jdub27

Look like only one has head coaching experience and let's not forget their previous two head coaches were assistants at P5 schools (Utah and Penn State). That being said, it looks like they got some decent candidates. Depending on the hire, they are on the brink of only having 1 head coach who is female. Can't wait to see the reporting on that

No, but it's a big part of the issue in Grand Forks. Either that, or I guess the folks in the athletic department who acknowledge it as a huge problem don't have any actually insight or reason to be concerned. No one said it was the only issue. But it is an absolutely huge one. Pretending it isn't doesn't make it go away. As for the projector, unfortunately it isn't happening anytime soon.

You claim to want to find solutions that might help fix the atmosphere but won't acknowledge one of the biggest problems is the identity crisis going on within the crowd. Again, tough to work with those that can't accept reality.

Tough to work with those that can't accept reality.

I'd say figure out how to help people realize the Fighting Sioux nickname is literally never coming back so they can move on and accept the actual nickname and logo of the team they are cheering for but you said realistic, so I got nothing.

The would require him to be proactive instead of reactive. That being said, just because there aren't news reports of it happening doesn't mean is isn't. UND was continuously in contact with the Summit/MVFC for a few years, particularly the last year before joining, which included in person meetings, yet there were no reports of it happening. I believe that was the same time frame were there were those adamant that UND would never join the Summit/MVFC as the Dakotas were moving to the Big Sky in short order.

It's retired, not happening.

Counterpoint: UND's budget would still be a mess and the athletic department would still have a $2 million/year anchor around its neck.

Except for Kennedy has shown examples of being able to work with donors (see: Gamble Hall, UND Foundation on pace for biggest year ever). Not saying he's perfect, nor the ability to get along with everyone, but he's far being from unable to cultivate relationships. KEM has been in charge of the Engelstad Foundation for 17 years now and has yet to get along with a president at UND and has documented issues with UNLV as well. The range of personality between Kupchella, Kelley and Kennedy is pretty wide but I guess none of them gave 100% control to an outside entity that was desired.

I definitely don't disagree, money talks, I just think that quote was very telling. I mean, it isn't like UND had 3 presidents in a row that were exactly the same, so it is a certain personality that is causing the issue. Toss in the documented disagreements with UNLV and a pretty clear pattern starts to develop. I fully understand not wanting to be a passive donor, especially when giving donations of that size, but there is a fine line between having a say and acting like you know what's best for the institution you're donating to and causing problems.

Sometimes self-reflection is needed to help someone understand what the common denominator is in situations where the same problem continues to arise....

The claim that Kennedy was wholly unequalified and yet has been approached about multiple opportunities to move up, some that have been made public, some that he turned down, just reinforces the click-bait nature of this article that let's McFeely take a potshot at the NDGOP from his perch in Moorhead.

The two previous decades of "academic" presidents wasn't exactly inspiring.

Not really, SBoHE cut it off. He knows he's done here based on his own words.

How about you actually research what NDSU is doing before making a claim. It is on a Friday night and it isn't actually a game.

Sure, but only if you can tell me if the women's hockey team coming back or not.

I 100% agree, but people don't seem to want someone who gets noticed by these big name schools in only a few years of work. The message seems to be we need stability, not someone with the drive who might go looking at bigger and better opportunities/challenges.

None of that answer my question of what happened at VCSU or MiSU that makes him such an impressive candidate except for being "one of us". He was tagged as being inexperienced last time around, did another couple years at Minot really change that? I'm not being negative towards him, I'm really trying to understand the appeal. And pure speculation he wouldn't leave after less than 3 years, he's on the record at looking to advance after less than 2 years after Minot. I'm in no way blaming him for doing it, just point out the hypocrisy for those that are in favor of him and degrading MK for doing the same thing. What if he got approached for an opportunity at the largest undergrad college in the nation or a nearby AAU/P5 school?

Fair considering the optics of the whole thing, though I have a hard time classifying that as a major donor considering it was a gift worth around $11K when it was gifted. On top of that, Schafer is the one who made the decision to close the course, not Kennedy.

Just curious what other donors he had issue with besides McGarry? Definitely can't be the one who wants to drop $20 million on Gamble Hall? The Foundation is on track for its largest year of donations ever, so forgive me if I'm having a hard time buying all this talk "major donors" (outside of one) having such a huge issue with MK. Note - Not defending the assistant thing, but at this point that whole thing has jumped the rails I'm not saying I have anything for or against Shirley, I think he was a quality candidate last time around, but what exactly has he done to show he can lead a D1 research institute? Before Minot, he was president at VCSU for 6 years. Other than being "one of us", I'm honestly curious what he did at either of those two places that people think he would be an instant success at UND? Not to mention he applied for the UND last time around less 2 years after getting to Minot, yet Kennedy is a job hopper for looking at moving up in the world after 2.5-3 years.

It has nothing to do with any recent comments or actions, it's tied to his voting record from 2003-2007 when he was in the House. Looks like some people figure out he was a Republican when he served and voted like most did at the time.

There's some merit to portions of you criticism, but no one is going to be perfect, especially when making incredibly tough and unpopular decisions. There are also numerous examples where no explanation or communication was going to be enough to satisfy the group think because as whole, people react with their emotions instead of logic. Public perception wasn't going to be based on the facts, particularly when the media reporting it already had an axe to grind. You can describe it however you want, but in most cases, the reactions and "solutions" provided by those lobbing the criticism were laughable at best. Hell, most people probably couldn't tell you a thing Kennedy did except for cutting WIH, closing Ray Richards and bumbling the nickname process (even though he wasn't hear for the decision to drop the Sioux name, the choice of the new nickname or the choice of the new logo). Its telling that there are leaders of multiple other higher-ed institutions that have a much higher profile than the flagship institution of the State of North Dakota who have shown so much interest in hiring MK, yet people here are busy holding a grudge 2 years later about the loss of an athletic team that no one showed up to support all while bleeding the athletic department dry.

Kind of seems KEM put herself in a spot on this one. She got her wish, hoping the Foundation has already given her a call to see what donations she was holding back on.

From the local Boulder paper:

Based on the replies to Schlossman's backhanded tweet, this is correct.