Pollard sounds off on critics of recommendation to close C.Y. Stephens indefinitely

[Clonefan32]

I explained it before that he probably would have done himself a favor if he would have said that Stephens would be closed "for the duration of the pandemic" rather than "indefinitely". That would make a lot of the people up in arms at this time a lot more secure that this wasn't a convenient attempt to close Stephens for good.

This is a difference without a distinction.

 

[Clonefan32]

It is not me who is stuck on the idea that we might still have fans - that is the express wishes of the athletic department as stated in at least two emails to fans over the past week. So when Pollard says on one day that we're aiming for fans then on the next day repeatedly references "the decision" not to have fans and the consequences that stem from that decision - when no such decision had been announced - that is not transparent messaging, it is confusing at best and a lie at worst.

Generally Pollard has been open and transparent throughout this process, which is why the past week has seemed so out of character. There were numerous other ways to bring up the concern about Stephens - a concern I'm certain most would have understood - that didn't involve being so abrupt and so petty.

I'm going to guess Jamie has a pretty good grip by now on whether or not we are having fans.

Plus, his letter discusses the possibilities if we don't have fans. What's wrong with that? If we do have fans then maybe some of the things he discussed wont happen. But why not at least put out the probable ramifications now so that people can understand those ramifications when generating their opinions on this topic? Because it's obvious the public perception has a big bearing on what happens--let them know the likely outcomes so they can have an informed opinion.

This fixation on "but what if we do have fans" is silly. Great. Then maybe some of those things don't get cut. What's your point?

 

[Ms3r4ISU]

Poorly written article.

It was an opinion piece and I think it did its job

 

[Trice]

I'm going to guess Jamie has a pretty good grip by now on whether or not we are having fans.

Plus, his letter discusses the possibilities if we don't have fans. What's wrong with that? If we do have fans then maybe some of the things he discussed wont happen. But why not at least put out the probable ramifications now so that people can understand those ramifications when generating their opinions on this topic? Because it's obvious the public perception has a big bearing on what happens--let them know the likely outcomes so they can have an informed opinion.

This fixation on "but what if we do have fans" is silly. Great. Then maybe some of those things don't get cut. What's your point?

This is turning into Groundhog Day. Every morning you post something like this as if we haven't talked about this extensively already numerous times.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Pollard did not lay out his plan for the hypothetical of what might happen without fans all season. He said it as if it were a done deal, which his own communications before that email, and his own statements after that email, have contradicted.

Why does it matter? I don't know...maybe because I prefer not to be lied to? Because I prefer people not pick public fights and whip up public sentiment against people on false pretenses?

 

[CycloneErik]

Anyone see this opinion column. On the Morning Rush Travis went on a huge rant about it.

Football is ruining the world, and Friday's news is the latest example of how

That the Iowa State athletic department would choose to save itself while closing Stephens Auditorium is shameful.

www.desmoinesregister.com

There are some good reasons to believe that. It's coopting the university and athletics much more than it should for non-profit enterprises.

 

[Clonefan32]

This is turning into Groundhog Day. Every morning you post something like this as if we haven't talked about this extensively already numerous times.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Pollard did not lay out his plan for the hypothetical of what might happen without fans all season. He said it as if it were a done deal, which his own communications before that email, and his own statements after that email, have contradicted.

Why does it matter? I don't know...maybe because I prefer not to be lied to? Because I prefer people not pick public fights and whip up public sentiment against people on false pretenses?

I guess I'll just leave it at trusting Jamie Pollard more than Trice on understanding the financial situation and the likelihood of fans.

 

[Trice]

I guess I'll just leave it at trusting Jamie Pollard more than Trice on understanding the financial situation and the likelihood of fans.

And the entire point will continue to pass miles above your head. Thanks for the chat, and I look forward to doing this again tomorrow morning.

 

[VeloClone]

This is a difference without a distinction.

Just because you cannot see nuance doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[Clonefan32]

Just because you cannot see nuance doesn't mean it isn't there.

It's funny that the other poster is so concerned about Jamie Pollard lying to him, yet you want him to commit to C.Y. only being closed through the pandemic. Of course he's going to say indefinitely because he has no real clue how long the financial impact of this is going to last. He said it's closed indefinitely because it is going to be closed indefinitely, because we have no real idea when we can get out of this financial hole.