A Chaplain for the Iowa Football team?

ISUFan22 · 03-27-2008, 11:15 PM

The question was, SH - how can you guarantee the Regents had nothing to do with this?

Fact is - you can't.

SouthernHawk · 03-27-2008, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

The question was, SH - how can you guarantee the Regents had nothing to do with this?

Fact is - you can't.

I didn't say they had nothing to do with any of this. What I did say is that at most they said something to the effect of "We are tired of these problems."

The fact is, nobody can prove that the Regents forced them to do anything. Yeah, I know, supposedly the original poster talks to the Regents quite often, and would know more than me.

I suppose I could say I've talked to others involved in the program that have said the opposite.

Again, until something else comes out saying otherwise, I'd rather give credit where credit is due - and that's to the coaches and AD. I fully believe that they are interested in what is best for the program/university, and don't need the Regents telling them so.

ISUAlum2002 · 03-27-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

I didn't say they had nothing to do with any of this.

Really?

Several things... this has nothing to do with the Regents, I can guarantee you that.

From your first post in this thread.

No one here is guaranteeing that the Regents brought this move on and forced Barta's or Ferentz's hand. But you are right that they probably strongly suggested that something needed to be done to try to curb the issues. That, in and of itself, would be having something to do with the Regents with respect to this issue.

cyclonekj · 03-27-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

The question was, SH - how can you guarantee the Regents had nothing to do with this?

Fact is - you can't.

I could crap in a box and stamp it "guaranteed." I've got spare time.

SouthernHawk · 03-27-2008, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by ISUAlum2002

Really?

From your first post in this thread.

No one here is guaranteeing that the Regents brought this move on and forced Barta's or Ferentz's hand. But you are right that they probably strongly suggested that something needed to be done to try to curb the issues. That, in and of itself, would be having something to do with the Regents with respect to this issue.

I also said this, "I'm sure they said something to the effect of "We're tired of the issues", but I can say with 99% certainty that any new additions to the staff were no the result of pressure from the Regents, but rather were caused by the coaches realizing there is a problem, and wanting to fix it."

And like I said, it may be that they mentioned something. But I highly doubt that they had nothing to do with any staff changes.

ISUAlum2002 · 03-27-2008, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

And like I said, it may be that they mentioned something. But I highly doubt that they had nothing to do with any staff changes.

I agree completely.

SouthernHawk · 03-27-2008, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by ISUAlum2002

I agree completely.

LOL, well, I believe that is a sign that I need to step away from the computer. That right there is a nice find ;)

twojman · 03-27-2008, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by cyclonekj

I could crap in a box and stamp it "guaranteed." I've got spare time.

Don't picture, don't picture, ahhhh too late.

I do not know what is more funny, crapping in a box or your last sentence, "I've got spare time." I am completely sober and have tears from laughing so hard.

Dormeezy · 03-28-2008, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by cyclonekj

I could crap in a box and stamp it "guaranteed." I've got spare time.

ketelmeister · 03-28-2008, 12:19 PM

I have personally talked with seven of the nine Regents on several occasions, and exchanged messeges with the other two. Believe it or not, I know what I'm talking about. If you don't believe this action was because of Regent pressure, you are living on the wrong planet. There is genuine anamosity from at least three of the Regents, (I can name names if you want) by the way Iowa has handled the athletic department. They have the ultimate power over the universities. The power of the purse. NO project can move forward without their approval. If Iowa has these grandious plans for Carver, they don't have a prayer of moving ahead unless they clean up their act. They can't remodel the toilets without the Regents approval. I firmly believe that the hiring of a Chaplin (which is what the new position is) is a good step for Iowa. But not something they wanted to do. And Ferentz was forced to kick players off. He would not have based on past actions. It's a garbage dump over there and it needs to be cleaned up.

abcguyks · 03-28-2008, 12:39 PM

I thin ketelmeister's got it right even though I know nothing of the specifics. Just look at the two different versions of what has been happening in IC and it quickly becomes apparent which one reflects the real world vs. what the schmuckeyes wish that it was. Just ask yourself - which side of the story seems more believable?

CloneAggie · 03-28-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

I have personally talked with seven of the nine Regents on several occasions, and exchanged messeges with the other two. Believe it or not, I know what I'm talking about. If you don't believe this action was because of Regent pressure, you are living on the wrong planet. There is genuine anamosity from at least three of the Regents, (I can name names if you want) by the way Iowa has handled the athletic department. They have the ultimate power over the universities. The power of the purse. NO project can move forward without their approval. If Iowa has these grandious plans for Carver, they don't have a prayer of moving ahead unless they clean up their act. They can't remodel the toilets without the Regents approval. I firmly believe that the hiring of a Chaplin (which is what the new position is) is a good step for Iowa. But not something they wanted to do. And Ferentz was forced to kick players off. He would not have based on past actions. It's a garbage dump over there and it needs to be cleaned up.

Personally ... I believe what you are saying. However, I think if it is the case, then the Regents should have no problem telling the media this. Whether or not the media has asked these questions, I don't know (maybe you do). If they have been asked these questions, and have denied having a hand in the changes being made, then the Regents are liars and I would have no respect for any of them.

ketelmeister · 03-28-2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Personally ... I believe what you are saying. However, I think if it is the case, then the Regents should have no problem telling the media this. Whether or not the media has asked these questions, I don't know (maybe you do). If they have been asked these questions, and have denied having a hand in the changes being made, then the Regents are liars and I would have no respect for any of them.

I am in the media, in another state, and NOT covering this story for the press. But I can tell you the Regents are very forthcoming on these issues. And I believe no one in the Iowa press has called them. I can't understand why as it would make a great story. I only assume the press in Iowa really doesn't want to know what they think. I could have had a front page story on all of this a month ago, but my interest is as an Iowa State alum and not a reporter.

Steve · 03-28-2008, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

I have personally talked with seven of the nine Regents on several occasions, and exchanged messeges with the other two. Believe it or not, I know what I'm talking about. If you don't believe this action was because of Regent pressure, you are living on the wrong planet. There is genuine anamosity from at least three of the Regents, (I can name names if you want) by the way Iowa has handled the athletic department. They have the ultimate power over the universities. The power of the purse. NO project can move forward without their approval. If Iowa has these grandious plans for Carver, they don't have a prayer of moving ahead unless they clean up their act. They can't remodel the toilets without the Regents approval. I firmly believe that the hiring of a Chaplin (which is what the new position is) is a good step for Iowa. But not something they wanted to do. And Ferentz was forced to kick players off. He would not have based on past actions. It's a garbage dump over there and it needs to be cleaned up.

But you didn't guarantee what you just said....JK

Great post on setting the record straight. Game, set, match.

ISUFan22 · 03-28-2008, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Several things... this has nothing to do with the Regents, I can guarantee you that. Of course, anything/everything good that the program does is going to be credited to somebody else, so of course Ferentz doesn't want the program to improve, it must be the Regents.

Also, this isn't a Chaplin. Not even close. No religious affiliation. They are going to do a better job of introducing student athletes to the Iowa City atmosphere, which is what I think they should have been doing 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

I didn't say they had nothing to do with any of this. What I did say is that at most they said something to the effect of "We are tired of these problems."

The fact is, nobody can prove that the Regents forced them to do anything. Yeah, I know, supposedly the original poster talks to the Regents quite often, and would know more than me.

I suppose I could say I've talked to others involved in the program that have said the opposite.

Again, until something else comes out saying otherwise, I'd rather give credit where credit is due - and that's to the coaches and AD. I fully believe that they are interested in what is best for the program/university, and don't need the Regents telling them so.

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

I also said this, "I'm sure they said something to the effect of "We're tired of the issues", but I can say with 99% certainty that any new additions to the staff were no the result of pressure from the Regents, but rather were caused by the coaches realizing there is a problem, and wanting to fix it."

And like I said, it may be that they mentioned something. But I highly doubt that they had nothing to do with any staff changes.

Your story changes on this stuff more often than Hawk FB players get arrested - if that's possible.

Which is it? Guaranteed they had nothing to do with it? Highly doubt it?

Big difference there...