Buning Problem?

[Sioux-per Fan]

A couple of weeks ago a several meetings were held at the Canad Inn pertaining to the Div 1 move, in paticular Football. Alot of past Coaches were in attendance as were major alumni and supporters....

Tom Buning was not there, I was told he was not invited (By Coaches and Alum)....

This seems really odd to me, that the Athletic Director would be left out, or not show up....?

Anyone have any answers.....?

[tnt]

I think a lot of it has to do with the tone of the posts and poster and if they are indicative of that person or an abberation. Everyone flys off the handle at some point, but if most of the posts are respectful, then that person gets the benefit of the doubt.

[Shawn-O]

A couple of weeks ago a several meetings were held at the Canad Inn pertaing to the Div 1 move, in paticular Football. Alot of past Coaches were in attendance as were major alumni and supporters....

Tom Buning was not there, I was told he was not invited (By Coaches and Alum)....

This seems really odd to me, that the Athletic Director would be left out, or not show up....?

Anyone have any answers.....?

This seemed strange to me, too. The fact that Pat Behrns was there, and Tom Buning was not, is down right weird.

[HockeyMom]

I don't think most people look at the number of posts. I just know who has been posting accurate info in the past.

I think it all depends on who has the best avatar.

[HockeyMom]

A couple of weeks ago a several meetings were held at the Canad Inn pertaining to the Div 1 move, in paticular Football. Alot of past Coaches were in attendance as were major alumni and supporters....

Tom Buning was not there, I was told he was not invited (By Coaches and Alum)....

This seems really odd to me, that the Athletic Director would be left out, or not show up....?

Anyone have any answers.....?

Now that is interesting......

[jimdahl]

I think it comes down to people with a lot of posts don't consistently get questioned on items they post or whatever they say, whereas newer posters are almost certain to get attacked and questioned almost instantly on items of information they post even though the information may be completely accurate. In all honesty, it all comes down to how many posts you have for it to be determined if what a person says will be taken seriously or not.

I've been observing this board for a few years and this seems the normal path among the conversations and general responses to various people on the board....there is a correlation to how often a person posts.

Of course we pay attention to people's reputations. That's not only legitimate, but desirable, in a forum in which people can anonymously say anything under an arbitrary handle. It takes something (time, quality, linkage to other trust) to impart reader trust in a new handle.

When Bob6923, who signed up yesterday, posts that he just heard that Hakstol eats baby kittens, no one is going to believe him. Behind that handle is an unknown, anonymous person, who's just as likely to be playing out a personal grudge against Hakstol as trying to deliver true knowledge of his dietary preferences.

In contrast, when someone creates a history of posts, they attach reputation to their otherwise anonymous handle. "The Sicatoka" has made thousands of posts without making false accusations. So, when he says he saw Hakstol eat a baby kitten, we're less inclined to assume that he's willing to discard that earned reputation with a false accusation and more likely to believe that Hakstol's diet has taken a turn for the macabre.

I have no anti-new guy sentiment (in fact my incentives are in quite the opposite direction). However, it's completely natural that I assign posts from "The Sicatoka" a predictable level of trustworthiness, whereas those from Bob6923 are of an unknown level (as opposed to deemed untrustworthy). It's just simple prudence that if Bob6923 makes a wild or controversial statement, people aren't necessarily going to take it as gospel.

[PCM]

I think it all depends on who has the best avatar.

That's what I go on.

[LennonIsTheMan]

I would like to preface this post by saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Opining over the various and numerous topics about UND athletics is what make these forums fun. Thanks to the moderators for providing this service.

I share the same opinion that there is a huge problem in the athletic department, largely because of the A.D. I do not think it is a coincidence that Rob Bollinger left UND to take a position at Bemidji State, at which time Rob was working underneath the A.D. He would be vital right now for the transition fundraising process. It's very unfortunate that we lost a man of such character and loyalty as Rob Bollinger. I also do not believe people would just make up a rumor that Hakstol and Lennon are not happy with the current administration. I, in fact, believe that both are not happy with the current A.D. In any case I would have to side with the die-hard, green-blooded letterwinners from UND, who now happen to be leading our programs to great success over the Lt. Col. from Army who has been here for 2 years. But of course that's just my opinion.

Post is getting cut short because of work......

[fs1]

Diggler, its not whining by any strecth of the imaganation, just stating facts. If I or 7nationaltitles or whoever were one of the "chosen" group of posters and stated what we have, it would have been taken as if it were the gospel. Hell if I was PCM, the "chosen" ones would be rushing the president's office in a mad panic demanding the AD be removed! Cause no matter what the "chosen" ones say or comment about ,even the trivial comments,they are taken as factual and insightfull . Again we may not be members of the "chosen" group, and I for one dont ever want to be, in fact it is right at the bottom, just above dying, on my list of things I want to accomplish, but we may have important,insightfull, factual comments to share on a subject. But not being a "chosen" poster,we are not for lack of better words accepted as knowing anything. Again its not whining it is just stating facts. Heck believe it or not there may actually be other people that know as much or even more than PCM! (disclaimer: PCM, I am not attacking you,just again stating facts) But because they arent "chosen" they are taken as " basically a bunch of ppl making something out of absouletly nothing" as some would say.

Jim,in response to "When Bob6923, who signed up yesterday, posts that he just heard that Hakstol eats baby kittens, no one is going to believe him. Behind that handle is an unknown, anonymous person, who's just as likely to be playing out a personal grudge against Hakstol as trying to deliver true knowledge of his dietary preferences", again what I have said in regards to the AD is information that is know by many. So its not like it is some comment similar to the one about BOB6923, dont think it is even close! So to say " It's just simple prudence that if Bob6923 makes a wild or controversial statement, people aren't necessarily going to take it as gospel" doesnt even pertain to the comments I or others have made. The Bob comment is off the wall crazy ,whereas mine and others are pretty much common knowledge and are in fact factual. And known to be fatual by many people.

Jim,when u say "The Sicatoka" has made thousands of posts without making false accusations, I am not sure he has made any posts regarding any true or false accusations. Best I recollect,he hasnt had any posts of for lack of better words "breaking information" which in fact could turn out to be right or wrong, rather most posts are a critique of someones comment or agreement of someones comments or just shall we say a "meaningless" statement. Again in advance, I may be wrong ,but I dont remember waiting for him to tell us the new recruit, or anything similar that, that could be as you say turn out to be a false accusation(no dislcaimer on this one Sicatoka).

I was told in several private messages that if I stated what I have about the AD, I would be commented on as I have been. I told them then Idont care and I still dont. The situation is severe and needs to change. In mine and many others minds it needs to change in a way that he is no longer the AD here,and what little I can do to help make that happen , I gladly will!

[Diggler]

Hakstol eats baby kittens

[bincitysioux]

I'd like to be the first in this thread to commend Tom Buning on his ability to retain Dale Lennon. IMHO, that was a nice piece of Athletic Direction!

[7NationalTitles]

I think the point fs1 makes is very poignant. Because some of us aren't on here posting all the time, people tend to forget prior comments that we have made and therefore, whenever we try to post something insightful, we are challenged on it. And sticking your neck out and making a prediction or offering insightful information on a touchy subject is much different and will ultimately draw more criticism than sitting back and constantly offering a phylosophical analysis of what others have said. Like Jimdahl said, he believes others and takes them for their word because he sees there posts a lot and sees a lot of what they have to say even though it may just be "fluff" and not all that insightful. So if we are always constantly hit with comments by the same posters over and over again, we tend to take them for their word (which indirectly relates to the number of posts a person has).

I can't recall a time when fs1 has offered insight that has been false or way off base. In fact, he's even had the correct recruit information when some of the more highly touted recruit posters on this site have been wrong in the past. So just because fs1 or others don't post often enough for them to be recognized easily, that doesn't mean what they say has any less truth behind it.

And like was said previously, this situation with Buning is common knowledge among quite a few people and there have been rumblings of it for quite some time. So it's completely different than making a comment that no one has any knowledge of whatsoever (i.e. Hakstol eating kittens as the example Jimdahl tried to make). So when fs1 made his first post in this thread on this subject, it seemed like he was adding further analysis and insight into the situation. But since he wasn't recognized because he doesn't post that often, people knee-jerkingly ask for where's the proof whenever someone new tries to offer insight.

[jimdahl]

So when fs1 made his first post in this thread on this subject, it seemed like he was adding further analysis and insight into the situation. But since he wasn't recognized because he doesn't post that often, people knee-jerkingly ask for where's the proof whenever someone new tries to offer insight.

You failed to propose an alternative for how we're supposed to judge the motivations of a relatively new poster. As I pointed out, we all have one useful criterion available to us -- reputation attached to the handle. You've criticized that criterion as discriminatory against people who don't post frequently. Undoubtedly, that's true.

However, anyone can post any insight, true or false, under any name. If the handle Bob6923 doesn't have reputation attached to it through a memorable history of posting, by what criteria are you suggesting we judge his post? For a variety of reasons, people do make false posts; it's probably not a good solution to begin assuming anything posted anonymously on a message board is true and insightful.

fs1 made some claims, and other posters asked for more details because they didn't know whether to trust him or not. I really don't see the problem with that. Simply complaining that PCM wouldn't have been similarly challenged doesn't address the problem I posed in the previous two paragraphs.

[7NationalTitles]

Hakstol eats baby kittens

A perfect example right here. Diggler gets respect on this board because his posts are seen a lot on here. But when was the last time any insightful information has been passed along? Usually it's just comments such as this by him and others that offer no insight but yet people see their ID's so these people are recognized.

I'm still trying to understand why comments that offer no insight or add anything to the discussion are made. There has to be a reason for it but I have yet to come up with one other than they want their name to be seen and want people to laugh because they made a funny comment or whatever thoughtless comment is made.

I think I'll follow this approach by others so my name is more recognized and then once every six months when I actually post something of substance, people will take it at its word.

[7NationalTitles]

A perfect example right here. Diggler gets respect on this board because his posts are seen a lot on here. But when was the last time any insightful information has been passed along? Usually it's just comments such as this by him and others that offer no insight but yet people see their ID's so these people are recognized.

I'm still trying to understand why comments that offer no insight or add anything to the discussion are made. There has to be a reason for it but I have yet to come up with one other than they want their name to be seen and want people to laugh because they made a funny comment or whatever thoughtless comment is made.

I think I'll follow this approach by others so my name is more recognized and then once every six months when I actually post something of substance, people will take it at its word.

Word......

[skateshattrick]

Diggler, its not whining by any strecth of the imaganation, just stating facts. If I or 7nationaltitles or whoever were one of the "chosen" group of posters and stated what we have, it would have been taken as if it were the gospel. Hell if I was PCM, the "chosen" ones would be rushing the president's office in a mad panic demanding the AD be removed! Cause no matter what the "chosen" ones say or comment about ,even the trivial comments,they are taken as factual and insightfull . Again we may not be members of the "chosen" group, and I for one dont ever want to be, in fact it is right at the bottom, just above dying, on my list of things I want to accomplish, but we may have important,insightfull, factual comments to share on a subject. But not being a "chosen" poster,we are not for lack of better words accepted as knowing anything. Again its not whining it is just stating facts. Heck believe it or not there may actually be other people that know as much or even more than PCM! (disclaimer: PCM, I am not attacking you,just again stating facts) But because they arent "chosen" they are taken as " basically a bunch of ppl making something out of absouletly nothing" as some would say.

Jim,in response to "When Bob6923, who signed up yesterday, posts that he just heard that Hakstol eats baby kittens, no one is going to believe him. Behind that handle is an unknown, anonymous person, who's just as likely to be playing out a personal grudge against Hakstol as trying to deliver true knowledge of his dietary preferences", again what I have said in regards to the AD is information that is know by many. So its not like it is some comment similar to the one about BOB6923, dont think it is even close! So to say " It's just simple prudence that if Bob6923 makes a wild or controversial statement, people aren't necessarily going to take it as gospel" doesnt even pertain to the comments I or others have made. The Bob comment is off the wall crazy ,whereas mine and others are pretty much common knowledge and are in fact factual. And known to be fatual by many people.

Jim,when u say "The Sicatoka" has made thousands of posts without making false accusations, I am not sure he has made any posts regarding any true or false accusations. Best I recollect,he hasnt had any posts of for lack of better words "breaking information" which in fact could turn out to be right or wrong, rather most posts are a critique of someones comment or agreement of someones comments or just shall we say a "meaningless" statement. Again in advance, I may be wrong ,but I dont remember waiting for him to tell us the new recruit, or anything similar that, that could be as you say turn out to be a false accusation(no dislcaimer on this one Sicatoka).

I was told in several private messages that if I stated what I have about the AD, I would be commented on as I have been. I told them then Idont care and I still dont. The situation is severe and needs to change. In mine and many others minds it needs to change in a way that he is no longer the AD here,and what little I can do to help make that happen , I gladly will!

I am reluctantly jumping to the aid of FS1 and others who are posting about the problem(s) with UND's athletic director, Tom Buning. You can choose to believe it or not, but it is absolutely true. I talked with a former UND player over a month ago about this issue (long before Dale Lennon even interviewed for the Montana State job). This former player is 50, very connected, a booster who is very well off financially, and is very good friends with Dale Lennon. What he told me is that Dale Lennon does not trust Buning and the situation was/is so bad that he would consider taking another job. Part of it had to do with telling him that assistant coaches would be taken care of and not following through on the promise before Dale Lennon negotiated/signed his last contract, and issues regarding not allowing all players and coaches to travel to a road game and being told right before they were to travel. I was also told that many coaches had similar issues with Buning, and many prominent alumni were upset with the handling of the situation with Steve Johnson and Gord Stafford and the women's hockey coaching job. I do not know firsthand if the situation is as bad with the men's hockey coaches, but I have heard rumors to that effect. You can choose to disbelieve this about the problems between Dale Lennon and the AD, but I KNOW it is true. The source is far too reliable. In fact, if someone connected to the program (PCM or others) want to know that source, I will provide that information in confidence. I have no intention of revealing that on a message board.

I really did not want to get involved in this issue, but it is not fair to rip on posters who are simply stating the facts about what is a major problem in the AD office.

[fs1]

Thank you very much Skateshattrick! And yes it is as bad if not worse with the men's hockey coach!

[7NationalTitles]

I am reluctantly jumping to the aid of FS1 and others who are posting about the problem(s) with UND's athletic director, Tom Buning. You can choose to believe it or not, but it is absolutely true. I talked with a former UND player over a month ago about this issue (long before Dale Lennon even interviewed for the Montana State job). This former player is 50, very connected, a booster who is very well off financially, and is very good friends with Dale Lennon. What he told me is that Dale Lennon does not trust Buning and the situation was/is so bad that he would consider taking another job. Part of it had to do with telling him that assistant coaches would be taken care of and not following through on the promise before Dale Lennon negotiated/signed his last contract, and issues regarding not allowing all players and coaches to travel to a road game and being told right before they were to travel. I was also told that many coaches had similar issues with Buning, and many prominent alumni were upset with the handling of the situation with Steve Johnson and Gord Stafford and the women's hockey coaching job. I do not know firsthand if the situation is as bad with the men's hockey coaches, but I have heard rumors to that effect. You can choose to disbelieve this about the problems between Dale Lennon and the AD, but I KNOW it is true. The source is far too reliable. In fact, if someone connected to the program (PCM or others) want to know that source, I will provide that information in confidence. I have no intention of revealing that on a message board.

I really did not want to get involved in this issue, but it is not fair to rip on posters who are simply stating the facts about what is a major problem in the AD office.

I too have been apprised of some of the situations that you list in more specific detail than what you or others would be willing to share here publicly.

And so the question isn't asked.....No, I'm not going to give proof.

[HockeyMom]

A perfect example right here. Diggler gets respect on this board because his posts are seen a lot on here. But when was the last time any insightful information has been passed along? Usually it's just comments such as this by him and others that offer no insight but yet people see their ID's so these people are recognized.

I'm still trying to understand why comments that offer no insight or add anything to the discussion are made. There has to be a reason for it but I have yet to come up with one other than they want their name to be seen and want people to laugh because they made a funny comment or whatever thoughtless comment is made.

I think I'll follow this approach by others so my name is more recognized and then once every six months when I actually post something of substance, people will take it at its word.

Diggler's post was funny, and dripping with sarcasm. It has nothing to do with respect. I know that you're taking a pot shot at myself with this post as well. Why do you care what other people post? Are you the post police? Should we all run posts through you before making them? I could careless what people think of my posts. I'll be the first to admit mine are nothing but meaningless twaddle. I come here simply for entertainment purposes. I've met several friends that I consider close on these boards. If someone is having a crappy day, and my lightheartedness makes them smile or even laugh, it's served it's purpose.

If you don't like what people say, hit the block button instead of trying to tell them what they can or can't post.

[7NationalTitles]

Diggler's post was funny, and dripping with sarcasm. It has nothing to do with respect. I know that you're taking a pot shot at myself with this post as well. Why do you care what other people post? Are you the post police? Should we all run posts through you before making them? I could careless what people think of my posts. I'll be the first to admit mine are nothing but meaningless twaddle. I come here simply for entertainment purposes. I've met several friends that I consider close on these boards. If someone is having a crappy day, and my lightheartedness makes them smile or even laugh, it's served it's purpose.

If you don't like what people say, hit the block button instead of trying to tell them what they can or can't post.

All I am saying is repeating what Jimdahl said, some people are recognized because of a history of posting. He questions about trusting what those who don't have that history of posting discuss on this board. So what I'm saying is some people get that history of posting without really ever adding any insight except for only a couple times a year.

FS1, myself, and others usually only post when we have something insightful to say, not whenever a comment comes into our head. So in the end, we may very well offer up the same number of insightful posts as most others on this board, but since we aren't on here posting meaningless comments multiple times daily, when him and others offer insight, it is questioned in comparison to those others who post whatever thought comes to their head multiple times a day.

Like Jimdahl said, these are the people that are recognized, therefore the relatively few insights a year by them are taken at their word. The same amount of insightful information posts by the infrequent posters (in which those insights make up most of their posts) are nonetheless questioned.

That's how I have seen it transpire over the years......not only on this board but any message board........you have to be part of the group to be recognized (taken seriously) and the only way to be part of the group is to just post, post, post no matter what random thought (no matter how irrelevant) comes to mind.

[spfreak]

Diggler's post was funny, and dripping with sarcasm. It has nothing to do with respect. I know that you're taking a pot shot at myself with this post as well. Why do you care what other people post? Are you the post police? Should we all run posts through you before making them? I could careless what people think of my posts. I'll be the first to admit mine are nothing but meaningless twaddle. I come here simply for entertainment purposes. I've met several friends that I consider close on these boards. If someone is having a crappy day, and my lightheartedness makes them smile or even laugh, it's served it's purpose.

If you don't like what people say, hit the block button instead of trying to tell them what they can or can't post.

I for one appreciate the light hearted comments of people on this board. I look forward to reading the boards for info but am more than pleased to see a sarcastic or humorous post by Hockey Mom or Diggler or any of the others that don't take their words as gospel on here. Lighten up 7 National Titles. Just because you don't have a sense of humor doesn't mean that others don't so let people have their fun.

[Shawn-O]

That's what I go on.

In that case, our admin is in big trouble....

[THETRIOUXPER]

All I am saying is repeating what Jimdahl said, some people are recognized because of a history of posting. He questions about trusting what those who don't have that history of posting discuss on this board. So what I'm saying is some people get that history of posting without really ever adding any insight except for only a couple times a year.

FS1, myself, and others usually only post when we have something insightful to say, not whenever a comment comes into our head. So in the end, we may very well offer up the same number of insightful posts as most others on this board, but since we aren't on here posting meaningless comments multiple times daily, when him and others offer insight, it is questioned in comparison to those others who post whatever thought comes to their head multiple times a day.

Like Jimdahl said, these are the people that are recognized, therefore the relatively few insights a year by them are taken at their word. The same amount of insightful information posts by the infrequent posters (in which those insights make up most of their posts) are nonetheless questioned.

That's how I have seen it transpire over the years......not only on this board but any message board........you have to be part of the group to be recognized (taken seriously) and the only way to be part of the group is to just post, post, post no matter what random thought (no matter how irrelevant) comes to mind.

No need to keep defending your point of view, you're right, people will come to realize that. How the information was "leaked" is all a moot point now.

[Stromer]

I am reluctantly jumping to the aid of FS1 and others who are posting about the problem(s) with UND's athletic director, Tom Buning. You can choose to believe it or not, but it is absolutely true. I talked with a former UND player over a month ago about this issue (long before Dale Lennon even interviewed for the Montana State job). This former player is 50, very connected, a booster who is very well off financially, and is very good friends with Dale Lennon. What he told me is that Dale Lennon does not trust Buning and the situation was/is so bad that he would consider taking another job. Part of it had to do with telling him that assistant coaches would be taken care of and not following through on the promise before Dale Lennon negotiated/signed his last contract, and issues regarding not allowing all players and coaches to travel to a road game and being told right before they were to travel. I was also told that many coaches had similar issues with Buning, and many prominent alumni were upset with the handling of the situation with Steve Johnson and Gord Stafford and the women's hockey coaching job. I do not know firsthand if the situation is as bad with the men's hockey coaches, but I have heard rumors to that effect. You can choose to disbelieve this about the problems between Dale Lennon and the AD, but I KNOW it is true. The source is far too reliable. In fact, if someone connected to the program (PCM or others) want to know that source, I will provide that information in confidence. I have no intention of revealing that on a message board.

I really did not want to get involved in this issue, but it is not fair to rip on posters who are simply stating the facts about what is a major problem in the AD office.

Good post! This is the type of post I think many of us have been wanting to read for a while. Without naming names, you manage to create (at least in my mind) a picture of why Lennon might be having issues with Buning. You state it is from some booster. Even though I do not know him nor can I verify he exists, I am more apt to believe you than if you gave no information about him at all. I now understand some of the issues I have been wondering about. If the first couple posts on this subject were written like this, we wouldn't have 5 pages of arguing back and forth.

[The Sicatoka]

Where have I said any of this is irrevokably true or irrevokably false? What I have said is, "Is this really the right place for this conversation?" Just because you have been told something does not give you license to spread it all about in the public square. A little decorum, please.

As far as "reporters", we found out about the problem between Potts and Chapman after Chapman took a professional, behind closed doors, possible personnel problem and made it public (by hiring an attorney). Folks, that's how it's supposed to work.

Let the pros do their jobs.