where 3 out of 4 posts will actually be about WVU
Mike Lantry, 1972
Rich Rodriguez had plenty of time to work on his "I am not Satan" talking points over the summer, since there was a 75% chance that any question he fielded was about 1) West Virginia, 2) Justin Boren, or 3) the squawking lawsuit kerfuffle. By the time Big Ten Media Days rolled around he had them down to a science: I just changed jobs. Everyone focuses on the one guy who left instead of the 99 who stayed. I can't talk about that because it's a lawsuit.
Meanwhile, various parties in the media incensed that Rodriguez either wasn't West Virginia's coach (WVU honks), was Michigan's coach (ND, MSU, OSU honks), or wasn't Bo Schembechler (Mike Rosenberg and others in the Detroit media) spent the summer decrying Rodriguez's selfish decision to forge ahead with the lawsuit at Michigan's expense.
A typical passage, this from Rosenberg:
This whole thing could have, and should have, been settled long ago. But RichRod was determined to fight West Virginia all the way to the bitter end. Anybody who has even driven past a law school knew he had no case, but that didn't matter to Rodriguez.
Martin should have told Rodriguez that this whole ordeal was embarrassing the university, and that the case was a lost cause. But Martin's legacy is in Rodriguez's hands, so he let his coach do whatever he wanted.
Even at the time this passage was transparent bunk, since the articles about Michigan's decision to settle plainly stated that Michigan had agreed to handle most of the buyout. Now thanks to an article in the Ann Arbor Observer and MVictors, we know the extent of that agreement:
“We’ve seen an email that went from [Rodriguez’s] financial advisor, Mike Wilcox, to athletic director Martin on December fifteenth, 2007, confirming a conversation they’d had earlier that day,” he says. “I believe it was cc’ed to Mary Sue Coleman. It said that the liquidated damages clause with West Virginia was a huge issue, and that the U of M had agreed that they were going to be responsible for I think it was seventy-five percent of the buyout, up to 2.5 million dollars.” The email was sent one day after the Toledo meeting that led to Rodriguez’s hiring.
The rest of the excerpted passage discusses Michigan's extreme reluctance to allow that agreement to find its way into the light, as knowledge of its existence would trash their case. They lost that battle and immediately settled.
Somehow this adds up to "Rodriguez forced this lawsuit on the athletic department" and is worthy of condemnation because of the negative publicity associated with it.
Anyone who espouses this line of reasoning is either ignorant of the particulars or is so far around the bend on Rich Rodriguez that they should be ignored.
Meanwhile in Morgantown, Rich Rodriguez's problems with the West Virginia athletic department and administration become more understandable by the day:
These people are &#$@ing amateurs.
where 3 out of 4 posts will actually be about WVU
Or to the MSM and every other blog where 100% of the stories that mention Michigan's football coach are about WVU
If you bother reading, the post is much more about spurious allegations about Rodriguez - largely in the Detroit media.
d00d taht post was liek totally tl;dr
I had to google tl;dr but now I know!!!!
Brian, since you’re still confused imma give you some advice. Put down the Play Station controller (be sure to save first so that you can do a write up on what McGuffie will do in 2010!), get out of those PJ’s and put on some pants, go upstairs and ask your mom for the car keys, and then drive by the law quad.
I think you’ll find it very enlightening.
Hilarious "mother's basement" joke! Never seen that regarding bloggers before. I mean, never!
Also, it's "Easterbrook," but you've done such a good job of laying it to ol' Brian, I'm sure no one will notice...
.......i think thats sarcasm......pass it on!
I refuse to call TMQ 'Easter'brook because that seems sacriligeous. Seriously, there's plenty of people named Westbrook what's so special about TMQ that he can't be Eastbrook?
hope you enjoyed your trip to jordan-hare, awesome place to see a game isn't it? my wife is an auburn alum....
......once again getting in the way of a good argument.....those people covering their eyes and ears are the folks in the MSM who do not like the fact their "conventional wisdom" has been taken down by nice, cold, hard facts.
Of course, I give it another week until Easterbrook drops a line about RR interviewing with UM and not prepping for the Pitt game instead. Nevermind that whole timeline is a couple of week off, but again, facts just get in the way of a good hit piece.
Yet the Irish ran effectively against us. Coupled with our poor run defense against MSU, Wisconsin, and OSU last year, I think this proves conclusively that M can't stop the run worth a damn.
Avg. per carry vs. MSU, excluding sacks/"team" rushes: 3.4
Avg. per carry vs. Mich., excluding sacks/"team" rushes: 3.6
I received word from a teacher at a D-III college I visited during
my road trip last year who recently told me, "I can't cheer for
Michigan with Rich Rodriguez and what he did last year trying to welsh
[sic] out of his contract." She's a nice lady, but it shows how for an
average fan who really cares more about an entirely different division
is just following the press line of bunk. What coach doesn't fight their buyout? And since it all got paid anyway, why are people hung up about this?
it's just that a lot of people despise Michigan and this gives them an
excuse to exercise their anger. Detroit media included.
Ian Brown seconds.
Can we get a post about the Auburn-LSU game experience? I have not had the fortune (be it good or bad) to witness an SEC game in person. I want to get a non-SEC worshipper's take on a big game in the south.
Lawsuits are just business decisions. If your Cost Benefit analysis says it might be worth it to sue, you sue. If its going to cost a couple hundred thousand in legal fees to potentially win/save $2.5Mil, well, then you do it if you think your chances of winning are high enough. If not, you don't. Why anyone would get flak for this type of thinking is beyond me. All contracts do is create the terrain on which the battle is fought, they're not some ethical or moral obligation.
Even if it was RichRod's decision to challenge the validity of the contract, it is silly for people to think negatively about him for it.
All contracts do is create the terrain on which the battle is fought, they're not some ethical or moral obligation
That's awesome. I almost expect to hear that "Law and Order" ca clunk sound.
What WVU needed was Sonny Corleone to remind them that its not personal, its business.