Danny Nope; no more comments.

Submitted by Section 1 on November 10th, 2009 at 6:07 PM

I reviewed the Purdue blogs and their links to the Purdue student newspaper, etc., to see if there had been something that I might have missed, something that had indicated that indeed Rich Rodriguez had been directly involved, in any discernable way, in the suspension of Zach Reckman for his incident in the Purdue-NIU game.

I couldn't imagine that there was anything; Reckman's incident happened just a week after the Mouton suspension.  The Big Ten was still on red alert, and reeling from the blowback the conference had earned for its silly handling of Mouton.  Reckman's story was all over the worldwide interwebs that week before he was suspended.  For anyone to think that the Big Ten had been "alerted" to the Reckman case by Rodriguez is beyond stupid.

So the next question is whether there was any formal mechanism by which Rich Rodriguez asked for, or influenced, any official disciplinary proceeding with the Conference.  I know of no such action.  So, the obvious question to Rich Rodriguez is, "Did you contact the Conference to in any way seek an investigation, or a suspension, of Reckman?  Rodriguez has answered that question.  "No," is that answer.

So the next question obviously goes to Danny Hope; "Are you aware of any direct contact between Rich Rodriguez and the Conference with respect to the Reckman suspension?"  As of today, Hope's answer is, "No comment."  I hope that Hope is pressed again and again on this issue by a press that should be asking that question, since it bears on the basic credibility of both Hope and Rodriguez.  I would not want to have to defend Danny Hope on that one.

This was an issue that Danny Hope created, and in the process, he is accusing Rich Rodriguez of somehow meddling with the discipline of Purdue players, or else of being a liar.  My bet is on Danny Hope as being the purveyor of a lie, to get his team fired up to play Michigan.  ("Rodriguez got Reckman suspended!")  When in fact Rich Rodriguez did nothing more than to righteously state that Michigan would expect the Big Ten to show consistency with the crapola ad hoc suspension of Mouton, and otherwise had nothing whatsoever to do with Reckman's suspension.

So, back to the blogs.  In the first place, MGoBlog's readers were not surprisingly pretty focused on the Reckman incident as soon as it happened.  A read of the long message thread shows that nobody particularly wanted Reckman suspended at all; we (I participated in the thread) were only stinging from the Mouton suspension.  We knew that the Big Ten would have to do more suspensions if they had any semblance of consistency, and that every such suspension would be the cause for more controversy.  What happened to Reckman was beside the point.  What Reckman did, and what happened to Reckman, was barely mentioned:

Now for the Purdue blogs.  And in particular "Boiled Sports."  Both "Boiled Sports" and "Hammer and Rails" are not much thrilled with Danny Hope's postgame stunt in Ann Arbor.  They understand that the actual evidence of Rodriguez ever having done anything with respect to Reckman's case is nonexistent.  And they should know; they were the ones who first associated Rodriguez's public comments about Mouton with Reckman's case:


That blog entry has no real links; nothing to back up the charge that Rich Rodriguez "got his way" in a suspension of Reckman, other than the online independent student newspaper The Exponent:


In which the bottom line seems to be that Rich Ridriguez was guilty of "bringing up the issue" with the media.  Whatever.

I have searched for any clue as to whether, in any of his pressers for the week of 9/21, Rich Rodriguez said anything about Reckman.  I see no record of it.  The Exponent's correspondent appears to be no more specific than suggesting that it might have been RR's general comment right after the Mouton suspension, to the effect that from that point on, Michigan's staff would be looking at other cases to see if the Conference was consistent.

In the course of my perusing old blog entries, I came across one of my own MGoBlog comments, from September 26, to the effect that whatever, there would be more suspensions, and some were bound to be marginal calls, and the crummy, thoughtless policy initiated by Delany would come back to haunt the league before year's end.

So chalk this one up as about #127 in the list of crummy, badly-reported, badly-written, poorly-sourced media dustups in which Rich Rodriguez has been unfairly dogged by unflattering stories in the past two years. 



November 10th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^

Rodriguez did send in tape of the play in question to the conference. He said as much in his press conference after Mouton was suspended earlier in the season.

Blue in Seattle

November 11th, 2009 at 6:35 PM ^

I remember that press conference, RR first stated he hoped the Big Ten would be consistent in their judgement. Then he said in a joking tone (my opinion and memory paraphrasing), "maybe I should send in my own tape, did you see that last play on the Purdue game?" and then he mimicked the elbow slam that the Purdue player did to the player on the other team who had recovered the fumble after time expired ending the game.

So it was a PR mistake for Rich Rod to joke about that play, but what I understood as a reasonable person was that he was expressing by example, "hey players do things in frustration, they are playing football, but if we don't trust our officials to control that during play and instead turn to video after the fact and out of context, then the officials won't be controlling anything during play."

A foolish thing to state in today's hacked together spin it how you want it to sound media.

Section 1

November 10th, 2009 at 7:39 PM ^

Let's be clear here. Are you suggesting that Rich Rodriguez sent a tape of the Reckman late-hit into the Big Ten, with the explicit or implicit intent of, "Hey, investigate this; this looks as bad as what the Conference suspended Mouton for..." ?

Because I don't think that ever happened. Didn't. Happen. (At least not as far as I know; if you can set me straight on this, I'm ready to listen.)

No; the Big Ten didn't need any "tape" (tape?) from Michigan or Rich Rodriguez. The Purdue-NIU game was on the FreakingBigTenNetwork. I don't believe that the Reckman hit was "unknown" or "hidden" from observation or scrutiny until Rich Rodriguez complained. Everybody knew about it; the Blount/Oregon/BSU fiasco was still ricocheting around the blogosphere; Adam Rittenberg was writing about it; everybody was writing about it.

I have yet to hear anybody on Purdue's side of things make a clear case that but for Rich Rodriguez, Reckman wouldn't have been suspended.

And I'll tell you what -- IF Danny Hope had wanted to introduce Reckman to anybody, he might have done best with introducing Reckman to Charlie Weis, who really was the "but for" cause in the Big Ten Suspension Kerfuffles of 2009. That game, the Purdue - Notre Dame game in September, was the game in which Reckman had to serve his suspension.


November 10th, 2009 at 10:15 PM ^

First, if you read this board much you know I'm definitely pro-Rodriguez, and I don't just spout out bullshit to prove someone wrong.

RR did say, in one of his press conferences after Mouton was suspended, (not sure exact timing, and I don't have time to look it up) that there were a couple of plays that he was going to send into the conference for review. It was in direct reference to the Mouton situation, and the fact that he believed there were far worse incidents which had gone unpunished. The Reckman hit was one of them (unless I'm seriously losing it(always possible)), and there was a minor hoopla about it at the time.

I don't believe it was done in a spiteful way at all, just that if they are going to establish that benchmark, they damn well better be fair in applying it. I don't see it as a big deal, really. But it did happen.

Really, no one else remembers this?

Sextus Empiricus

October 28th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

As I recall RR was asked specifically in a presser if he would send the tape in wrt to Reckman and he said he didn't have the time. He laughed and conjectured that there were fans who would do this. He only asked that the B10 be fair in handing out these penalties. I can't imagine he would task a football admin to do this either. He does have a football team to run.

Regardless (or irregardless as RR would say) he is saying now that he didn't. Finally, he was visibly upset with the incident with Danny Hope.

I don't think he fathomed any point of reference that could justify it. I think that adds credibility (not that he needs it - RR has been nothing but credible in his actions and statements that I know of at least.)

This whole issue spawned from the LeGarrette Blount incident.


November 10th, 2009 at 6:38 PM ^

I watched the Reckman incident again, and I was suprised that this is such a big deal to Hope, mainly because it was such a stupid play. The NIU player slides down to end the game, and Reckman Stops in his tracks to change direction AFTER THE NIU PLAYER IS DOWN, and drops the forearm on him after the play is obviously over. That's what pisses me off about the way Hope has acted about the whole thing. He must've seen that play god knows how many times to make an argument to the conference, and it's just obvious what a boneheaded, busch league shot Reckman took at an already downed player. Yet, Hope apparently thinks this kid somehow got the short end of the stick, and RR made one comment, so its obviously his fault the kid got suspended.

Big Ten: Coach, what excuse does your player have for such an action?
Big Ten: Thanks Coach, for such an intelligent response, that'll be one game for Mr. Reckman.

For Hope to disregard the play totally, and pull him into a confrontation with RR like Reckman is some kind of victim just shows what a freakin' Jackass Hope is.


November 10th, 2009 at 7:58 PM ^

Danny Hope is indeed guilty as charged. His sentence is to be the coach of a perennial middle-to-bottom feeder for the next ten years. And, "Hope-fully," to play RR each of the next ten years. I won't make stereotypes like this one often, but my experience is that everyone I've ever known from Dixie has a very, very long memory for stuff like this. I would imagine that after about the ninth or tenth trashing of Purdue, RR will probably not care as much, but I could be wrong.


November 11th, 2009 at 12:04 AM ^

Not to nit-pick, but West Virginia isn't really Dixie. It was a Union territory/state during the Civil War. Confederates held part of the state but it was never in the Confederacy.

Geographicall, four of its five bordering states (KY...reluctantly, OH, PA and MD) were Union states (and two of them are Big Ten States).

We will now return to the Michigan football discussion....


November 10th, 2009 at 10:07 PM ^

Next year's offense will be stronger, Tate will be a year older, Denard will actually read a few coverages, offensive line a bit better, more mature, defense...hell, maybe almost passable. Rest assured that WV hillbilly RR has a memory...I am sure Danny Hope will consider this when RR is calling time outs up 40 at Purdue next year....

Just sayin...

Feat of Clay

November 10th, 2009 at 10:51 PM ^

I don't think it much matters whether Rich Rod personally drove the tape to some Big Ten official's house so they could watch it together over a coupla beers. Reckman got suspended because of what Reckman did. His problem is not RR, his problem is that he did something stupid, and the cameras were rolling. He may as well blame the person who invented television.

This is the kind of weaselly "it's not my fault so-and-so told on me" crap that I don't let my 10-year-old son get away with. Of course, since he's ten I'll cut him a little slack. I don't know what Danny Hope's excuse is for letting Reckman indulge in that kind of faulty thinking. Is that the Purdue version of "coaching?"

Section 1

November 12th, 2009 at 3:03 PM ^

1. We still do not know whether RR sent anything to the Big Ten. RR says he did not contact the Big Ten about Reckman. Danny Hope won't say what he knows or doesn't know.

2. Does anybody seriously contend that the Big Ten would not have known about the Reckman incident, broadcast live on the Big Ten Network, "but for" some action by Rich Rodriguez? Please.

3. Does anybody seriously contend that it was a RR complaint that was the determining factor in whether Reckman was suspended? Was the Reckman suspension determined by anything that RR did or said?

The popular implication from Danny Hope's postgame stunt in Ann Arbor was that he introduced Reckman to Rich Rodriguez as the guy Reckman could thank for being suspended. And to the extent that that is the implication, it is a lie.

Section 1

November 12th, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^

Let's take the worst possible story that the Boilermakers could imagine -- that Rich Rodrigez sent a CD of the Reckman video, via FedEx, to Jim Delany's home address. With a note that said, "Dear Jim; Here, take a look at this! Video of Norhtern Illinois versus Purdue. You suspended Mouton, now what about this? I demand, via this note written in my own blood, that Reckman be suspended for precisely one game. XOXO, Rich."

That, of course, didn't happen.

But IF that happened, would Rich Rodriguez be guilty of something that was unethical or violative of any rules? Or, conversely, would he be following through on a promise to make sure that the Big Ten made similar, consistent rulings to what was done to Mouton?

No matter what you think about Reckman, or Danny Hope, or Purdue, or Michigan, the basic problem in this whole mess was exactly as we (I, among many thousands of others) were protesting from the get-go. That the Big Ten Conference's punishing of Mouton as done by Delany and the Conference, would cause a lot of problems later on, if it really was a policy that they proposed to follow in the future.

What I didn't want to have happen was that the Mouton suspension would be forgotten, and nobody else would be considered, allowing the Big Ten to say, yep, that was our policy, sho' nuff. Or that in the future, Charlie Weis and Notre Dame would be calling the shots on Big Ten suspensions.

Sorry, but Reckman was just the next guy who bumped into a very dumb Big Ten policy. We didn't have anything to do with what Reckman did. I don't really care what Reckman did. I didn't care if Reckman got suspended. Actually, I did, but not in order to put the Purdue team in a bind. I wanted Reckman, and others, to get suspended because somebody, anybody, was bound to get suspended if there had been any "principle" at all in the Mouton suspension. I'm just glad that this situation continued the Conference on the inevitable path to reconsideration of its ill-considered suspension of Mouton.


November 11th, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^

Are you referring to the EMU post game presser in which RR said that they would review film from around the league and send it in with the hopes of equal discipline?

If so, I don't believe that this is any admission of sending in the Reckman tape to the big ten.


November 11th, 2009 at 4:27 PM ^

I'm not saying he admitted doing it after the fact, or even that he did in fact send it. He said that there were a couple of plays that he was going to send into the conference for review, the Reckman play being one of them. Use the link.


November 14th, 2009 at 8:50 AM ^

I'll be in the shithole that is west laugh-a-yette next year and I'll have a ticket right behind that shithead's bench and I bet I'll be escorted out before halftime. I'll have one year to research everything I need about that MF's dirty history. He's going to look back at me and wish he exhibited more class in AA this year. What a complete moron. I might even get one of those planes with the message in tow--Hope=Moron & Liar

Section 1

October 12th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^

I was right.

Rich Rodriguez didn't send any Reckman tapes to the Big Ten Conference offices.

Per John U. Bacon's Three and Out, it was a Purdue official who sent in the tape.