No it wasn't. But he was able to get the Rieman's to donate $25 mil (or whatever it was), and whatever the Sukup's donated to do the project.
Pretty amazing considering our donors supposedly don't like him and he is holding back donations, isn't it?
REFUTED: Travis Hines: A look into the ISU BBall program and the Athletic Dept
- Thread starter megamanxzero35
- Start date
No it wasn't. But he was able to get the Rieman's to donate $25 mil (or whatever it was), and whatever the Sukup's donated to do the project.
Pretty amazing considering our donors supposedly don't like him and he is holding back donations, isn't it?
I don't know, Pollard seems pretty reactionary and doesn't shy away from saying what he really feels. Have you seen his tweets? If anything, he could benefit from more of a filter.
And next to the trophies are the enormous turds those coaches have produced. Which is why Fred has a more high profile job than all of them that also happens to pay more?
I think he's reactionary, but highly strategic.
Fred has never ever said anything bad about his relationship with anyone.
give me a red crayon. I am going to write "JAMIE HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO REFUTE THIS STORY OR ELSE HE IS OUT OF A JOB"
The guy is a hawk troll. He will keep arguing no matter what. Bust out the crayons.
The problem I see is that assuming that there are issues which JP needs to address, the pettiness and inaccuracy of the article have hurt the cause of those who would like to change either the AD or the way the current AD approaches things. Is the witch hunt about basketball, football, or both?
To be fair, it's certainly plausible that much of the discontent among donors is recent, after those big donations.
But other than 1) Fred's departure 2) Rhoads' non-departure, I can't think of any reason donors could be unhappy
Correct, however Hoiberg didn't have to refute the story and did. His comments carry more weight than Jamie's or an annoymous source.
Even some of Pollard's comments line up with Fred's and the verifiable attacks about the sleeping in the ballroom and family travel arrangements. Thus some of Pollard's comments can be verified over an annoymous source's.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Agreed. I think Travis received some good information and has some compelling sources, but without being able to name them, or provide any proof, the focus of his message is as much, or more, on his journalism tactics and the "unknowns" of the article than it is on the culture at Iowa State. As such, the article is a failure.
DOnors do not and CAN not run the program. We desperately need their money but it is JP (and Leath) who LEAD the program and are ultimately responsible. Out of control donors create REALLY good stories.
More power to JP! He's doing a very public job where everyone gets an opportunity to anonymously critique him.
Someone posted earlier that donors HAD created a $5mm/year "offer" but Fred was unwilling to commit beyond year-to-year. Maybe that's the precedent JP was trying to avoid.
Jamie didn't comment because he wanted to come off as a victim after the story came out so he could direct fans anger at Hines and 'disgruntled former employees' and get people distracted from the product on the field. He is great at this kind of thing. Just like when he attacked transfers or attacked refs or Hawkeyes etc.
When did Hines contact Jamie for a quote and when did he publish the story? Pollard addressed it on the radio show that he was contacted Monday about a Wednesday release. He stated he wasn't going to comment as at that point, the story was written.
If Pollard is full of it, then Hines needs to come out and state he made attempts to contact Pollard weeks ago (specific dates/times would help) for comment, not right after the story was written and before the story was to be released.
