Rick Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Well, who do we believe here? If Douple is telling the truth, Kelley should be run out of town. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/191367/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Well, who do we believe here? If Douple is telling the truth, Kelley should be run out of town. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/191367/ It's always been clear that Kelley wanted the name gone: Kelley and Faison lobbied hard to retiire nickname Douple is now getting revenge to Kelley for taking all the heat on the nickname, and then getting shafted by Kelley. If Kelley had accepted a Summit bid, one can be assured that Douple would have kept his mouth shut about Kelley. Both of them just wanted to spin the public by their B. S. We deserve better than this from our leaders: who resort to politics and outright deception to get their own way, so as not to alienate the vast majority of their constituents Kelley's days may be numbered by the crap he pulled. Disgusting. We were all just pawns - dummies - in a play put on by Kelley, Douple, and the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is just comical...................... Douple is obviously jaded by UND's snub of the Summit League.................and Kolpack is prodding him for a story. The Summit League's "stance" on the nickname was first revealed to the public by NDSU athletic director Gene Taylor in response to the legislature exploring the idea of mandating a Sioux-Bison football game.....................that was several months before the Summit invited South Dakota to join the league. Why on earth would a conference official go out of his way to accomodate requests of a non-member school? This guy is completely preposterous..................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is just comical...................... Why on earth would a conference official go out of his way to accomodate requests of a non-member school? Comical? I'd say farcical, but that's me. The question really is a good question: Why would Douple do that for a non-member? Douple has to be feeling heat right now. The Big Sky is in his backyard. People have to be asking how that happened. We'll never know exactly who told Douple what and when, or if it really ever happened as Kelley is denying it. Farcical. But maybe all this is why some in the Legislature are taking interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FargoBison Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Tell me how this fits together... Chancellor Goetz was on KNOX Radio, Mac Talk show this morning and Mac questioned him on the Summit League and name issue. Mac's question was something like does the Summit League want the name resolved or changed. Goetz fumbled for an answer and Mac questioned him again saying he didn't hear resolved or changed in Goetz's answer so he pressed him again whether the Summit wants resolved or changed. Goetz responded -- changed. Smith said he was one of a few board members who flew to Summit headquarters in Chicago and talked with Douple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwinger_13 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Well, who do we believe here? If Douple is telling the truth, Kelley should be run out of town. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/191367/ These two guys, our President and A.D. are clowns... and have been for a long time. I fully believe Douple... They haven't shown any need of having the nickname around since day 1... it's complete BS and I still don't get how people can continue to support these idiots, when its been so obvious..for so long about their excitement of changing the name. Kelley earned his bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry from Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas, in 1965, and his master's degree in 1966 and doctorate in 1969, both in cell and developmental biology from the University of California, Berkeley. Faison received his bachelor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 From Kolpack's article: If Douple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Douple has to be feeling heat right now. The Big Sky is in his backyard. People have to be asking how that happened. He assumed he had UND in his back pocket for whenever he needed them and strung them along for 2+ years...............................then all of the sudden we were off the table. My, I wonder what his President's Council thinks of this grandstanding.................................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Kelley may get a chance to testify under oath today: Valley News BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - North Dakota lawmakers will be arguing Wednesday about whether the University of North Dakota should be allowed to drop its Fighting Sioux nickname. ... UND President Robert Kelley says the bills could violate UND's agreement with the NCAA to get rid of the nickname. Kelley is planning to attend Wednesday's hearing and he may testify on the bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tho0505 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is just comical...................... Douple is obviously jaded by UND's snub of the Summit League.................and Kolpack is prodding him for a story. The Summit League's "stance" on the nickname was first revealed to the public by NDSU athletic director Gene Taylor in response to the legislature exploring the idea of mandating a Sioux-Bison football game.....................that was several months before the Summit invited South Dakota to join the league. Why on earth would a conference official go out of his way to accomodate requests of a non-member school? This guy is completely preposterous..................... Interesting points. But I have never liked Kelley, no matter who is telling the truth. I didn't feel that he stood up at the President of the Sioux for the nickname really at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Kelley earned his bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry from Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas, in 1965, and his master's degree in 1966 and doctorate in 1969, both in cell and developmental biology from the University of California, Berkeley. Faison received his bachelor’s degree in 1972 from the University of Missouri and is also a 1997 graduate of the National Planned Giving Institute. WOW THESE GUYS FOR SURE KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO GRADUATE FROM UND, AND ACTUALLY HAVE A PRIDE FOR THEIR SCHOOL.. ABSOLUTE CRAP AND HAS BEEN SINCE THEY GOT HERE.. "IGNITE THE SPIRIT" IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LONG IGNITED WITHOUT YOU! The Key is right there, Cal Berkeley... I have always said that the UND president should be someone from UND! You mean to tell me we can't find someone that is qualified to be president of UND that's a UND grad? Edited January 26, 2011 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Kelley may get a chance to testify under oath today: Valley News I would love to see what he has to say. I hate to say this but I miss Cupcake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FargoBison Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 From Kolpack's article: It was never commonly reported that the Summit League insisted the name be resolved sooner than the November 30 deadline. The Summit insisted that it be "resolved" before they would review North Dakota's application for membership. Kolpack is grasping here............. I think reports like this is what Kolpack was talking about... A. The Summit League isn’t necessarily going to wait for UND, particularly with others looking to get in. It has 11 members and considers 12 an optimal number for scheduling games. USD is entering the league July 1, 2011. If UND were accepted within the next several months, it also would enter in 2011, matching USD’s timeline. That would make scheduling even more optimal and more attractive to the league, Shaft said. Alternatively, it would be just as optimal if some other university joined by 2011. Would it make a difference if UND applied Aug. 1 or Oct. 1? Shaft said, “I can’t tell you that. It‘s just the earlier the better.” http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/118748/ It wasn't really the Summit League, but it was always UND leadership and SBoHE board members saying the sooner the better. No need to be in denial Bin, I think Douple is telling the truth and he has no reason to just make this up. It doesn't exactly make him look any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It wasn't really the Summit League, but it was always UND leadership and SBoHE board members saying the sooner the better. I agree, it was public knowledge that UND and the SBoHE wanted to speed up the process. Time was an important factor as far as the conference affiliation went, and things were looking rather dire when USD was included while UND was left out in the cold. I think Douple is telling the truth and he has no reason to just make this up. It doesn't exactly make him look any better. No, it makes him look pretty bad.....................as usual. From Kolpack's article, Douple says: .....when asked why he agreed to UNDs request that the Summit League would publicly forward this idea he said, In support of the (UND) president. He thought it would help them and the board move quicker. Douple said Tuesday that while UND officials deny they pushed the Summit League to offer an ultimatum on the nickname, he would have had no other good reason to do it. I wouldnt put myself out there and put my membership through that on my own volition, My, what a mighty sword UND wielded over Douple and the Summit League, which they were never a member of..............................with that kind of influence, Kelley and Faison's real crime would be having stopped with just that simple order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 My, what a mighty sword UND wielded over Douple and the Summit League, which they were never a member of..............................with that kind of influence, Kelley and Faison's real crime would be having stopped with just that simple order. That's a good question: According to Douple, Kelley got what he wanted out of the Summit. So why didn't the Summit extend the offer and UND join right away? The Summit knew Kelley/UND owed them at that point. What changed? There's something else missing here and we'll probably never know what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 That's a good question: According to Douple, Kelley got what he wanted out of the Summit. So why didn't the Summit extend the offer and UND join right away? The Summit knew Kelley/UND owed them at that point. What changed? There's something else missing here and we'll probably never know what it is. Douple never came through on a Summit football league. After the SBoHE dropped the name, Douple didn't even set up a site visit for almost six months, and then only when the Big Sky came into the picture. Instead, Douple started talking about Summit football, which never happened. Both Kelley's and Douple's actions are despicable. Both are zeros for integrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 What a complete and utter non-issue. Kolpack's article is a mess -- can't tell if this is an example of bad writing, bad logic or if there's another agenda there. The lead on this story states that UND asked Douple and the Summit "to publicly come out against accepting the Fighting Sioux as a member until the controversial nickname and logo issue was resolved.." Three paragraphs later he states this would represent "a 180 degree reserval of what has commonly been reported for more than 2 years; that Summit League officials insisted the nickname issue be resolved sooner than the NCAA-imposed deadline." So which is it? What's the contention? Did UND push Douple "to publicly come out agaist accepting the Fighting Sioux?" Or did Kelley et al ask the Summit to "insist" on an earlier resolution of the issue? The interpretation of all the quotes/intervews in the story -- and probably the answers themselves -- changes drastically depending on the actual questions asked. If Kolpack asked the president's office if they pushed Douple to "publicly come out against accepting" UND with the Fighting Sioux nickname, then of course, Peter Johnson's emphatic denial is absolutely correct. Douple was quoted repeatedly during this process saying he wouldn't present UND's application to the league's presidents until the Sioux nickname controversy was settled "one way or the other" -- and I heard Bill Goetz on Mac Talk hesitantly admit the league wanted the name "gone." No where in the article does Douple deny he wanted the controversy ended before considering UND. If the issue was whether UND administrators pushed for an earlier resolution .... what's the point? Numerous board members, including Grant Shaft from Grand Forks, have detailed all their attempts to get approval -- or at least some answers -- from Standing Rock officials. Tribal leaders ultimately said they would never bring the issue up for consideration. As pointed out here ad nauseum, we could have waited until hell freezes over and still not had a positive outcome on this issue. And Bin has it right: Douple was never quoted in the news pushing for an earlier resolution -- he just bragged about the multiple schools interested in joining the Summit. (I wonder what ever happened with them anyway.) Faison frequently was quoted on the advantages of early decision on the issue. At the very least, waiting may have delayed joining a conference by another year. Anybody see the 2011 football schedule? Hard to figure what prompted this story at this time. Does Kolpack have an agenda, or is this just how the world looks through those green-and-yellow glasses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Schlossman's tweets are classic: "Tom Douple essentially says he agreed to lie and play the starring role in a charade that would last two years...." "...all for a school not in his league. Bizarre behavior for a commissioner. http://bit.ly/eXf5DM " Kolpack's article may just be the impetus needed for the legislature to intervene and save the Sioux name, even with the NCAA issues. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 What a complete and utter non-issue. Kolpack's article is a mess -- can't tell if this is an example of bad writing, bad logic or if there's another agenda there. The lead on this story states that UND asked Douple and the Summit "to publicly come out against accepting the Fighting Sioux as a member until the controversial nickname and logo issue was resolved.." Three paragraphs later he states this would represent "a 180 degree reserval of what has commonly been reported for more than 2 years; that Summit League officials insisted the nickname issue be resolved sooner than the NCAA-imposed deadline." So which is it? What's the contention? Did UND push Douple "to publicly come out agaist accepting the Fighting Sioux?" Or did Kelley et al ask the Summit to "insist" on an earlier resolution of the issue? The interpretation of all the quotes/intervews in the story -- and probably the answers themselves -- changes drastically depending on the actual questions asked. If Kolpack asked the president's office if they pushed Douple to "publicly come out against accepting" UND with the Fighting Sioux nickname, then of course, Peter Johnson's emphatic denial is absolutely correct. Douple was quoted repeatedly during this process saying he wouldn't present UND's application to the league's presidents until the Sioux nickname controversy was settled "one way or the other" -- and I heard Bill Goetz on Mac Talk hesitantly admit the league wanted the name "gone." No where in the article does Douple deny he wanted the controversy ended before considering UND. If the issue was whether UND administrators pushed for an earlier resolution .... what's the point? Numerous board members, including Grant Shaft from Grand Forks, have detailed all their attempts to get approval -- or at least some answers -- from Standing Rock officials. Tribal leaders ultimately said they would never bring the issue up for consideration. As pointed out here ad nauseum, we could have waited until hell freezes over and still not had a positive outcome on this issue. And Bin has it right: Douple was never quoted in the news pushing for an earlier resolution -- he just bragged about the multiple schools interested in joining the Summit. (I wonder what ever happened with them anyway.) Faison frequently was quoted on the advantages of early decision on the issue. At the very least, waiting may have delayed joining a conference by another year. Anybody see the 2011 football schedule? Hard to figure what prompted this story at this time. Does Kolpack have an agenda, or is this just how the world looks through those green-and-yellow glasses? It's just bad writing on Kolpack's part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 At minimum, Douple's quotes in the story answer questions bandied about around here as to why the conference commish was getting involved in the nickname situation at all. I don't necessarily like those answers, but answers nonetheless. Being asked to weigh in makes more sense. The quotes also indicate for the first time there may be internal pressure from the Summit for losing UND to the Sky. Douple got involved in the nickname, then didn't land UND? Foolish. Reveals the conference to be the second rate outfit that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Does Kolpack have an agenda, ... Stir the pot. Sell newspapers. So, in a word, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Douple got involved in the nickname, then didn't land UND? Participate in a big lie. That make him Tom Douplicitous. And then to not reap the end reward (UND in Summit) of the big lie makes him Tom Doufus. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 What a pathetic liar Kelley is. Get him out of here. Someone should start a poll on what to do with Kelley! Fire Kelley! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 What a pathetic liar Kelley is. Get him out of here. Someone should start a poll on what to do with Kelley! Fire Kelley! If the story is true, Kelley is a man without honor or integrity. Anyone lacking those shouldn't be UND's President. I hope Hakstol and Roebuck speak out soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 If the story is true, Kelley is a man without honor or integrity. Since he lacks those, he shouldn't be UND President. I hope Hakstol and Roebuck speak out soon. For so long, people have said this man was hired with an agenda. I had tried to keep an open mind, this is MAJOR, and dismissal worthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.