Rich Rod-ESPN RADIO

Submitted by thesauce2424 on

So, I was just listening to ESPN Radio and a scary topic came up.

It has basically been said that the reason the NCAA is investigating at West Virginia is to see if the violations which occurred here also happened there, under RR's watch. This is important because the major argument being made by RR and UM is that these infractions were made either by accident or by ignorance and were not the result of a system put in place by RR, rather they were an issue of the AD-compliance staff.

IF the NCAA finds that the same thing was going on at WV, it can conclude that a)there is a pattern of non-compliance that would tend to be evidence of a system put in place by RR and b)RR put these systems in place with the *intent* of stretching, skirting or bending the rules to, ultimately, give his players an advantage.

It was said that if this pattern can be determined it would weigh heavily on the severity of punishment being levied upon UM based on the fact that it was intentionally done by RR. Now, the scary part is that the commentator and guest speaker both agreed that if there is a pattern of abuse and the NCAA imposes a much harsher punishment than is expected at this point, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility that UM cuts ties with RR BEFORE THE SEASON STARTS. I know, ESPN is the best spot to go to get information and of course I didn't take any of this with a grain of salt, but it still scares the hell out of me. I'm very doubtful that this would happen(at least before the season). What now and will this ever end?

mmiicchhiiggaann

April 14th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

Brandon was already quoted yesterday that Rich Rod is the coach for this fall. I think it would be even bigger program suicide if they cut ties this close to the season.

Geaux_Blue

April 14th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^

if RR claimed it was ignorance of policies, he can only verify and prove that by the NCAA finding he WAS doing it at WVU. if he did it at UM and NOT at WVU, it would show a difference of policy that would reflect poorly on an argument of not knowing better (implementing something that you never did at the prev school).

face
palm

Blazefire

April 14th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

The punishments are always doled out on a university by university basis.

Even IF it was somehow determined that RR was trying to skirt things, which is A: Bullcrap, B: Unprovable, none of this came out until AFTER U of M hired RR. The NCAA is not going to penalize U of M extra for something that they had no way of knowing about.

ESPN is doing what the broadcast and print media do. Stirring the pot to freak you out and make you listen.

Kilgore Trout

April 14th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^

I agree that the NCAA isn't going to punish UM "more" if the same thing is proven to have happened at WVU. I do think that if this is true, then the allegation of Rodriguez not fostering an atmosphere of compliance will probably stick and UM seems likely to get the max punishment for that violation.

On another point, I still contend we need to stop focusing on the "extra 20 minutes of stretching" thing and worry about the QC guys acting as coaches. That seems a lot worse to me and it definitely stinks of a conscious effort to skirt the rules.

jamiemac

April 14th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

Kelvin Sampson would disagree. He had sanctions levied against him restricting recruiting, but I dont thinknOklahoma had anything done to him. The were investigating the Sooners, but then he took the IU job. Just going by memory, but I know Sampson had recruiting sanctions against him personally at IU. Dont know about Oklahoma.

I also dont think IU got any penalties from the the NCAA when the issue cropped up again. But, a bigtime show cause order was slapped on Sampson, making it really difficult to get a college head coaching job.

It is possible that a coach could get penalized, and not an institution. I still dont think that would happen in the this case, but I think it can happen

Geaux_Blue

April 14th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^

all the idiots on that board that think since RR is gone, they won't face penalties. and the fact they curse his name while heralding the winning tradition he developed.

guess what? if your coach did something wrong during the years you were winning, you don't get to pay it forward to where he is now. you rescind the benefits you received from that faulty system.

i don't want to get into WVU jokes but jesus, the logic on that board makes some of our rival boards look like Nietzsche... though, to be fair, their God (RR) is dead (to them).

benjamin

April 14th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^

No. The guy above me did.

Relax.

All I am saying is that RR is taking all this extra shit on because of his struggles on the field.

Do you disagree?

Once the wins roll in, we can all ignore this shit and move on.

Colt McBaby Jesus

April 14th, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^

That guy was using Calipari as an example that violations by a coach don't carry over from school to school (at least that's how I read it). You said the two coaches were the same, except that Calipari wins. Which, I think we can agree, practicing an extra 20 minutes a day is far different than the shady tactics Calipari has used to get players to come to his school. He is a dirt bag.

los barcos

April 14th, 2010 at 3:28 PM ^

similar, one can still distinguish the two cases. kentucky, for instance, does not have an ncaa investigation pending. the fact that michigan has a pending investigation and the ncaa is now investigating that coach at his previous school isnt quiet the same as calipari getting out of dodge in all his previous stops.

MI Expat NY

April 14th, 2010 at 11:26 AM ^

I actually think this is the complete opposite of sound reasoning. If the same system was in place at two schools and neither school thought anything of it, RR probably lacked the "intent" to violate the rules. It doesn't really matter how long the very minor over steps were going on, as long as RR did it thinking he was in compliance it won't be a problem.

The only way the situation at WVU has any affect on UM is if WVU specifically advised RR that what he wanted to do (and did do at UM) were violations of NCAA regulations.

mrider

April 14th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^

Can WVU fuck off? Realistically Rich didn't do anything wrong in AA, and most likely didn't do anything wrong in Morgantown. It just seems like some people in WVU just won't get over it, look we stole your coach, he wanted a prime time job leave it alone. They seem like that crazy crazy bitch one of your friends, or you dated back in the day, who just won't stop spreading rumors and stupid crap.

Tater

April 14th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^

No matter what the NCAA finds, I can't imagine more than a slap on the wrist. Considering what they aren't doing to USC, I don't think the NCAA wants to send a message that a violation like punishing a kid for not going to class is "worthy" of more punishment than buying a player's parents a house.

PhillipFulmersPants

April 14th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^

about what's coming down from the NCAA on USC yet, do they? Should be coming out soon though. It was reported that any punishment would be made public 6-8 weeks after the Infractions Committee meeting with SC, which was around Feb 20.

jg2112

April 14th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^

Anyone else coming to the opposite conclusion:

That this will end up looking worse for Michigan than it does Rodriguez?

I remember seeing somewhere last fall that West Virginia was contacted after the investigation started and they said their compliance information was completely in order and that they had nothing to worry about on that end.

Now, if they're going back to West Virginia to confirm that information, that would seem to be more of an indictment on Michigan Compliance if the West Virginia information from last fall is true, rather than Rodriguez.

Onas

April 14th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^

That's where I've been all along. Do people think that the Rodriguez administration built a new UM compliance dept from scratch? As his employer, the UM AD should put him in position to succeed. He's a coach not a bureaucrat. Who *wasn't* getting these audit forms that were supposed to be completed?

I think that it's just another instance of angry fans using Rodriguez as a scapegoat, though I guess that's life at the top.

lbpeley

April 14th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

that both the commentators said this whole investigation (UM and WVU) is bullshit. They were of the opinion that the NCAA should go after the real crooks and rule breakers. They didn't specify who those people were but they definitively said that UM and RR are not in that crowd.

MFDoom_

April 14th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^

doesn't finding out it happened at WVU also possibly show that EVERY SINGLE NCAA FOOTBALL TEAM IN THE COUNTRY DOES WHAT MICHIGAN WAS DOING?!? I just think that this investigation could have occurred at any other school and the NCAA would find the same results. Everyone stretches the rules to get more practice time.

Section 1

April 14th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

Assuredly, it will. And almost assuredly, this year.

It seems altogether likely that:

1. The NCAA will wrap up with Michigan in August, and while the University and the NCAA will together agree on some minor sanctions that will be far harsher than whatever might have been deserved. Just as we already expect. A huge "to do" about mostly nothing.

2. A good performance on the field this year by Michigan football will have us going in the proper direction and will secure RR's status with the University.

3. Rich Rodriguez will need several years to get over the bad press. The Free Press jihad will not stop, since it seems to sell papers/web hits for them. We are at war with the Free Press, and wars don't end according to advance plans. Success on the field, and the full stop at the conclusion of the current NCAA investigation will gradually make the Free Press more and more of an outlier among the press. But let's just get used to it; the Free Press and its staff hate Rich Rodriguez, and many in the local sports community will follow suit. So be it. They need Michigan far more than Michigan will ever need them. Michigan doesn't need the local press for support, or publicity, or to sell tickets, or to generate interest or other revenue. All the local sports guys can hate on Michigan all they want. We just don't need them.

Durham Blue

April 14th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^

with this seemingly 24/7 BREAKING NEWS ALERT style coverage of this crap is the NCAA is also in the spotlight on this. Will they levy more harsh penalties than normal? They may feel that if the penalties are minor then public perception is they're sweeping it under the rug. I hope the NCAA sticks to facts and principles on this and does not melt under the media spotlight.

bluebyyou

April 14th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^

I was listening to the interview. The guy hosting the show for Kevin Cowherd made the comment that the infractions they are looking at are things that are basically crap and rampant just about anywhere, which those of us who frequent this blog already know.

They did state, however, that should the allegations be shown to be a pattern, there would be no damages owed to RichRod if he were to be fired.

Bottom line - it is about winning this fall. Win at least 7 and life goes on.

Michiganguy19

April 14th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^

All of these inferences are just grasping at straws. It's more likely that someone made a phone call based on protocol, and that WVU has every intent of proving full compliance.

Victors10

April 14th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^

RR has been a screw up with things like this. Awesome guy but I wouldn't be shocked at all to see him go mid season if things are not going well on the field.

Firstbase

April 14th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^

.. is the first thing I thought of yesterday when I saw this. What's the likelihood that certain parties from WVU verify that so-called abuses occurred under RR? Given the animosity, fairly high I would think.

Not good, folks.

What the NCAA never seems to take into account when levying sanctions is that the kids suffer the brunt of the punishment, which is patently unfair.

Sure hope this proves to be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.