Brandon coments

Submitted by mgoblahhh on December 5th, 2010 at 7:26 AM

Dave Brandon finally comented on the bust saying "It was an emotional night and it always is," Brandon said Saturday while taking in the Michigan-Harvard men's basketball game at Crisler Arena. "The emotions were high and the passion was high and that's Coach's way of communicating his passion and respect for the kids and the program."

From The Detroit News:’s-banquet-speech--‘He’s-a-very-passionate-guy’#ixzz17Ety22q5



December 5th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^

I've seen a lot of comments like yours that say they want RR (or DB) to hire a DC and then have RR be HANDS OFF.  Isn't the HC suppose to be the HC of the offense and defense? Perhaps what people are asking for is an offensive HC and a defensive HC.


December 5th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^

I don't think so.  The HC should moderate the quality of the Defense and Offense, not necessarily be in charge.  The Head Coach can't possibly know *everything* about managing a football team.  The HC should know what is needed, if that makes sense.

Ah here is an analogy based on *sigh* my work experience.  Being a webdeveloper, you might not be are great at developing security, but the developer MUST know that websecurity is essential to the site.  So, the developer must either learn, or bring in an expert in websecurity to make sure that element of the site is functional and high quality.

This is why RR is not overseeing the specifics of Strength and Conditioning, but he knows that it is highly important.  Thus, he brings in BARWIS.  Same for defense.


December 5th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

The requirement for a HC is to assemble a competent coaching staff.  I don't think DB is going to be picking RR coaches. It's up to the HC to get the job done and pick the coaches he think will do the best job.  If he fails here than he fails as a head coach.  But I think that evaluation period should last through his contract.  DB will be picking a new HC before choosing coaches for RR.


December 5th, 2010 at 8:11 AM ^

This may be reading way too much into this whole thing, but is it possible that the reason Brandon is waiting and allowing Harbaugh to coach his team in a BCS Bowl (assuming that is reality) is because he wants Harbaugh to get the experience of preparing a football team for such a big game and coaching in such a big game before coming to Michigan?  If you think about it, he's only coached in one bowl game in his career.  People keep complaining about wanting them to just do what they're gonna do and stop waiting, but there could be other reasons than it appears.


December 5th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^

Plus, DB doesn't want to blow three weeks of practice and a bowl game. Were he to can RR now, the bowl preparations would be a mess. RR might bolt. Even if doesn't, the place could be a depressing circus. Would bode well for the bowl game. I think DB wants to let the team finish its season before changing coaches. Makes sense.


December 5th, 2010 at 8:17 AM ^

I have to think RR isn't coming back. I mean if he was you would think DB would just say "Yep he is our guy".

What DB is doing is kinda jerky. I mean if we start losing recruits because of this and DB brings RR back.....he basically just screwed him.


December 5th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^

Brandon does not want to allow the media to dictate his timeline, as this sets a bad precedent.

Another: He's trying to wait and see if fan (over)reaction dies down somewhat in the meantime as the initial (fire Dickrod hurr) emotions wear off.

One more: Gerg is gone, RR stays. If he comes out now and endorses Rodriguez, the next question the MSM will ask is "what about GERG?" How would he answer that if we're going to wait til after the bowl games to bring in a new DC?

Again, not saying this is the case, but these are potential reasons to stick to the timetable he laid out at the beginning of the year.


December 5th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^

How about if we win the bowl game, we are at 8 wins with 19 starters coming back next year? How about he wants to make sure the team, playing in their first bowl game with RichRod, actually concentrate on the game and practice with the guy who got them there? When guys on the team are tweeting how much they like the coach and how spending time with him and the team would change people's perspectives, how do you think they will take said coach being canned 3 weeks before the game? I guess the fans and media are more important.


December 5th, 2010 at 8:31 AM ^

namely the 1.5 mil that Michigan saves if RR is still the coach on Jan. 1st,  2011. I think that coupled with the fact that Jim won't leave until after the bowl is what this waiting period is all about. I personally thought that all the chatter of JH coming home was bs, but I heard it from a guy who talks to the UM high ups a few days ago. This particular person is not always right, but he usually hears rumors of things before they happen.

I would really like to see Rich get a new D staff (Including a special teams guru) and get one more shot with Denard. If RR goes, Denard will probably go with him.


December 5th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^

Actually in RR's contract it does state that the buyout does drop 1.5 million on January 1, 2011. However according to his contract, for UM to take advantage of that buyout reduction, they would have had given Rich Rodriguez 30 days notice that they were firing him om January 1, 2011. So unless David Brandon has already told Rich that the bowl game will be his last game by now, there is no way they are saving that money.


December 5th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

The 30 days notice doesn't mean much - more of just a technicality since this will all become public very quickly.  DB could announce that JH is hired and RR being let go on Jan 2 and the 30 days would just mean that RR technically is on staff for another 30 days.  They can also agree to some type of settlement in the buyout, whereby the 30 day period is waived but RR just gets his buyout money earlier.  IF this happens, I am sure the UM legal team and DB will be all over the nuance.


December 5th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^

Rich would have had to been notified by December 2nd  that he was being fired on January 1rst for the University of Michigan to take advantage of the reduction of the buy out. I am not sure how it is a technicality when it is in a legal document. Of course Rich could choose to negotiate a buy out of a lesser value, but I am not sure why he would. He could have very well been told that he was being fired, considering how emotional he was at the football bust. All I was saying that according to his contract, he needed to be notified by December 2nd that he was being let go on January 1rst for the University of Michigan to get relief on the buy out.


December 5th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^

I disagree -- it is a technicality b/c of the way it would actually play out from a practical perspective (regardless of what you think the contract would require).  Just b/c they would have to give him 30 days notice doesn't mean they can't announce the firing on the day they notify him and let him dangle in the wind for 30 days.  Do you honestly think RR (or DB) would mandate that he stays on staff that extra 30 days and refuse to take his buyout earlier?  No one wants that -- and they can always agree to amend / waive / change the contract when negotiating the settlement / buyout.  


December 5th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^

You are not understanding what I am getting at. I know this will probably come off as snarky, but I am not sure you are comprehending what notice actually means. A notice is giving someone a heads up that I am doing something on this particular date. Suppose you decide to move on to a different employer--you give your boss 2 weeks notice that you are leaving on this day right? Well this is the same concept, except the employer is giving the employee advanced notice (30 days) that I am going to terminate you on this day (Jan 1rst, 2011). Announcing that you are firing somebody and making him hang out for 30 days is not a 30 day notice.

ATX Wolverine

December 5th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^

Just because the buyout drops on Jan. 1, 2011 doesn't mean that the reduced buyout is only in effect for that day.  The buyout for the balance of 2011 remains at $2.5M (instead of the $4M that it was in 2010).  Therefore, the 30 day notice to RR can be given at any time as long as the termination occurs on or after Jan. 1.

Also, generally speaking the way severance/minimum notification terms work, as long as you get paid for the length of time in the contract, it really doesn't matter what you're asked to do during that period of time.  Often most employers prefer to just let the person stay at home and get paid since that employee may become a distraction to other employees in the company.


December 5th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^

This is probably not worth the time to repeat, but my point is just that regardless of what the contract says (30 day notice), this will all get worked out extra-contractually.  If everyone agrees to not follow the contract then they can do that and sign a settlement agreement at the end to document it (which can override the current contract). 

DB could say he's "fired" today and don't bother coming in for the next 30 days, but we'll still pay you for those 30 days as if you are still on-staff.  All the 30 days really means is he gets 30 days more of pay.  It doesn't mean DB can't bring in someone else immediately if he wanted to.  I bet Randy Shannon also had a 30 day notice requirement in his contract but I'm sure he left the day he was fired and they didn't let him know 30 days in advance.


December 5th, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^

Which is why, IMO, RR has begun trying to force DB's hand. I have to believe DB let it be known that the less said about the job situation, the better. Then RR makes his weepy plea about wanting to be a MM. I'm sure RR feels mortified and pissed. He's a competitive guy used to getting his way. It's a given, at this point, that RR a) cares a great deal about how the world perceives him and b) tends to feel victimized by circumstances beyond his control. He's not gonna sit back and twist in the wind for another month. Quitting would cost him money and make him look like, you know, a quitter. I think his strategy is: "It's on you, DB. End this injustice. Back me or give me my freedom." 



December 5th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^

Not necessarily -- I don't know the specifics of the contract but my guess is that it says RR can be fired for cause w/out having to be paid the buyout (and it may or may not define cause).  So the question then is whether the violations constitute "for cause" under the contract.  As others here mentioned, DB has downplayed the violations so M will have a tough time arguing this is something that warrants "cause."

In any event, even if DB claimed a firing was for cause, it's not like RR would automatically have to write a check.  I am sure RR would argue that the violations did not constitute "for cause" and then we would have a dispute and potential litigation to resolve whether what RR did was worthy of a "for cause" firing.  It is an issue of fact and could get very messy -- something I am certain neither RR nor DB (nor MSC) would want to deal with -- so the most likely scenario (if DB indeed wants to go down this route) is that they come to some settlement agreement where RR gets paid a substantial chunk of his buyout to go away quietly.


December 5th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^

participating in an NCAA investigation where they provided a massive amount of evidence to exonerate him of those charges and the NCAA agreed.

It would be a pretty untenable legal argument to now turn around and posit that he is actually guilty of said violations and is being removed from his position as a result.

I wouldn't want to have to argue that one.


December 5th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

Yes and no. DB said the sanctions weren't hanging offenses. But there's no reason why the sanctions couldn't and shouldn't factor into his overall assessment of RR. If he's torn about RR, the sanctions might tip the balance. DB is extremely conscious of image and branding and so forth. 

DB kind of had to back RR re the sanctions; to fire him would have flown in the face of M's defense. But now, if things get ugly with RR, DB need only point to the "cause" section of the coach's  contract. Plus, he knows RR can't get into another public cat-fight with another school. Contractually, DB holds all the cards.


December 6th, 2010 at 3:22 AM ^

I was referring specifically to whether or not DB can use the so-called infractions as justification for removing him as coach 'for cause', meaning that he is being fired specifically due to his conduct and the sanctions, thus absolving the university from having to pay him any type of severance according to his contract.

If RR's conduct gets him fired, he doesn't get paid off, if they fire him due to the W/L's he does get paid off.


December 5th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^

Why would everyone assume that Denard leaves if RichRod goes?

If Denard is going to achieve the level of success we hope he realizes as a QB, his passing will have to improve - he needs to learn to read D's better, develop touch on long passes and stop making bad decisions. This is part of the normal maturation process of a young QB.  If he is able to accomplish these things, he will be an excellent QB. If not, regardless if RR is here or not, you will experience similar offensive problems in the future and never achieve what we all want.

At the same time, his rushing load must, by necessity, be lightened or one of these games, he will get hurt and not come back the next week - no guarantees, but he was injured in almost every game he played.  I know all the stats, have read all the diaries, but Denard does not have the physical stature of someone like Cam Newton or Pryor. That is why the hot running back (Dee Hart or someone else) is essential to reduce Denard's load.  I will be most surprised and disappointed to some extent if he has the same rushing numbers next year - that would suggest we have yet to find that premier RB.

Maybe I am wrong, but I simply don't see why there is this supposition that if RichRod goes, Denard, by necessity, will follow.


December 5th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^

Couldn't agree more. I'm sure DB is aware that Denard is a goldmine unlike any other. I'm guessing he'd be unlikely to hire a coach who didn't share this view.

Denard in an Oregon uniform, running wild against Michigan in the Rose Bowl, is a scenario DB would no doubt like to avoid.


December 5th, 2010 at 8:50 AM ^

Good angle on the coaching a bowl game theory for JH - that actually makes very good sense to me.  With no real support for Rich Rod from Brandon it does feel like the decision has already been made.  Who's to say that a double secret deal wasn't made with Harbaugh before the season even started - way back in the fall or even during the summer?  Firing Rich Rod prior to the NCAA decision really couldn't happen and now Brandon has all he needs to fire RR for cause.  If that was the case, it certainly makes what Brandon is doing understandable - it makes it appear as if Rich Rod has been given all the chances in the world to succeed.  Brandon's legacy will be written by this hire - putting a Michigan Man back in charge after 3 years of misery then to have that coach win 10 games the following season would start a great story!


December 5th, 2010 at 8:58 AM ^

I'm not sure I buy the arguement that if Rich Rod goes so does Denard.  Sure if UM fires Rich Rod and then he is hired at Miamithe next day  (which is where I think RR's style would be absolutely perfect BTW) then in that scenario it would be possible, but I think Denard has bought into Michigan.  Again - lets take a look at the whole picture here and now through in Tate's situation of not transferring when it made all the sense in the world that he does - now factor in that his dad is connected in California and he (Tate's Father) stepped in and basically settled Tate down - with me buying into the consiracy theory that Harbaugh has already been hired that then makes a lot of sense as to the complete Tate attitude turn around almost overnight.  Tate's dad either knew or suspected Jimmy was coming home in 2011 giving his son another shot at being UM's QB.  I like it.

Desmonlon Edwoodson

December 5th, 2010 at 9:01 AM ^

When you compare the coverage we got when our bust culminated in a sappy song with the coverage of another local team's last bust culminating in 20 team members pulling on ski masks, crashing a frat mixer, and assaulting every man woman and child who happened to be in the room...