Dear Mr. Woodson; Quit talking to Mark Snyder.
Dear Mr. Woodson,
I see your name in a headline, in today's Detroit Free Press. It probably isn't what you had in mind.
Before saying anything else, however, let me thank you for your great years in Ann Arbor and all of the thrills we saw on the football field. Thanks for all of your hard work. Thanks also for all the time you've devoted to Mott Children's Hospital. You've done so much good, through the hospital and through your foundation.
I presume that as you have been getting ready for the annual Mott Golf Outing and assorted fundraisers, the outreach people have been talking to your agent, and arranging for you to talk to reporters, to promote the event. I presume that that is how Mark Snyder of the Free Press got some of your time in a private telephone interview. As much as you'd like to promote Mott events, it was a mistake on your part to talk to Snyder.
Because while Snyder is willing to throw in a few lines about Mott fundraising, you should have known what would happen; Snyder would ask you all about Mott, get your guard down, and then ask you about Rich Rodriguez. And whatever you gave him, Rodriguez (and not Mott) would become the day's headline.
That is part of the reason that Brady Hoke and David Brandon are not doing any private interviews with Snyder. Your interview with Snyder tore up that page of the Michigan playbook. The other very large part of the story, as you really ought to know, is that Snyder was part of the tag-team that did such damage to the football program. Your Michigan football program. Michigan's NCAA investigation was a wholly-produced effort in which Snyder played a big part. After the harm that was caused by Snyder, why you would give someone like that a private interview is almost unbelievable. There are other ways to get out the news of the annual Mott Golf Outing; in fact, the way that the Free Press goes about its business, it is almost guaratneed to distract from those good works.
There has not been much harm done, by one interview; so that much is no big deal. But put yourself in Snyder's position. He will be at the golf course and the clubhouse that day for the meetings and the dinner, and he will be looking for interviews and stories. You and your fellow football alumni should not give him anything. You all should know that the story that he wants is "the bad old days of Rich Rodriguez" story. He wants to use you guys, to essentially support his story from 2009. You don't have to give it to him. You don't have to talk to Snyder. And if you do, you can say, "All that I have to say about those years, is that the Free Press was awful to this football program. You want me to go on?"
If anyone wants to say, "Hey let's forget about the past; let's move on," that's fine. Just be assured, that when you are talking to Mark Snyder, his idea of "moving on" is by delcaring that Rich Rodriguez was a personal disaster, because that is what his paper is invested in. If you think it is time to "move on," then think about making that your answer when Mark Snyder asks you for an interview. Because that is the message that Brady Hoke and David Brandon are interested in. Ask them, if you are unclear about this.
Quit. Talking. To. Mark. Snyder.
One of, and perhaps the primary complaint against the OP has to do with the frequency with which he raises the same issue. Yes, it can be annoying for those who already know the role the Freep and its reporters played in using falsehoods and manufactured "facts" to portray UM football negatively. But there are hundreds, probably thousands, of people who drop in every now and then and don't know all the ins and outs of the Freep's actions. I was one of these people several months ago. It was a Section 1 post that first made me aware of this issue.
Yeah, it gets tiresome and perhaps comical to those who have read dozens of Section 1 posts that are variations on the same point. But not everybody does know what went on, and those involved at the Freep have never done a retraction or even a mea culpa, so I don't have a problem with the dude standing out alone in the rain shaking his fist at the Freep. He only seems crazy because you've heard the story before. To those who haven't, he's worth listening to.
I'm beginning to think Section 1 is actually pro-Free Press, and that this is actually his way of getting us to visit their website. I wouldn't have ever known of any of these articles if he weren't constantly posting about them.
Here toward the end of the comments. Many people, not just in this blogosphere, but in real life, choose to "forget the past, and move on". Silly mistake. Silly mistate with an ex-girlfriend, an enemy country, a previous belief, AN EX-FOOTBALL COACH, etc, etc. These are all silly mistakes because of the "forget" aspect of it all. Move on, but DO NOT forget; it happens much too common in this world anymore. This is big reason why wars still happen (I think we can agree wars are not good, except for arms dealers), why we continue to date stupid b*t*hes with same results 2 months later, or why we argue insanely about religion/politics.
Michael Jordan never forgot about being cut his sophomore year in highschool (even though that story is a bit fabricated). I doubt Donald Trump/Warren Buffet/-InsertOldRichGuy- forget all the people who denied them early on in their careers, only to become the wealthy. Same with the Silicon Valley guys; they probably used the people who told them they were crazy as motivation to become who they are/were. Grudges aren't always a bad thing to hold onto. So never forget about your enemies. Though it may seem extreme, the DFP was an enemy to the Michigan Football program.
I don't know if I agree completely with much of what the OP writes but I sure as hell don't hassle him/her(?) for expressing their thoughts and keeping it fresh for all to remember. You may have moved on, which is what you should have done, but don't forget the sh*t they put this program through. It's also not hard to ignore someone. If you don't like what someone has to say, don't read it and sure as hell don't reply to it. I'd think ignoring someone to make them go away would be something that we'd have learned by now. You might think it, but whatever's being posted that you don't like isn't making these message boards any more cluttery than half the sh*t that's posted here already.
Dear Section 1:
Are you really saying that you know how to handle the press better than Woodson? Do you have any idea how many hours of media training these guys go through?
Are you really saying that Woodson, a true Michigan Man of character and integrity....who was accepted to and attended Michigan...who's dealt with the media for 20 years, was actually "duped" by a member of the press? Do you know how much media savvy Woodson...?
How is it you're able to suggest that Woodson censor his comments ("You and your fellow football alumni should not give him anything') and you can't censor yours? Thank god people actually listen to him.
Is it really true that you think the Freep is responsible for RR failure and responsible for bringing down our program and not the mistakes by the guy who personally headed the program. That's like the girlfiend who got caught cheeting and decided her mistake was getting caught.
Do you have any idea how the process works at the Freep, at the NCAA, and at the AD department to at least try to maintain an institutional level of integrity for vetting stories and infractions as would be required by their many attorneys? Yet RR is completely infallible?
How is it possible that you can personally attack or criticize the media, the previous AD, the University President, Coach Carr, and the entire previous AD deparment but the moment someone on this blog says something critical toward you, you cry bloody murder. That reminds me of.... Well.
Do you know the difference between the "Golden Rule" that Brandon and Hoke follow vs. the "Tell It Like It Is" rule that Woodson follows. Brandon and Hoke are old school and part of an institution. Woodson has what's known as FU money. He also has a heck of a lot of character. Thank god for guys that have both FU money and character.
How dare you drag Wooson's name into your meaningless delusional diatribe. Just having his name associated with this BS makes my stomach turn and the stomach of many good and fine Michigan men and women. Bringing a Michigan Man like Woodson into this conversation brings down Woodson. Bringing down Woodson brings down the football team. I just won't stand by while you bring down the football team, the University and for that matter the United States of America (thanks Otter).
Woodson's main and perhaps only point was that the Coaching is a lot better. Have you ever criticized RR and his coaching? Do you think he was as good a coach as Hoke, Carr, Mo, Bo, or any one else that had a better record than the Worst Three Years of Any Coach Ever In The History of Michigan.
As far as coaching, there are a lot of little things that make a great coach. What do you think Gibbons what thinking about the year before Hoke told him to relax by thinking about "brunette girls"? Do you think it was "If there is any student enrolled at the University of Michigan...that's a good guy...that can kick the ball in the endzone." Or was it RR pacing up and down the sidelines?
End of Part One
Since there has not been a response from the OP I assume his answer is "no."
I've been through media training and you learn quite a bit including how to recognize and avoid leading questions (if you want to avoid them) and traps. Media training is anywhere from a few hours (depending on the institution and the profile of the individual) to many days and often includes at least a couple of video taped sessions. Most if not all institutions will put any one through it that is going to speak to the media. All Michigan athletes get some media training but I don't know what it covers. All Pro teams put their athletes through media training and the athletes agent or agency probably does as well. It's just smart business. Le't assume Charles got all three plus paid for some himself given his high profile. The hundreds of hours of real media experience that Woodson has is of course much better training than a course.
Your post was so rambling and point-missing, I didn't want to take the time to deconstruct it.
Instead, I'll say this; simple and straight-up. I am not interested in Charles Woodson's media skills. I am not interested in criticizing them, or improving them. Charles is a football player; he isn't the Athletic Director or the Head Football Coach.
What I am interested in, is isolating Mark Snyder from our football program. I want all of the former players, who might not be aware of what Snyder and Rosenberg did, to be aware. I want them all to know all about Snyder, before Snyder approaches them at a fundraiser or a golf outing for an interview. I want them all to know that the apparently semi-formal position of Brandon and Hoke is that they aren't talking to Snyder. And consequently, former players ought to be asking themselves why they should talk to Snyder.
And when someone like Woodson talks to Snyder, thinking that he (Woodson) is just doing the routine media legwork to promote the Mott fundraiser, I want Woodson and everyone around him to know how Snyder turned the lede from "Mott" to "Rodriguez." It surely wasn't what Charles intended. And living in Atlanta and Wisconsin, and not paying much attention to Detroit media, Charles just might not know what Snyder has wrought. So I want to make sure that the subject of "Mark Snyder's history with Michigan football since 2009," gets prominent attention.
My post was rambling? So the flattery by imitation joke was over your head i see. How many words, posts, and comments have you used to say: you don't like Snyder and the Freep and RR got the shaft?
Woodson's comments about RR and his embarassment during those years were exactly as he intended... just like every other player that has pretty much said the same thing over the last week.
You just don't want to keep hearing it.
Can't say I'm a fan of Mark Snyder, but this article is hardly special...it's just the same thing all the old stars say when asked about Brady Hoke and our 2011 turnaround. And I don't see anything in Woodson's opinions that are wrong. It must have been excruciating for someone who'd been on the 1996 and 1997 defenses to watch us leak points in 2009 and 2010. Is this news?
As for "talking to FREEP," well actually any PR person worth their salt will tell you that the best strategy with s**t-stirrer journalists is not to cut them off, but to feed them a strictly controlled diet of platitudes and banalities, and keep feeding them so they don't get hungry enough to seek out prey. Isn't that exactly what everyone from Dave Brandon to Brady Hoke to Charles Woodson are doing? Not only is this article inoffensive, it's part of the solution to the FREEP problem. Besides, what does Michigan care if someone writes something not 100% gushing about Rich Rodriguez? He coaches another team now. What matters is how they write about the coaches we do have. And Snyder's piece is pretty positive on them.
You didn't read very well.
I pointed out that it is totally understandable that Charles Woodson would get called on to do some interviews. Quid pro quo. Woodson wants to promote the Mott fundraiser; the reporters want one-on-one interviews that they can call "exclusives."
Mark Snyder basically gets almost no "exclusive" interviews at Michigan anymore. And that brings up the next thing that you got wrong. Brandon and Hoke don't feed Snyder platitudes; they have cut Snyder off. Of course, Snyder gets to go to the regular pressers. Part of the Michigan beat-writers' press pool. But Snyder -- unlike Angelique and unlike Larry Lage and unlike others -- no longer gets any exclusives in the Athletic Department. Nothing, that is, that Brandon can control. Maybe that will change. But I say to you that is the way it has been for many months.
Woodson, again, had every good reason to talk to reporters to help promote Mott. What I suggested was this; if somebody says to you, "Mark Snyder wants to do an interview with you to run in the Thursday paper, you say, 'Is there anybody else?' Because we don't like what Snyder did to the program." If the paper, or your agent, says, "No, Charles, you have to do it with Snyder; he's the beat reporter and it is too confrontational with the paper to go around him," then Woodson might just go ahead and do it. Knowing, expecting, what it is that Snyde is liable to ask about. First, Rodriguez; second, Mott; third, anything else. And basically do what Brady Hoke does, or what Brandon does, if he they are asked about Rodriguez.
Now maybe, because Woodson has a job in Green Bay and becaue he lives in Atlanta, he just doesn't know who and what Snyder is. Somebody should have told him.
And maybe, Charles is okay with what Snyder did, to get rid of Rodriguez by any means necessary. If that is the case, then that really is a problem. It's up to Charles to explain himself.
...if I asked Charles a tough follow-up question, and instead of answering the question, he sent one of his cousins over to punch me out and teach me a lesson, and then had fun Tweeting about it, he wouldn't be Charles Woodson anymore. He'd be Braylon Edwards.
You wrote an angry letter to the editor
It was one of the most despicable things I've seen in "journalism." (I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but this one really matters to me.)
I've got no problem with Section 1 carrying the torch. In fact, I'm glad someone still is. Eff the Freep.
Jamar Adams, John Navarre, and Glen Steele to the "Michigan Men not acting up to Section 1's Standards" list now too...
Navarre was particularly interesting...
Summing up the weekend, Mark Snyder could have chosen from a dozen feature stories; just one that I'll highlight for these purposes is how Angelique Chengelis in the News did a nice big story on Matthew Stafford attending and kicking a bunch of Lions tickets, which he promptly bid up to $15k on his own, and then turned around and gave the tickets to a Mott patient and her family. A lovely story; a great Mott-story that summed up the real nature of the weekend. Nice work, as usual, by the lovely and talented Angelique Chengelis.
So what did Mark Snyder give the rest of southeast Michigan on Monday? Part II of his longwinded diatribe against the supposedly humiliating Rich Rodriguez era. Without missing a beat from the Friday story, wherein he used his access with Woodson to do the same thing (with a throwaway mention of Mott in the eighth paragraph).
Today's Free Press is exactly what I predicted last week; Snyder, talking to Carr-era players, and asking them to beat up on Rodriguez. Brushing off the Mott charity stories; going straight for, "Never mind the charity, are you ready to thank those of us at the Freep who helped get rid of Rodriguez?"
Note also the peculiarly vicious (and extremely poorly-reported) anecdotal-whatever, in which John Navarre went to far as to doubt Rodriguez's commitment to the charity, with no evidence other than some poorly-described feeling on Navarre's part, without so much as a quote from Rodriguez. It is after all, Carr's pet-charity. Little wonder that at an event essentially created and hosted by Carr and his former players, dominated by their presence, Rodriguez might want to take a secondary role (even as he faithfully attended every one of them).
So just for comparison's sake, here is what Angelique Chengelis had to show for the weekend, compared to Mark Snyder:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120521/SPORTS0101/205210321/1126/rss14
Thanks, M-Wolverine; I might not have come back to this thread but for your little invitation.
And special thanks to you Mark Snyder, for fulfilling every single one of my predictions for your performance as a biased, scheming, unethical prick.
Haha, your default post value is finally at 0. At least the filters will now do what the mods haven't - silence your paranoid diatribes. Goodbye from relevance, Section 1.
God bless you, John Navarre, Jamar Adams, Chuck Woodson, Glen Steele, and everyone else who is happy for Michigan.
Yeah, God bless you Rick Leach, Jim Brandstatter, Larry Foote, Brandon Graham, Ryan Van Bergen and all of the other guys who haven't felt the need to pick and choose which Michigan head football coaches they might decide to support.
At least get all over them for what they actually said. They were referring to Alumni events, not charity fundraisers. The things that go on behind the scenes, that you weren't privy to, that seem to more and more apparently have turned off a lot of former players. No one said anything about Rich not being sincere when he was doing charity work; that's a straw man you've created. John said it felt like he did alumni player functions like it was an obligation, not because it was important to him, or that he cared (which he might have...but obviously some didn't feel the love).
I just add it because by the time you've taken away every player who's contributed a lot more than you to Michigan who dared to talk to the wrong reporter or said something not 100% glowing about Rich it'll be just you and Rick Leach in the real he-man Michigan fanclub. And all our Heisman winners, and 4 year QB, and even our recent graduates like Mike Martin will all be on the outside, as they seem to add up one by one....with the rest of us.
When the weekend to raise money for Mott was held two years ago -- despite coaching San Diego State at the time -- Hoke came in for it, because Michigan was still important to him.
Well that's a great turn of phrase. Brady Hoke came for it, "because Michigan was still important to him." Rodriguez was there too in those three prior years. Because Michigan, his employer, "was important to him." The other possibilities with Brady Hoke's attendance for past Mott fundraisers are:
- Carr asked him to please come and support the event, and Hoke agreed;
- Hoke genuinely wanted to see Carr and his former players, and catch up on old times;
- Hoke was (quite understandably) interested in networking, professionally, with other coaches and his former colleagues;
- He wanted to keep up with people at Michigan because, well, you never know...;
- He was able to tie the trip in with other professional travel in the midwest;
- etc.
- etc.
- etc.
At the bottom of that list would likely be something as vague as "Michigan was important to him," other than as mere shorthand for the things I have already mentioned. Not one of them, incidentally, betrays the slightest bad motivation on the part of Brady Hoke. Everybody does some professional networking.
There were alumni events during the three years of the Rich Rodriguez era, but Hoke has embraced it differently.
So that's Mark Snyder's assertion; it is based on what sort of reporting? Because sure as hell, Rich Rodriguez would never, ever have disclosed to Mark Snyder what he might wish to "embrace" after August of 2009.
"(Rodriguez) had that stuff, but it felt like it was choreographed, that 'this is something we've got to do' and 'oh, this is something they do every year so we've got to do it,' " Navarre said. "You don't get that from Brady, you didn't get that from Lloyd (Carr). They make it important, they make you feel welcomed. That's how it's supposed to be, the Michigan family, and for three years we got away from that a little bit."
So there, M-Wolverine. Navarre's cryptic quote in all of its glory. Navarre is pseudo-quoting Rodriguez. It's a pretty negative pseudo-quote, and really makes me question the wisdom of Navarre opening that can of worms. (And people tell me, "Just let it go"!?!) Snyder didn't get a quote from Rodriguez in reponse (you know, that newspapery thing about there being two sides to a story), and he never will, because of the deliberately despicable way he's treated Rodriguez in the past. Snyder and Navarre really don't make it clear if they were talking about the Mott fundraiser, or what else there might have been. It really ought to be clear when you are bad-mouthing someone in that fashion, but of course the whole weekend was just one long vague poorly-articulated cheap shot against Rich Rodriguez, at least as presented by Mark Snyder. (The whole weekend was assuredly NOT a great big cheap shot aimed at Rodriguez, but reading Snyder you'd never know that.)
Not the content. But we all knew the real reason. At least your consistent in you inconsistency. Should help you when you rail on our National Championship winning Heisman winner for having an opinion that doesn't agree with yours. Because they're talking to AA.com too...
http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/former-michigan-football-players…
I don't think they got Rich's opinion either.
An Open Letter to the OP:
Get over it. Let go. Move on with your life.
... that my posting of this Diary entry, and most particularly the last few comments, were direct responses to what Snyder is publishing in Michigan's largest-circulation daily newspaper? I didn't start this weekend's controversy. Mark Snyder launched it, all on his own. I only responded, and I am really quite happy that I did.
"Let it go," is advice that you might want to distribute to some of the guys who were at the golf outing.
There's no hope of "letting it go" with Mark Snyder; he is completely invested in his narrative. He deserves nothing but pushback.
Lock. The. Thread.
So get the fuck out.
So you don't get to control the content. So anyone can request what they like to Brian and the mods. And they don't have to listen. Just like you've managed to not listen to the vast majority who can't stand this post. But then it goes back to that "not caring what others think" thing...
We should do this again.
Does anyone have a link to the Section One blog? I want to check it out see what he's been up to over there. Appears he's gone full blown Jack Torrance here with the repetitious ramblings, I need to get a look at the source material. Thanks in advance
http://michiganinthemedia.wordpress.com/
It's pretty nice, isn't it? I can say that because I had nothing to do with it. I didn't create anything on it except for the text which was copied and pasted from one of the post-Three and Out review threads in which the moderators didn't like the level of my exuberance in exclaiming that the book had proven correct so much of what I and numerous others had been posting for many months prior. They took the thread down (there had been nothing wrong with it, but the natives had gotten restless) and they put up my text at the wordpress site.
Funny; you presumed that I had a blog and had been using it; isn't it interesting the way that information can be mutated in that fashion? Be careful where you get your information, and what presumptions you draw therefrom.
I don't think it was your exuberance the mods objected to.
the moderators didn't like the level of my exuberance
Because I hadn't violated any Board rules, and it was of course a subject that garnered a dozen other "Three and Out"-related posts.
No; I think it was because so many of the Board's senior members just didn't like my attitude. Which I think is perfectly described as "exuberant." I was giddy with elation, going through points in the book as fast as I could digest them and get them down in type; one after another, things which had gotten me harsh criticism from people like M-Wolverine, about which I had been right all along. Jeff Casteel was the subject at that moment. At that time, the only copies of the book in circulation were the ones distributed at Bacon's Chicago book signing, and the Amazon release was still days away.
Because just looking at "Michigan in the Media," it would be a complete head-scratcher as to why that post would get taken down from MGoBlog.
What the mods were apparently hoping to avoid was more of this:
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/three-and-out-we-were-right
In which pefectly good and straightforward content was met with a kind of collective freakout, with my usual detractors and a select few supporters melting down online.
That only interested one person, they were best left over on your own blog, to see if you could get enough page hits to make it worth your while, rather than piggy back on Brian's success to blather about what no one but you cares about. And you've just about run out of supporters because of your act. The sky is falling mentality reveals your real butthurt, which would bet taken well if it was a) limited and b) solely about the Free Press.
We know you live in your own little world where others matter, so you won't change. Personal attacks are "exuberant" to you, unless they're directed towards you. Then you cry like a five year old who had her lollypop stolen.
And as was easily predictable, you jumped to conclusions because you take the book as fact, and not certain people's interpretation. And you were then and are still wrong about Casteel. He just took the Arizona job for less money than he was making at West Virginia. You wanted to make it all about the money (a piddly $10k) and anyone who said differently was insinuating that he hated Rich Rod, when it was just said that there could be other reasons he stayed. Family, liking where they lived, etc. outside of money, and that your vague money rumors had no more basis in fact as something equally ridiculous...that maybe he and Rich didn't get along. Which had no basis in fact either. But if you were going to idly speculate without sources, was as good as anything. And time has proven you, and your gospel book, wrong. He stayed because it was a better situation for him in WV; he left WV FOR LESS MONEY because it was a better situation for him at that time to leave. In neither case was money the final deciding factor. At both times, prospects of being the head coach of WV in the near future seems to be the biggest motivation (it seemed likely when Stewart took over; it seems very unlikely now).
So you've been wrong about just about everything. Except the Free Press sucking. Which, well, duh. Give yourself a gold star for knowing what everyone else knows too. You're lucky we're not grading on a curve.
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/if-hoke-and-company-coach-well-they-recruitmay-god-have-mercy-b10
Click on it. Read the thread. Back, a year ago, it features you and I debating matters relating to Casteel. I said that Bacon's book would show me to be right and of course it did. (And of course there are many, many other places on the Board where I specifically said that I never thought Jeff Casteel was just about the money or a contract, and that things were probably multi-factorial for him.)
So I've been pretty much right all along. But my being right when it comes to you gives me more pleasure than usual. My very best victory laps are the ones run around you.
Your link just shows that you thought Casteel didn't come because of money. Which as been shown not to be true. Even if the book says it is. What's in the book isn't all true. You should realize that and move on with your life. Casteel just took a job for less money because it was a better overall outlook. It wasn't about the money. All your link shows is that people said you didn't know for a fact it was about the money, even though you were stating it as one, and without backing it was as speculative as anything else. And time has shown that you were wrong. Just because the book was wrong too doesn't make you right. You believed a line Bacon was fed by Rich cronies. Good for both of you. But Casteel proved you both wrong. Bad for both of you.
So you've never been right when it comes to me. That fact eats you up, I know. It's sad that you're still clinging to ideas that you've been proven wrong about for 3 years, running. Except the Freep Press sucking...which no one around here particularly disagrees with, even though you think you feel the need to convince us. I'll let you in on a secret...we all thought the Freep sucked around the same time you did. You haven't enlightened anybody on it around here. Give it up. I hope you can come to terms with your failures, rather than barfing it all over the boards.
You're so out of touch with reality, I'm can't really believe anything you claim anymore. Seek some help before you hurt yourself, or someone else, because this level of obsession isn't healthy. Peace.
In which I made it clear about all of the multifactorial components with any move of Casteel to Michigan:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/greg-mattison-recruiting-guru
And here:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/myth-cupboard-was-bare
And here:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/rr-and-defense
Again, I was right. Again, you appear to be clueless. All that you seem to be able to do is to question me, and I keep coming up with the right answers. From a year ago, I had the right answers. And your retort seems to be, not only was I wrong but (since my theories were mostly all borne out in Three and Out) John U. Bacon must have been wrong too.
Now here is what I would say to anyone else other than you (I could tell you that the Earth was round and that the sun rises in the east and you wouldn't accept it): With regard to Jeff Casteel, situations were no doubt different, at different times.
When Rodirguez first took the Michigan job, Casteel was probably figuring he'd go to Ann Arbor.
When Bill Stewart was named HC at WVU, a surprised Casteel family probably had second thoughts -- second thoughts that weren't matched with a sweeter offer from Michigan. So they stayed in Morgantown;
When Scott Shafer was fired after 2008, and the search for a DC was on again, Casteel may have already heard about how miserable some of the factions had become toward Rodriguez, and Casteel may have said no thanks to that;
When Stretchgate arose, and then was resovled with the NCAA, there may have been a chance to replace GERG with Casteel, and who knows if by that time Casteel had said, "Rich, I don't think they like you up there! I think I'll catch up with you on your next job." In hindsight, it might have been the smartest thing that Casteel could have said.
Your last 3 paragraphs say at no time it was about the money, other than not throwing money like crazy to give him second thoughts to his second thoughts (that weren't about money) the first time. Got it.
Comments