who are/were instate residents. I went to CU because we couldn't have afforded to go out of state, and I wasn't going to go to CSU, which I always thought of as kind of a giant high school. If I'd have grown up in Elko I'd have gone to Nevada, if I'd have grown up in Medford, I'd have gone to Oregon. I do think that some of the folks here that are most opinionated about All Things CU are either CU grads who were non-residents and Chose the school in a different way than I did, or grads of other schools altogether, which seems a little weird. But as far as sports go, we'll take all the fans we can get. And we do appreciate the out of state students.......
 
PAHIBuff said:
I have a take on Jalapeño's subject matter. I think that CU Alums who came to CU from out of state might be more emotionally invested in CU generally than Alums who are/were instate residents. I went to CU because we couldn't have afforded to go out of state, and I wasn't going to go to CSU, which I always thought of as kind of a giant high school. If I'd have grown up in Elko I'd have gone to Nevada, if I'd have grown up in Medford, I'd have gone to Oregon. I do think that some of the folks here that are most opinionated about All Things CU are either CU grads who were non-residents and Chose the school in a different way than I did, or grads of other schools altogether, which seems a little weird. But as far as sports go, we'll take all the fans we can get. And we do appreciate the out of state students.......
Click to expand...

Huh? Your take makes zero sense.
 
Motive matters to me. I thought I made that part clear. If it doesn’t matter to you, that’s fine.

to be clear: I’m not questioning the motives of the author. I’m questioning the motives of the leaker. I think maybe some of you aren’t picking up on that important distinction.
 
Not Sure said:
Motive matters to me. I thought I made that part clear. If it doesn’t matter to you, that’s fine.

to be clear: I’m not questioning the motives of the author. I’m questioning the motives of the leaker. I think maybe some of you aren’t picking up on that important distinction.
Click to expand...
Oh no, we all get it. Maybe you can discuss what about the motive matters to you, though? What motive is acceptable/unacceptable to you and why?
 
TSchekler said:
Oh no, we all get it. Maybe you can discuss what about the motive matters to you, though? What motive is acceptable/unacceptable to you and why?
Click to expand...
That part I’ve also made clear. If the leaker wants to put a spotlight on the broken system and expose it for the farce that it is, that’s totally acceptable and commendable in my view. I suspect, however, that the true motive is to undermine Kennedy with the hope that releasing the names of the other candidates will create such an uproar that there will be calls for him to be removed. I see no purpose in that.
 
PAHIBuff said:
I have a take on Jalapeño's subject matter. I think that CU Alums who came to CU from out of state might be more emotionally invested in CU generally than Alums who are/were instate residents. I went to CU because we couldn't have afforded to go out of state, and I wasn't going to go to CSU, which I always thought of as kind of a giant high school. If I'd have grown up in Elko I'd have gone to Nevada, if I'd have grown up in Medford, I'd have gone to Oregon. I do think that some of the folks here that are most opinionated about All Things CU are either CU grads who were non-residents and Chose the school in a different way than I did, or grads of other schools altogether, which seems a little weird. But as far as sports go, we'll take all the fans we can get. And we do appreciate the out of state students.......
Click to expand...
Everyone that’s interested in the local economy should care about CU (and other local universities), regardless of your origin or education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top