Big news in the wind

[mksioux]

I suppose people can decide for themselves whether I'm credible or not, but I know for a fact that Dan Martinsen was not the source for the information posted on this site regarding the lack of passes for coaches' families, etc. Yes, he received an e-mail about it, but a lot of other people knew about this issue, as well. A number of people were upset about the situation. It's not important who the poster was, or where he/she got the information, but it did not come either directly or indirectly from Dan Martinsen. I'm not here to argue whether certain leaks should or should not have happened, but I don't like it when people are blamed for things they did not do.

I never suggested for a minute Martinsen was the source of the leaks (that's why there was a comma after I mentioned his name). I truly have no idea who was leaking that stuff, but I will disagree with you that it is unimportant. Whoever leaked the information was very unprofessional in my opinion.

With regard to Martinsen, I think people may be perplexed because of a lack of a clearly defined role for him and where he fit into the organizational hierarchy. Maybe they should have given him an official position, paid him a nominal amount, and had him fit into a clear line of authority. Heck, I'm not even saying that's my opinion because I don't know enough of the situation...just trying to articulate what others seem to be complaining about.

[UND92,96]

I never suggested for a minute Martinsen was the source of the leaks (that's why there was a comma after I mentioned his name). I truly have no idea who was leaking that stuff, but I will disagree with you that it is unimportant. Whoever leaked the information was very unprofessional in my opinion.

With regard to Martinsen, I think people may be perplexed because of a lack of a clearly defined role for him and where he fit into the organizational hierarchy. Maybe they should have given him an official position, paid him a nominal amount, and had him fit into a clear line of authority. Heck, I'm not even saying that's my opinion because I don't know enough of the situation...just trying to articulate what others seem to be complaining about.

I didn't mean to imply you did. But another poster has. More than once. With regard to leaks, I think they've come from a variety of sources. I'm not commenting on whether it's right or wrong.

[mksioux]

Or maybe it speaks to his sense of priorities.

I think it does. You mean it in a positive way. I mean it in a negative way.

[PCM]

That athletics are a burden; something he wishes he could do without or, at the very least, foist off on someone else.

And, once again, the "hard data" on the success of UND athletics during Kupchella's tenure isn't what you'd expect of university under someone who wishes he could do without athletics or views them as a "necessary evil." I'm not saying that everything the man's done has been correct, but your characterization of his view of athletics is wildly off the mark.

[mksioux]

This is not aimed at you "mksioux" but to the general audience (you just happened to bring it up):

This "president should run athletics" mindset (perpetuated by the NCAA no less) is hokum in my opinion.

Yes, athletics is very public, but it's one aspect of a major university. Why should the president "more run" directly athletics moreso than medicine, law, art & sciences, engineering, research, or any other division? Good leaders delegate.

If athletics at a university, any university, requires a "full-time president" maybe we should shut down the rest of the university and call college athletics what it is in that model: professional, with a CEO.

I completely disagree with you. Athletics is the life-link between alumni and the University. How many of us would honestly care as much about UND but for athletics? Athletics can be a major tool for growth and prosperity. I would argue it's more important to the long-term success of an institution than any one academic department.

[PCM]

I mean it in a negative way.

I got that. I don't agree with it.

[PCM]

I completely disagree with you. Athletics is the life-link between alumni and the University.

It is a link, but it's not the only link, and it's not necessarily the most important link. Obviously, people who hang out on a Web site called SiouxSports.com believe that athletics is of vital importance. But during my 15+ years at UND, I've been involved in many different events and know from my experience that there are many less visible links through research and acadamia that are vitally important to the university's success. I'm not downplaying the sigificance of athletics, but it shouldn't be overstated, either.

[mksioux]

It is a link, but it's not the only link, and it's not necessarily the most important link. Obviously, people who hang out on a Web site called SiouxSports.com believe that athletics is of vital importance. But during my 15+ years at UND, I've been involved in many different events and know from my experience that there are many less visible links through research and acadamia that are vitally important to the university's success. I'm not downplaying the sigificance of athletics, but it shouldn't be overstated, either.

Obviously it is not the only link, but it is important enough to have the AD report directly to the President IMO.

[PCM]

Obviously it is not the only link, but it is important enough to have the AD report directly to the President IMO.

Which is the way it was until exceptional circumstances caused a change.

[Hammersmith]

And, once again, the "hard data" on the success of UND athletics during Kupchella's tenure isn't what you'd expect of university under someone who wishes he could do without athletics or views them as a "necessary evil." I'm not saying that everything the man's done has been correct, but your characterization of his view of athletics is wildly off the mark.

I said I was going to quit, but this triggered a nice analogy in my head.

I view the situation like a music box. Even if you stop winding it, the music will continue to play for a time. Eventually though, the music will slow and stop if it's not wound up again. I believe that athletic success continued under CK's watch in spite of him, not because of him. It was a group of good coaches and staff that kept the music playing until now. But without the winding from an active president, entropy caught up and the music began to falter. With the right presidential hire, the music box will be wound back up before the music completely stops. The wrong hire? Well...

Just an opinion.

[PCM]

I believe that athletic success continued under CK's watch in spite of him, not because of him.

I never said or even implied that the success of UND athletics was because of Kupchella. He would be the first to give credit when it's due, which is to the athletes, the coaches and their staffs. However, over the course of eight years, Kupchella certainly could have hurt or impeded the athletic program if he had chosen to do so. The last time I checked, allowing good people to do their jobs is known as delegation and the sign of a good manager.

[GeauxSioux]

Support for Buning

Several supportive e-mails have been sent to Tom Buning, UND athletic director, since he took a leave of absence from the school recently.

"I just want you to know that I really appreciate you and enjoy the time we spend together (even in sily meetings). I hope that whatever happens in your future (if here or elsewhere), you are happy. Your smiling face brightens my day."

......

I can't say that I can disagree with wishing someone happiness.

[GeauxSioux]

Perhaps but I read the email as a request to let the public know what is going on. We still don't know. Wait, I'll rephrase that. I, a non-insider, don't know.

According to Kevin Fee...

The Bonzer one was after the leave was announced. The others were prior to the announcement.

Posted by: fee on 10/10/2007 11:26 AM

[mikejm]

Do you think Joe Chapman is a sports fan? A football or basketball fan? He's not.

While I don't dispute the main points in your post, this statement is patently false. I have attended sporting events as Chapman's guest. I can assure you he is a big sports fan. All sports. He is also, among other things, a very cheerful, jovial man who has become a friendly public face for NDSU. That might be the most important criteria UND should seek in its hiring process.

[Shawn-O]

I never said or even implied that the success of UND athletics was because of Kupchella. He would be the first to give credit when it's due, which is to the athletes, the coaches and their staffs. However, over the course of eight years, Kupchella certainly could have hurt or impeded the athletic program if he had chosen to do so. The last time I checked, allowing good people to do their jobs is known as delegation and the sign of a good manager.

The athletic program was impeded with the Division I delay (I'm certainly not insinuating that Kupchella intended harm, that would be ridiculous). And delegation is fine, but what's happened here with Buning and Harmeson is the corporate equivalent of having the VP of Marketing reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer...it just doesn't make any sense, and it was a red flag from the word go. The athletic director should report directly to the president's office, anything else is a receipe for trouble.

[PCM]

The athletic program was impeded with the Division I delay (I'm certainly not insinuating that Kupchella intended harm, that would be ridiculous).

And were there legitimate reasons for the delay? Funding issues? Budget issues? Facilities issues? My understanding is that there were.

And delegation is fine, but what's happened here with Buning and Harmeson is the corporate equivalent of having the VP of Marketing reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer...it just doesn't make any sense, and it was a red flag from the word go. The athletic director should report directly to the president's office, anything else is a receipe for trouble.

You are leaving out some important context. Buning didn't start his job reporting to a VP. He was at UND for two years before that happened. The measure was implemented last July at the request of others in the athletic department after it became apparent there were issues with the AD.

So which way do you want it? If Kupchella hadn't cared, he could have simply let the situation continue as it was. Instead, he took action that resulted in Buning being removed.

He does nothing and you complain. He does something and you complain. What do you want? You can't have it both ways.

Criticize the man all you want, but at least be consistent about it and don't leave out important facts.

[UND92,96]

And were there legitimate reasons for the delay? Funding issues? Budget issues? Facilities issues? My understanding is that there were.

You are leaving out some important context. Buning didn't start his job reporting to a VP. He was at UND for two years before that happened. The measure was implemented last July at the request of others in the athletic department after it became apparent there were issues with the AD.

So which way do you want it? If Kupchella hadn't cared, he could have simply let the situation continue as it was. Instead, he took action that resulted in Buning being removed.

He does nothing and you complain. He does something and you complain. What do you want? You can't have it both ways.

Criticize the man all you want, but at least be consistent about it and don't leave out important facts.

PCM is correct. I'm afraid a lot of people are assuming that having Buning report to Harmeson was a cause of the problems, rather than a result from problems that already existed within the department.

[Shawn-O]

PCM is correct. I'm afraid a lot of people are assuming that having Buning report to Harmeson was a cause of the problems, rather than a result from problems that already existed within the department.

As I clearly stated, the, let's call it a demotion, was a red flag. Inserting Harmeson was not a direct way to handle the issue, IMO. Inserting another layer of management rarely works.

[UND92,96]

As I clearly stated, the, let's call it a demotion, was a red flag. Inserting Harmeson was not a direct way to handle the issue, IMO. Inserting another layer of management rarely works.

Yes, it was a red flag. A red flag that problems existed within the department. It seems to me the other option was simply to fire him/not renew his contract in July. I don't think people who are upset about the way things played out would have been any less so had that happened, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[PCM]

As I clearly stated, the, let's call it a demotion, was a red flag. Inserting Harmeson was not a direct way to handle the issue, IMO. Inserting another layer of management rarely works.

So you'd prefer that Hakstol still not have a new contract?

[Shawn-O]

So you'd prefer that Hakstol still not have a new contract?

Pull the trigger in July, Harmeson becomes the interim, same outcome. Not complicated.

[PCM]

I don't think people who are upset about the way things played out would have been any less so had that happened, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I think you're probably right.

[PCM]

Pull the trigger in July, Harmeson becomes the interim, same outcome. Not complicated.

Nothing is complicated on an Internet message board.

[Shawn-O]

Nothing is complicated on an Internet message board.

As in life, there is no black and white on a message board, only gray.

[Shawn-O]

Yes, it was a red flag. A red flag that problems existed within the department. It seems to me the other option was simply to fire him/not renew his contract in July. I don't think people who are upset about the way things played out would have been any less so had that happened, but perhaps I'm wrong.

We wouldn't have this lingering "leave of absence" saga to deal with.