UND doesn’t have a female head coach now

[jdub27]

27 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

It's only newsworthy because of the political climate we live in. It's absolutely a story, regardless of how we feel about it.

Again, until UND hires its new golf coach, I don't think this merits is a story (and even then it is a stretch). Depending on the hiring time line, UND may not even go without having a female head coach, as Martinson is filling out the end of her contract which expires June 30. All this article did was basically all but guaranteed the most qualified female candidate will get the job. That person may have been the most qualified person overall, but why write this article to make it seem like there will be bias in the hiring.

Another simple fact the Herald could have added was was the amount of females that are currently paid assistant coaches/operations. On the women's side, there are 14 assistants employed (not counting open soccer assistant coach who was a male) and 8 of those positions are filled by females (should be noted that men's and women's tennis and track share coaching staffs). 

WBB: 3 of 4 (counting director of ops)
WGolf: 0 of 1
Soccer: 1 of 1 (currently 1 open position, was previously held by a male)
Softball: 2 of 2 (volunteer assistant is male)
WTennis: 0 of 1 (shared staff with men's team)
WT&F/CC: 0 of 3 (shared staff with men's team)
WVB: 2 of 2
 

[stoneySIOUX]

36 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Again, until UND hires its new golf coach, I don't think this merits is a story (and even then it is a stretch).

I don't think it should be a story, but it is, these days. It's honestly that simple. 

[Shawn-O]

Reporting has zero to do with presenting facts and letting the reader ascertain their own thoughts on the matter.  It's all about advancing an agenda.  Not a knock specifically at the Herald, as this is what it's become everywhere.   

[Cratter]

The reporting police are on the prowl again!

[SiouxBoys]

14 hours ago, stoneySIOUX said:

I contest it's still not a "problem", but I agree with you, here. It's only written because UND doesn't have a female HC. Simple as that.

No, it's only written because the Herald and Schloss have an agenda against UND ever since they cut women's hockey. This was written with the intention of being divisive. 

[stoneySIOUX]

3 minutes ago, SiouxBoys said:

No, it's only written because the Herald and Schloss have an agenda against UND ever since they cut women's hockey. This was written with the intention of being divisive. 

Really? Think about what you're saying...

What is the Herald's main source of readership? UND hockey. You're saying that the Herald has an agenda against its main source of income, by far, right? Seems like a sustainable business model for a struggling industry.

[SiouxBoys]

3 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Really? Think about what you're saying...

What is the Herald's main source of readership? UND hockey. You're saying that the Herald has an agenda against its main source of income, by far, right? Seems like a sustainable business model for a struggling industry.

And you don't think that the Herald and Schloss have it out for UND and more specifically MK? Really?

[Oxbow6]

I'm not good at math but I do know 1 >>> 0. Right now UND is one of two D1 schools with 0 women at a HC position. Until that changes it is kind of newsworthy. 

Will Chaves' first HC hire be a female? Bank on it.........................I'm pushing all the dollars the REA stole from the FB program into the middle of the table on this one!

[stoneySIOUX]

11 minutes ago, SiouxBoys said:

And you don't think that the Herald and Schloss have it out for UND and more specifically MK? Really?

Because you think it's true, doesn't mean it is. Would it be a good decision for the Herald to attack its primary driver of income? What would be the reason that Brad Schlossman... him specifically, would have it out for UND? 

[stoneySIOUX]

2 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

I'm not good at math but I do know 1 >>> 0. Right now UND is one of two D1 schools with 0 women at a HC position. Until that changes it is kind of newsworthy. 

Will Cheaves' first HC hire be a female? Bank on it.........................I'm pushing all the dollars the REA stole from the FB program into the middle of the table on this one!

I personally think it's not, but how things work these days, it's absolutely newsworthy. 

I agree.

[jdub27]

7 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

I'm not good at math but I do know 1 >>> 0. Right now UND is one of two D1 schools with 0 women at a HC position. Until that changes it is kind of newsworthy. 

Will Chaves' first HC hire be a female? Bank on it.........................I'm pushing all the dollars the REA stole from the FB program into the middle of the table on this one!

UND has a woman head coach until June 30 and depending on the timeline and hire, they may not be without a woman head coach at any point. If a woman is hired to replace Martinson and starts July 1 or sooner, then the whole premise of the article is completely bogus. Instead, the Herald threw it out there a month ahead of time talking about a hypothetical.

 

Quote

Martinson will fulfill her current contract, which ends on June 30, and the process to replace her will begin immediately.

 

[stoneySIOUX]

1 minute ago, jdub27 said:

UND has a woman head coach until June 30 and depending on the timeline and hire, they may not be without a woman head coach. If a woman is hired to replace Martinson before she is officially done, then the whole premise of the article is completely bogus. Instead, the Herald threw it out there a month ahead of time talking about a hypothetical.

 

 

This is a completely fair point.

[SiouxBoys]

8 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Because you think it's true, doesn't mean it is. Would it be a good decision for the Herald to attack its primary driver of income? What would be the reason that Brad Schlossman... him specifically, would have it out for UND? 

Is that a serious question?

[stoneySIOUX]

Just now, SiouxBoys said:

Is that a serious question?

Yes. And I'd like proof instead of assumption.

[SiouxBoys]

1 minute ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Yes. And I'd like proof instead of assumption.

Well it's pretty obvious he didn't agree with the decision to cut women's hockey. 

[Oxbow6]

2 minutes ago, SiouxBoys said:

Well it's pretty obvious he didn't agree with the decision to cut women's hockey. 

Neither did 3 other people but your assumption is a stretch to be honest.

[SiouxBoys]

1 minute ago, Oxbow6 said:

Neither did 3 other people but your assumption is a stretch to be honest.

I disagree. Tons of people were pissed about the decision even though they didn't give a !@#$ when it was still a program.

[stoneySIOUX]

8 minutes ago, SiouxBoys said:

Well it's pretty obvious he didn't agree with the decision to cut women's hockey. 

Ok, so again, his primary source of income is essentially UND.... regardless of how he feels about the WH program being cut, this does not preclude Schlossman doing anything nefarious. You're directly attacking him as a person based on the idea the he didn't think the WH program should be cut. 

[Oxbow6]

1 minute ago, SiouxBoys said:

I disagree. Tens of people were pissed about the decision even though they didn't give a !@#$ when it was still a program.

FYP

 

[SiouxBoys]

Just now, stoneySIOUX said:

Ok, so again, his primary source of income is essentially UND.... regardless of how he feels about the WH program being cut, this does not preclude Schlossman doing anything nefarious. You directly attacking him as a person based on the idea the he didn't think the WH program should be cut. 

In no way am I attacking him as a person. I am attacking him as a reporter because this isn't the first time that he has written an article with very little context just to try and create a reaction. Its lazy. 

[stoneySIOUX]

3 minutes ago, SiouxBoys said:

In no way am I attacking him as a person. I am attacking him as a reporter because this isn't the first time that he has written an article with very little context just to try and create a reaction. Its lazy. 

You're saying he has it out for UND and MK based on the idea that he disliked the idea of UND cutting WH. That's a pretty direct attack. 

The context was appropriate, IMO. There was a fact.... he stated it... then asked Chaves how he'd respond. Could he have provided MORE context? Of course he could. But, you're implying him not expanding further is meant as deception is complete and utter assumption. 

Regardless, I am not intending to get into a pi$$ing match and argue opinions. If you want to say it's lazy to not further expand, that's completely fine and an understandable opinion. I just think it's wrong to imply that that whole article was done with poor intentions.

[jdub27]

14 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Ok, so again, his primary source of income is essentially UND.... regardless of how he feels about the WH program being cut, this does not preclude Schlossman doing anything nefarious. You're directly attacking him as a person based on the idea the he didn't think the WH program should be cut. 

Not agreeing or disagreeing with the original premise, but UND cutting women's hockey effected him professionally, basically taking away 20-30% (guessing) of his beat. I don't think a neutral observer would say he's been completely unbiased in his criticism of UND and/or its athletic department since then, he's definitely mixed some opinion commentary into some of this articles. Natural reaction, but some of it seems a bit far.

[bison73]

Its only a story unless some one wants it to be.  Ive never been a fan of quotas and hiring certain genders just to make yourself look good. The person most qualified should get the job. Hiring people based on gender is nothing but a bottomless rat hole that one doesnt want to travel.

[SiouxBoys]

2 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

You're saying he has it out for UND and MK based on the idea that he disliked the idea of UND cutting WH. That's a pretty direct attack. 

The context was appropriate, IMO. There was a fact.... he stated it... then asked Chaves how he'd respond. Could he have provided MORE context? Of course he could. But, you're implying him not expanding further is meant as deception is complete and utter assumption. 

He should have provided some context and allowed the readers themselves to form their own opinions on the matter. That is good reporting. Instead he provides almost no context. IMO it's lazy and was only written to stir the pot. 

[stoneySIOUX]

5 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Not agreeing or disagreeing with the original premise, but UND cutting women's hockey effected him professionally, basically taking away 20-30% (guessing) of his beat. I don't think a neutral observer would say he's been completely unbiased in his criticism of UND and/or its athletic department since then, he's definitely mixed some opinion commentary into some of this articles. Natural reaction, but some of it seems a bit far.

Oh for sure, there's been some commentary. I don't disagree with that. However, WH did not affected him professionally, whatsoever. No way was 20 or 30% of his work on WH. Regardless, I his dislike for the end of the Women's program in no way proves he's doing anything to spite UND and the article he wrote does nothing to suggest this.