AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Mark Kennedy new, but soon to be old CU President - Official CU president Thread
- Thread starter buff4bcs1985
- Start date
Wrong font?
Very much right on many things, but a lot more moderate on a lot of others. And I’m not the one who brought up the “Republican” tag. Basically, I really don’t give a damn about his voting record, regardless of what it was. Bernie Sanders could be the sole finalist and his politics wouldn’t be a factor for me. In fact, I could be convinced fairly easily that Sanders would be a better candidate than Kennedy. We can do better than either of them, frankly.
DBT. Please go back and read post 515. I accused you of no such thing. I have no idea where you got that.
You've accused me of "assuming ****". What are you assuming about me in this case?
Yes, You've said this, and this is what I'm responding to.
In page after page, posters opposed to this candidate have stated concerns about fundraising, athletics, vision and experience. It constitutes the bulk of the criticisms.
What I'm responding to is your assumption that it is about political affiliation. When the posts overwhelming aren't about politics, how do you arrive at this conclusion. This is the one thing--the only thing--that I'm challenging (post 515). Why do you assume the opposition is political?
I didn't respond to any of these points. This has nothing to do with our discussion, and I acknowledge your points here. Thank you.
Sorry dude. Nothing in your posts suggest anything other than mega right winger. That’s the republican party of trump.
Well, alrighty then. I think you’re choosing to read things into my posts that aren’t there, which suggests a significant bias on your part.
Perhaps you’re so far to the left that everybody appears to be an extreme right winger to you? Just a thought.
Nope. You haven’t read my posts. But I am not surprised about you being “not sure”. It’s your name after all.
FYI, I’m not even in the politics board. I have the entire forum on ignore. So it’s kind of amazing to me that you’ve managed to peg me as some kind of MAGA Trumpista without the benefit of my ever, not once, mentioning an opinion on the man on this board one way or the other.
You act like I am dumb, so you think I can’t tell your political orientation based upon what you say and like? Okie dokie.
Anyway, back to Kennedy. Enough about you.
It's been a steaming pile everywhere.
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
Literally laughed out loud.
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
Biases. We all have em. Fine. We have that entitlement. What I think nearly all of us can agree on is this search and ‘finalist’ process has been a cluster from the start and the Regents, left, right, and center, are to blame. The result we’re seeing was, in my view, as close to a sure thing as there is.
It could be argued the mechanisms that charter the Regent-based governance structure for this institution is flawed/outdated and is responsible for much of what plagues this university. It’s far too political and not fit for purpose in a state that is bifurcated among bright blue and bright red constituents. Something’s gotta change, man.
It could be argued the mechanisms that charter the Regent-based governance structure for this institution is flawed/outdated and is responsible for much of what plagues this university. It’s far too political and not fit for purpose in a state that is bifurcated among bright blue and bright red constituents. Something’s gotta change, man.
True enough.
Welcome to my world.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Your first paragraph is absolutely wrong.
MCskid
Well-Known Member
Imagine how pissed everyone, Democrat, Republican or whatever would be if we had hired UND's football coach. I get that the Republican majority is gonna hire a Republican. What I don't get is why they didn't go to Stanford/UCLA/Cal/M.I.T, etc and hire the highest ranking Republican. If that person ends up being the pencil sharpener so be it, hire that person. There are community colleges in this state are a hell of a lot better that UND.
This attitude that you know everything about this search process and that everyone else criticizing any part of it is absolutely wrong is wearing a little thin, especially since you decline to provide any details or support for your assertions.
Which parts of @Bliff Cranch 's post were wrong? Where it says we're entitled to biases? Where it says that the finalist process appears to be a cluster****? Where it says that BoR as a whole is to blame for a process that resulted in a lackluster candidate? Where it says that the process as implemented was always going to result in a lackluster candidate?
Because I have to say, everything about Mark Kennedy since he's been announced indicates he's a lackluster candidate:
- He hasn't clearly communicated a unique vision for taking the University of Colorado system forward. In fact, he's clearly been unprepared to communicate any of this plan with the opportunities that he's been given to do so.
- The vague parts of his plan that he has communicated indicates that he wants to solve "problems" at CU that I'm not frankly sure should be priorities for CU- it seems like he took a boilerplate plan that he's used at UND in the past.
- UCF, while a respectable institution, is a smaller and less prestigious university than CU, and they passed on Mark Kennedy- why?
- He's been at UND for two years and tried to leave twice- why?
- Mark Kennedy has shown in the forums this week that he declines to take personal responsibility where appropriate with problems that have happened at UND- he gave a bunch of excuses this week why fundraising was down with top donors, why he had problems with the board at UND, etc.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
First off, I don't give a flying **** if you think I'm wearing thin or not.
Everything I have said has been documented in the media. The Regents did not **** up the search process from the beginning. The process was done according to policy and very professional. The search committee was very inclusive, not at all stacked politically. This has been documented in the media.
At what point have I defended Kennedy? What gives you any indication that he would be my choice?
Will the final vote be political? You're goddamn right it will. Is it the best way to choose a president, no. It's what we have, and politically voted in boards will vote with a political bias.
All I have done in this thread, is call out the witch-hunt where it has been documented as false.
If you don't like this explanation, blow me!
If the process was so good, why was the result so bad? I can’t help but think the process itself was flawed from the start.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
That is a different subject. Casting aspersions at the Board of Regents for following a required process is bull****.
How about casting aspersions on the BoR for ****ing up the hire even though they followed established protocols?
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
That's a good question. Is there a mechanism in place to decline the suggestions and start over? The finger-pointing and name-calling has gone over the line, though.
