coachdags Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 A couple of things that need to be clarified. First of all, Ralph did not get Baker fired. The SBoHE made the decision and it wasn't related to the name and logo nor to Ralph's gift. Ralph's gift never required UND to keep the name and logo. After he was told it was ok and then later Kuppy balked, he got pissed and threatened to walk away from the unfinished arena. The SBoHE had their meeting scheduled before Ralph sent his famous letter and they already planned to direct UND to keep the name and logo. That may have had something to do with pressure from UND supporters and Alumni and a reported threat from Dean Blais to quit if UND dumped the name. Wanless wasn't fired by the SBoHE. However he ended his employment, it was UND's doing, not the SBoHE. I do not know if Ralph had anything to do with Wanless leaving UND. I am not stating Ralph didn't make statements others said he made, I am saying the decisions by the SBoHE weren't due to pressure from Ralph. Anyone who serves on a public board like this would know it is poor form to bend to threats from wealthy benfactors. To state the SBoHE made a decision about a UND president based on dislike by a benefactor I do not believe is accurate. To clarify, I never said this.... I just said what Ralph said to me.... I believe Ira to be correct in his post.... Call it coincidence, bad luck, timing, what ever you want.....everyone can draw their own conclusions, I will keep mine to myself, that is why in my 1st post, I ended it.....go figure And i'm sure there is more to the story, that I certainly do not know or people will never know.... and it really doesn't matter now.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iramurphy Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 To clarify, I never said this.... I just said what Ralph said to me.... I believe Ira to be correct in his post.... Call it coincidence, bad luck, timing, what ever you want.....everyone can draw their own conclusions, I will keep mine to myself, that is why in my 1st post, I ended it.....go figure And i'm sure there is more to the story, that I certainly do not know or people will never know.... and it really doesn't matter now.... Coach you are correct you didn't say that, but others have. I also believe your comments about Ralph and what he said are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Maybe in hindsight Wanless was good for UND Athletics. But, man, did he make enemies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Maybe in hindsight Wanless was good for UND Athletics. But, man, did he make enemies! He made enemies because he actually said "no" to coaches when they were asking for things. He kept UND in the black by doing so. Terry was definitely not a "schmoozer", but he knew how to run an athletic department. He is a hell of a nice guy too with a great family. Those coaches who got mad it him while he was here were the same ones who missed him so greatly when he was gone. They didn't realize how good they had it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I think Wanless was a lot better than Bunning....whatever happened to him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Wanless ended the interview by stating NCAA President Mark Emmert “is a reasonable man...” With that statement, Terry Wanless demonstrated why nobody should take seriously anything he says about the Fighting Sioux nickname issue. Throughout this whole episode, what has the NCAA done that's been remotely "reasonable," beginning with the enactment of the hypocritical anti-American Indian nicknames policy by a few members of a committee who blatantly bypassed the organization's bylaws? To do this, the NCAA ignored a US Department of Education on-campus investigation of UND that found no racism. Despite that, the NCAA arbitrarily and publicly declared the university "hostile and abusive" to American Indians. The NCAA broke a pre-existing contract with UND by trying to force the university to cover all the nicknames and logos displayed in Engelstad Arena during the 2006 NCAA West Regional tournament in Grand Forks. The NCAA ignored repeated invitations by UND's administration to attend athletic events and see for themselves how the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo are used. When all UND needed was one tribe's permission to gain the namesake exemption, the NCAA ignored the Spirit Lake Tribal Council's official resolution which approved UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. And isn't Emmert the guy who agreed to come to UND to discuss the nickname issue, then canceled the meeting without providing any explanation? Is that evidence of a reasonable Mark Emmert? When a delegation from North Dakota went to the NCAA's headquarters to visit with the organization's top officials, the NCAA didn't budge an inch. What signs have there been showing that the NCAA under Emmert's leadership has been any more reasonable, flexible or accomodating about the nickname issue than it was under Myles Brand's leadership? None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Finally, whatever happened to NCAA VP Bernard Franklin's visit to UND? If Emmert really wanted Franklin to come to UND to discuss the situation, he would have been here by now. It's yet another example of the NCAA's ongoing "when we want your opinion, we'll give it to you" attitude that's characterized this entire fiasco. Either Wanless is hopelessly naive and out of touch or he's being purposely disingenuous and misleading for a reason. Anyone who gives an ounce of credence to Wanless' statements is being played for a fool. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 First, unless I come to find out Wanless has some personal connection to Emmert, I don't think he's in a position to really determine whether he's a reasonable man in general, let alone if he has acted reasonably toward UND in this specific issue. Wanless' comments about him seem to be just fluff to me. Second, in relation to the rest of Wanless' comments, I don't think he can speak with any certainty at all about the BSC Presidents' views on the nickname, sanctions, UND scheduling, or possible expulsion. Fullerton himself has far more interaction with all BSC Presidents than Wanless, and lest we forget the NDSU and SDSU situation, we know Fullerton doesn't necessarily have a solid grasp of league opinion. Fullerton advocated strongly for admission of NDSU into the BSC and in fact spoke quite optimistically of an invite. In the end, there wasn't support from the Presidents. So, either Fullerton was blowing smoke or he just didn't know their position. I'm not sure how to apply that lesson to what's happening now, but I do know that if a man in Fullerton's position clearly doesn't always know what the Presidents are thinking, Wanless-as an athletic director at an individual school-surely doesn't. 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.