Alumni Committee Dissolved

David1979

HR Legend
Oct 17, 2013
12,907
12,558
113
Totally agree. I find it odd that Lomax was the only one who said anything. Besides that nobody. Crickets from everywhere and everyone. I know some of you guys don’t feel Kirk owes us any kind of explanation, which is fine. However, with all the bad publicity we received before he put this committee together we just handled this poorly. It looks like the current group of players seem very tight and happy at Iowa and it doesn’t seem to have hurt recruiting but it certainly could and should have been handled better. JMO.
Most don't want to get involved if the story is going to pit one committee member against others. That's just drama that takes away from the actual purpose of the committee.
 

parker01

Team MVP
Sep 5, 2006
158
112
43
Totally agree. I find it odd that Lomax was the only one who said anything. Besides that nobody. Crickets from everywhere and everyone. I know some of you guys don’t feel Kirk owes us any kind of explanation, which is fine. However, with all the bad publicity we received before he put this committee together we just handled this poorly. It looks like the current group of players seem very tight and happy at Iowa and it doesn’t seem to have hurt recruiting but it certainly could and should have been handled better. JMO.
You aren’t hearing other committee members primarily because nobody wants to be involved in sensationalized nonsense. I’d be willing to bet you won’t hear anymore from Lomax either. This whole advisory board story is a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion, primarily by one individual.
 

AuroraHawk

HR Heisman
Dec 18, 2004
5,907
7,597
113
That doesn't seem like a very good question. I'll answer for Kirk. "I can't tell you which committee members will want to go on the record and talk. That is up to them." Pointless.
But, in fairness, Kirk essentially told him to go talk to other committee members to get the "other part of the story." If these reporters have tried but they won't talk . . . how are they supposed to write about the other side of the story? I certainly understand why the other committee members don't want to share their thoughts but, if they aren't willing to do so, isn't it hard to present the "other part of the story?"

Maybe the question I posed wasn't the most artful but it would be far better than a snarky comment such as "we've tried to contact the other members of the committee and they aren't willing to give us another perspective. Do you have any understanding as to why they are reluctant to go on record defending your comments or approach?"

I hate that this is happening to my alma mater and about an athletics program about which I care. I'd love for it to go up in a puff of smoke and disappear. But, that's not going to happen. Too much has transpired. And, until you get to the point where this is far more in the rear view mirror, extra care and consideration has to be given to the perception of decisions being made. Otherwise, there is a risk of re-opening the wound.

I'll go to my death bed feeling as if this most recent "committee restructing/disbanding" story could have been avoided with even a modicum of foresight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Genghis

AuroraHawk

HR Heisman
Dec 18, 2004
5,907
7,597
113
You aren’t hearing other committee members primarily because nobody wants to be involved in sensationalized nonsense. I’d be willing to bet you won’t hear anymore from Lomax either. This whole advisory board story is a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion, primarily by one individual.

Committee Member X: "This is a non-issue. It has been overblown and sensationalized. We knew that Kirk was thinking about restructuring the committee to get younger players involved. It's a great idea. I fully support it. Others on the committee fully support it. It is a natural extension of good work initiated by our committee at Kirk's request. Iowa football has never been in a better position than it is today and I was proud to be part of that and look forward to what my successors are able to accomplish."

That took me about 60 seconds to compose. That's all it would take. Cut it off at the knees.
 

MepoDawg#

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 29, 2012
15,084
15,322
113
Let me play Devil’s Advocate.
I’m not aware of a single committee member that has been willing to go “on the record” or be interviewed. All I’ve seen are some Tweets. I believe Leistikow reported that one committee member who didn’t want to be identied said his understanding was similar to what Ferentz articulated in the letter to the parents and that he wasn’t surprised by the disbanding of the old advisory committee.
The Gazette and others asked Ferentz for an interview. He declined. He refused to answer questions in writing. Instead, his PR rep sent the email to the Gazette.
Call me crazy but it seems to me that the football program was blindsided by this, didn’t anticipate the potential negative feedback and it took more than 24-36 hours for them to get the story they wanted out to the public.
I’m a Hawkeye through and through and support Ferentz and his staff but, man, I’m stunned that they didn’t see this coming. At risk of being overly negative, it would appear to be one of Kirk’s admitted “blind spots.”
If any reporter was on his or her toes yesterday, the natural follow up question would have been “Coach, can you identify who on the committee might be willing to speak with us because, this far, our efforts have been unsuccessful and it hasn’t been for a lack of trying.”
You’re surprised that Iowa didn’t see this coming? It happened back in October/November, correct? Porter sat on this until after the bowl game loss and KF contract extension was announced. So nothing happened for a couple months. And maybe the former players suing got ahold of Porter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyebob62

cidhawkeye

HR Legend
Jun 21, 2009
12,669
7,345
113
But, in fairness, Kirk essentially told him to go talk to other committee members to get the "other part of the story." If these reporters have tried but they won't talk . . . how are they supposed to write about the other side of the story? I certainly understand why the other committee members don't want to share their thoughts but, if they aren't willing to do so, isn't it hard to present the "other part of the story?"

Maybe the question I posed wasn't the most artful but it would be far better than a snarky comment such as "we've tried to contact the other members of the committee and they aren't willing to give us another perspective. Do you have any understanding as to why they are reluctant to go on record defending your comments or approach?"

I hate that this is happening to my alma mater and about an athletics program about which I care. I'd love for it to go up in a puff of smoke and disappear. But, that's not going to happen. Too much has transpired. And, until you get to the point where this is far more in the rear view mirror, extra care and consideration has to be given to the perception of decisions being made. Otherwise, there is a risk of re-opening the wound.

I'll go to my death bed feeling as if this most recent "committee restructing/disbanding" story could have been avoided with even a modicum of foresight.
I think it very easily could have been prevented/minimized by anyone with a PR clue. Gazette, Howe, Harty trying to get the other side AFTER the original story was pushed is in my opinion an attempt to double the clicks and the shelf life of the story. They also should have been aware that the walls of Fort Kinnick would be closed after that story.
 

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,117
952
113
I agree with the above.

That written, I'm old enough to remember when Iowa football wasn't winning as frequently that there were plenty of posters on this board claiming that the Iowa beat writers didn't ask tough questions, sucked up to the coaches and were nothing more than mouthpieces for what the athletic department wants them to say/write.

Howe's job isn't to make friends with the football program. Three facts: (1) the Iowa football program was the subject of many allegations by former football players on social media; (2) there is a pending lawsuit in federal court targeting the Iowa football program; and (3) the CR Gazette recently reported on the disbanding of an advisory committee and quoted one of the members of the committee. Like it or not . . . there are "newsworthy" issues surrounding the program right now. We may not like it. We may not agree with it. We may wish it would "go away."

I don't find it particularly unfair of Howe, Harty, or any other reporter asking questions about these issues that have newly arisen. It's not as if Ferentz held some type of press conference after the CR Gazette's reporting.

Now . . . you certainly can take issue with whether there is even-handed coverage or whether Howe jumped to conclusions. I get that and I don't necessarily disagree. But I've got no beef with any reporter who wants to ask tough questions. That's their job.
It's not about asking tough questions. It's about incomplete and/or biased reporting, as well as the motivation(s) behind it.

Howe has a long history of all of that.
 

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,117
952
113
Let me play Devil’s Advocate.
I’m not aware of a single committee member that has been willing to go “on the record” or be interviewed. All I’ve seen are some Tweets. I believe Leistikow reported that one committee member who didn’t want to be identied said his understanding was similar to what Ferentz articulated in the letter to the parents and that he wasn’t surprised by the disbanding of the old advisory committee.
The Gazette and others asked Ferentz for an interview. He declined. He refused to answer questions in writing. Instead, his PR rep sent the email to the Gazette.
Call me crazy but it seems to me that the football program was blindsided by this, didn’t anticipate the potential negative feedback and it took more than 24-36 hours for them to get the story they wanted out to the public.
I’m a Hawkeye through and through and support Ferentz and his staff but, man, I’m stunned that they didn’t see this coming. At risk of being overly negative, it would appear to be one of Kirk’s admitted “blind spots.”
If any reporter was on his or her toes yesterday, the natural follow up question would have been “Coach, can you identify who on the committee might be willing to speak with us because, this far, our efforts have been unsuccessful and it hasn’t been for a lack of trying.”
What Kirk probably didn't see coming was a former player who was asked, and willingly agreed, to serve on a committee, anndbthen made things personal, as well as petty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David1979

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,117
952
113
If anyone remembers when all this first "broke", certain folks in "digital media" went full-blown in the direction of "virtue-signaling". It was borderline appalling.

We saw/heard guys tell their "dredged up memories" of the day they treated a Black kid, or several Black kids, poorly and meanly. They did the requisite head-hung-in-shame articles, blogged and pod-casted, and by God, let all us racist-pig-unwashed-unwoke-white-guy types know that they had turned over a new leaf. Presumably because they are better people than all of us in the aforementioned "class".

It's tiring. Actually, it's exhausting. And it's also nauseating.

The fact people like Rob Howe, Jon Miller, or Pat Harty need to shout--from the proverbial rooftop--how wonderful, inclusive, woke, and diversity-forward they are is odd at best, maybe a bit disturbing, but in reality, just plain messed up.

However, should any of you woke types require it, I will post my "inventory" of diverse friends. And of course, it will include all my episodes of "sticking up for..." at bars, at work, in restaurants, etc. Or maybe I won't, because I don't really do virtue-signaling.

P.S. I'm thinking of getting a Prius, and I recycle. And I am vaxxed AND boosted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmhawks99

BCRoss89

HR MVP
Gold Member
Oct 12, 2003
1,876
1,203
113
But, in fairness, Kirk essentially told him to go talk to other committee members to get the "other part of the story." If these reporters have tried but they won't talk . . . how are they supposed to write about the other side of the story? I certainly understand why the other committee members don't want to share their thoughts but, if they aren't willing to do so, isn't it hard to present the "other part of the story?"

Maybe the question I posed wasn't the most artful but it would be far better than a snarky comment such as "we've tried to contact the other members of the committee and they aren't willing to give us another perspective. Do you have any understanding as to why they are reluctant to go on record defending your comments or approach?"

I hate that this is happening to my alma mater and about an athletics program about which I care. I'd love for it to go up in a puff of smoke and disappear. But, that's not going to happen. Too much has transpired. And, until you get to the point where this is far more in the rear view mirror, extra care and consideration has to be given to the perception of decisions being made. Otherwise, there is a risk of re-opening the wound.

I'll go to my death bed feeling as if this most recent "committee restructing/disbanding" story could have been avoided with even a modicum of foresight.
A story in true Journalistic fashion has to report on all sides to be a complete story, its simple as that. In fact, after hearing all sides, there may not be a story worth reporting, like this one. If we could have trusted Journlaists "just to do their job" there would have been no "story" to be be avoided.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyebob62

The Deplorable Sleeping Dog

HR Heisman
Gold Member
May 9, 2018
5,378
7,171
113
Committee Member X: "This is a non-issue. It has been overblown and sensationalized. We knew that Kirk was thinking about restructuring the committee to get younger players involved. It's a great idea. I fully support it. Others on the committee fully support it. It is a natural extension of good work initiated by our committee at Kirk's request. Iowa football has never been in a better position than it is today and I was proud to be part of that and look forward to what my successors are able to accomplish."

That took me about 60 seconds to compose. That's all it would take. Cut it off at the knees.
To be fair, your IQ is about 50% greater than Gary Barta's and he's the genius that runs the athletic department PR. While KF uses the royal approach, don't complain, don't explain, I think a more subtle approach is sometimes useful. This might be one of those times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frydaze and littlez

Section25

HR All-State
Jun 25, 2005
957
401
63
A good journalist would have realized crickets from the rest of the committee members meant they had no reason to get into the weeds. That as much as nullifies the story that was a non-story. Let's go a step further and there have been no earth-shattering stories from guys who have transferred, and Iowa has not seen coaching defections.
 

David1979

HR Legend
Oct 17, 2013
12,907
12,558
113
But, in fairness, Kirk essentially told him to go talk to other committee members to get the "other part of the story." If these reporters have tried but they won't talk . . . how are they supposed to write about the other side of the story? I certainly understand why the other committee members don't want to share their thoughts but, if they aren't willing to do so, isn't it hard to present the "other part of the story?"

Maybe the question I posed wasn't the most artful but it would be far better than a snarky comment such as "we've tried to contact the other members of the committee and they aren't willing to give us another perspective. Do you have any understanding as to why they are reluctant to go on record defending your comments or approach?"

I hate that this is happening to my alma mater and about an athletics program about which I care. I'd love for it to go up in a puff of smoke and disappear. But, that's not going to happen. Too much has transpired. And, until you get to the point where this is far more in the rear view mirror, extra care and consideration has to be given to the perception of decisions being made. Otherwise, there is a risk of re-opening the wound.

I'll go to my death bed feeling as if this most recent "committee restructing/disbanding" story could have been avoided with even a modicum of foresight.
I mean Lomax came out and stated that that wasn't the view of the other members but that was all he was going to say because again the story isn't Porter v. Ferentz or the committee members v Porter. Some in the press wanted to make it out that way but the story should be what gains have been made and how is going to continue to ensure things continue in the right direction. The headline of the head of the committee wanting KF to step down is never going to be tamped down by other members saying they didn't agree. That is never going to get as much press because it isn't as dramatic. Just like the fact that Porter himself stated they pretty much did everything we asked them to do wasn't a big headline. It was just pushed aside. No one ever actually got info on specifics on why he thought KF couldn't continue. It didn't matter if KF had sat down and done an interview. Because people would think he is just downplaying things and isn't being truthful. It is really a no win situation because the critics already have their position staked out.
 

David1979

HR Legend
Oct 17, 2013
12,907
12,558
113
Committee Member X: "This is a non-issue. It has been overblown and sensationalized. We knew that Kirk was thinking about restructuring the committee to get younger players involved. It's a great idea. I fully support it. Others on the committee fully support it. It is a natural extension of good work initiated by our committee at Kirk's request. Iowa football has never been in a better position than it is today and I was proud to be part of that and look forward to what my successors are able to accomplish."

That took me about 60 seconds to compose. That's all it would take. Cut it off at the knees.
That wouldn't cut it off.
 

Latest posts