I admit it I'm confused

I hear ya, definitely seems like a stretch. At the same time though, how else do you explain it? Someone in the office either wasn't doing there job OR Rich Rod (and/or coaching staff) ignored the offices requests for the logs. There's probably something I'm missing here but until it's explained to us by the University or NCAA this is what I'm sticking with. Is it September yet?

I think the presumption that this is merely a clerical/administrative mistake or oversight is a gross over-simplification. While it may be some lower-level employee's job to make sure X task is completed and its associated paperwork is submitted, ultimately that employee's manager/the department head is responsible for following through that it happened. I work at a university and am very familiar with this notion of a "chain of command" structure of responsibility. I suspect people higher up than some lady with a "cushy" job are responsible.

This is a very good point, but I think it can be explained with a closer look at the politics of an athletic dept: (a) If YOU didn't do YOUR job correctly, blowing the whistle on somebody ELSE is a good way to earn political brownie points and save your butt. Get the first story out, say your were coerced and all that. The press loves whistleblowers, especially when their jobs are at risk. Rick Neuheisel tried to do this by calling out the UW compliance director when he revealed a memo saying it was OK to bet on basketball pools. Rick got fired anyway, but so did the compliance director, and he won a lawsuit saying UW told him it was OK to break the rules. (b) Getting the coach canned, by overt action or passive-aggressive non-cooperation and foot-dragging, automatically neuters the coach's supporters and gives your side more political power. (c) The job security is better than you might think even if you do hate the football coach. There are lots of political factions within a D-I athletic department that protect themselves, so you might be small enough fry that you can avoid repercussions. In Michigan's case, anybody who gets flak for being anti-RR can simply call up the Free Press and the next day there will be a Drew Sharp column quoting an unnamed source that Nixonian techniques and pressure are being used against compliance employees in Schembechler Hall.

I agree with you, whenever anything at all negative happens it always comes back to some "faction" that is actively attacking the football program from inside the school. The problems never come from any mistakes made by the coaching staff, but some dark shadow laying in wait for the opportunity to hurt the football team. Its been pretty hard for me to believe it, but I will be interested in what answers you get to your original questions.

A bit extreme of a take, no? My assumption is that members of the 'factions' are pretty well known to those on the inside, yet are insulated in some organizational/institutional way from being fired. Perhaps they are political appointees or have been voted in (e.g. regents). My guess is that RR knows who his detractors are. All the cold-war era tactics you describe would not be necessary. Stop watching so much 24!

I couldn't find the video though.

there are people who are standing up to others and sticking up for Rodriguez a lot. Bacon, Leach all have been very good to Rodriguez.

Whhat the hell does a low level administrator have to do with losing to Purdue in consecutive seasons? What about all of the second half blowouts (PSU '08, PSU '09, Illinois '09)? What about the back-to-back two worst defensive teams in the history of Michigan football? Blaming things on the media and staffers just sounds so petty and small. RR's job is to win games. He makes a lot of money to do that. Not winning games will get him fired. Not a staffer. Not the Free Press. His fate is still in his own hands.