An email I sent to Royce Engstrom today re:Mick Delaney

[PlayerRep]

And one other thought -- what does an extra year really give you? It is not that much more stability than what is already there with Delaney coaching through the end of the year. Won't help much in recruiting, other than the fact that this will be brought up next year with recruits and whether or not Delaney will be back or if there will be a new head coach.

And what if Delaney is a flop as a head coach? He may be a great guy with a great relationship with his players...and he is obviously a great position coach. But it is a lot different being the head guy than an assistant. Now I think that Delaney will do just fine - in the realm of a conference championship and playoff run. However, he is an unknown as a head coach at this level.

An extra year for Delaney and removal of the interim label would be very positive for the program--maybe even huge. It would allow the assistant coaches to not have to seriously consider jumping for the first offer they get as the season comes to a close, and make it more likely that the most of the staff would remain at UM. It would allow the coaches to recruit more effectively. Competitors would not be able to use the fact that the assistants (as well as head coach) recruiting them will probably not even be around after the season. Any new head coach brought in from the outside would likely hire most of his own staff, and there would probably be few holdovers from the existing staff. In addition, competitors would not be able to point out to skill players that the current offensive system would probably change if/when a new head coach was selected.

The extra year does not do anything you mentioned. Assistants, knowing that they possibly/probably would be gone the following year (2013) are still going to jump for a more stable job opportunity if presented one after the upcoming season. And nothing really will keep assistants from going to a more lucrative job offer. Recruiting will be the same as it is right now. Opposing coaches will still say to kids that the current coaching staff could be gone before you get the chance to play for them, since a majority of freshman don't make immediate impacts. So when they are ready to contribute as sophomores/juniors, the coaching staff could be different. Same with your "system" argument. Heck, if given an extra year, Delaney may want to revert back to more running and balanced offense, since he is more a traditional guy.

The extra year would be meaningless. It sure didn't hurt Ohio State in recruiting and such when Fickell was the interim coach for a year. And I think that is a fair comparison -- OSU one of the top FBS schools, UM clearly one of the top FCS schools.

Nope, removing the interim tag and giving assurance of another year would in fact help with all the things I mentioned. It would also help with all or most of the things that FCS has been saying. By the way, I've talked to some of the people who are involved. Removing the interim tag would help stabilize the program now. Assistants are more likely to stay with the interim tag removed, and recruits are more likely to commit. Changing the head coach after the season, would further de-stabilize the program. An extra year might allow a good internal candidate to emerge, including someone on the staff now or someone who would be added later.

Actually, your Ohio St comparison supports my view, not yours. Ohio St has been hurt in recruiting. They lost two top tier recruits who had initially committed, and lost a bunch of others who were thought to be leaning to Ohio St. See below blurb from the Bleacher Report.

"Lewis Neal and Alex Anzalone committed, then quickly de-committed. Fire and wrath from OSU fans descended upon these two young men.

Players once thought to be Ohio State leans, like Ethan Pocic and Jaylon Smith, chose other schools. Players who had offers, like TE Josh McNeil and Maurice Hurst Jr., complained that OSU lost interest in them. Mike McCray, an OSU legacy, committed to Michigan, then received an OSU offer late. Logan Tuley-Tillman burned an OSU envelope and then posted it on social media."

 

[GrizBacker04]

And one other thought -- what does an extra year really give you? It is not that much more stability than what is already there with Delaney coaching through the end of the year. Won't help much in recruiting, other than the fact that this will be brought up next year with recruits and whether or not Delaney will be back or if there will be a new head coach.

And what if Delaney is a flop as a head coach? He may be a great guy with a great relationship with his players...and he is obviously a great position coach. But it is a lot different being the head guy than an assistant. Now I think that Delaney will do just fine - in the realm of a conference championship and playoff run. However, he is an unknown as a head coach at this level.

An extra year for Delaney and removal of the interim label would be very positive for the program--maybe even huge. It would allow the assistant coaches to not have to seriously consider jumping for the first offer they get as the season comes to a close, and make it more likely that the most of the staff would remain at UM. It would allow the coaches to recruit more effectively. Competitors would not be able to use the fact that the assistants (as well as head coach) recruiting them will probably not even be around after the season. Any new head coach brought in from the outside would likely hire most of his own staff, and there would probably be few holdovers from the existing staff. In addition, competitors would not be able to point out to skill players that the current offensive system would probably change if/when a new head coach was selected.

The extra year does not do anything you mentioned. Assistants, knowing that they possibly/probably would be gone the following year (2013) are still going to jump for a more stable job opportunity if presented one after the upcoming season. And nothing really will keep assistants from going to a more lucrative job offer. Recruiting will be the same as it is right now. Opposing coaches will still say to kids that the current coaching staff could be gone before you get the chance to play for them, since a majority of freshman don't make immediate impacts. So when they are ready to contribute as sophomores/juniors, the coaching staff could be different. Same with your "system" argument. Heck, if given an extra year, Delaney may want to revert back to more running and balanced offense, since he is more a traditional guy.

The extra year would be meaningless. It sure didn't hurt Ohio State in recruiting and such when Fickell was the interim coach for a year. And I think that is a fair comparison -- OSU one of the top FBS schools, UM clearly one of the top FCS schools.

Nope, removing the interim tag and giving assurance of another year would in fact help with all the things I mentioned. It would also help with all or most of the things that FCS has been saying. By the way, I've talked to some of the people who are involved. Removing the interim tag would help stabilize the program now. Assistants are more likely to stay with the interim tag removed, and recruits are more likely to commit. Changing the head coach after the season, would further de-stabilize the program. An extra year might allow a good internal candidate to emerge, including someone on the staff now or someone who would be added later.

Actually, your Ohio St comparison supports my view, not yours. Ohio St has been hurt in recruiting. They lost two top tier recruits who had initially committed, and lost a bunch of others who were thought to be leaning to Ohio St. See below blurb from the Bleacher Report.

"Lewis Neal and Alex Anzalone committed, then quickly de-committed. Fire and wrath from OSU fans descended upon these two young men.

Players once thought to be Ohio State leans, like Ethan Pocic and Jaylon Smith, chose other schools. Players who had offers, like TE Josh McNeil and Maurice Hurst Jr., complained that OSU lost interest in them. Mike McCray, an OSU legacy, committed to Michigan, then received an OSU offer late. Logan Tuley-Tillman burned an OSU envelope and then posted it on social media."

Those de-comits at OSU have more to do with the fact that Ohio State went 6-7, Michigan got better, the Buckeyes are banned from playing in a bowl this year AND they hired the puke known as Urban Meyer.

I am sure the people you talked to, who are close to the program, would say it would be better for them if Delaney got extended. That's their boss and that gives them a LITTLE more stability. Not much in the grand scheme of things. So instead of possibly being fired in 6 months, you could be fired in 18 months. You're telling me that if you possibly knew that you would be fired in 18 months from your job, that you would not be looking and taking the first stable job offer that came following the end of the year?

Also, if recruiting was really suffering, I doubt the QB in Boise would have already committed.

If UM extends Delaney at this time, it should go ahead and do it for three years. (which i am not in favor of) Adding a year just means we will be having the same discussion in 6 months after the football season.

 

[PlayerRep]

An extra year for Delaney and removal of the interim label would be very positive for the program--maybe even huge. It would allow the assistant coaches to not have to seriously consider jumping for the first offer they get as the season comes to a close, and make it more likely that the most of the staff would remain at UM. It would allow the coaches to recruit more effectively. Competitors would not be able to use the fact that the assistants (as well as head coach) recruiting them will probably not even be around after the season. Any new head coach brought in from the outside would likely hire most of his own staff, and there would probably be few holdovers from the existing staff. In addition, competitors would not be able to point out to skill players that the current offensive system would probably change if/when a new head coach was selected.

The extra year does not do anything you mentioned. Assistants, knowing that they possibly/probably would be gone the following year (2013) are still going to jump for a more stable job opportunity if presented one after the upcoming season. And nothing really will keep assistants from going to a more lucrative job offer. Recruiting will be the same as it is right now. Opposing coaches will still say to kids that the current coaching staff could be gone before you get the chance to play for them, since a majority of freshman don't make immediate impacts. So when they are ready to contribute as sophomores/juniors, the coaching staff could be different. Same with your "system" argument. Heck, if given an extra year, Delaney may want to revert back to more running and balanced offense, since he is more a traditional guy.

The extra year would be meaningless. It sure didn't hurt Ohio State in recruiting and such when Fickell was the interim coach for a year. And I think that is a fair comparison -- OSU one of the top FBS schools, UM clearly one of the top FCS schools.

Nope, removing the interim tag and giving assurance of another year would in fact help with all the things I mentioned. It would also help with all or most of the things that FCS has been saying. By the way, I've talked to some of the people who are involved. Removing the interim tag would help stabilize the program now. Assistants are more likely to stay with the interim tag removed, and recruits are more likely to commit. Changing the head coach after the season, would further de-stabilize the program. An extra year might allow a good internal candidate to emerge, including someone on the staff now or someone who would be added later.

Actually, your Ohio St comparison supports my view, not yours. Ohio St has been hurt in recruiting. They lost two top tier recruits who had initially committed, and lost a bunch of others who were thought to be leaning to Ohio St. See below blurb from the Bleacher Report.

"Lewis Neal and Alex Anzalone committed, then quickly de-committed. Fire and wrath from OSU fans descended upon these two young men.

Players once thought to be Ohio State leans, like Ethan Pocic and Jaylon Smith, chose other schools. Players who had offers, like TE Josh McNeil and Maurice Hurst Jr., complained that OSU lost interest in them. Mike McCray, an OSU legacy, committed to Michigan, then received an OSU offer late. Logan Tuley-Tillman burned an OSU envelope and then posted it on social media."

Those de-comits at OSU have more to do with the fact that Ohio State went 6-7, Michigan got better, the Buckeyes are banned from playing in a bowl this year AND they hired the puke known as Urban Meyer.

I am sure the people you talked to, who are close to the program, would say it would be better for them if Delaney got extended. That's their boss and that gives them a LITTLE more stability. Not much in the grand scheme of things. So instead of possibly being fired in 6 months, you could be fired in 18 months. You're telling me that if you possibly knew that you would be fired in 18 months from your job, that you would not be looking and taking the first stable job offer that came following the end of the year?

Also, if recruiting was really suffering, I doubt the QB in Boise would have already committed.

If UM extends Delaney at this time, it should go ahead and do it for three years. (which i am not in favor of) Adding a year just means we will be having the same discussion in 6 months after the football season.

Why can't you just admit that you completely blew the Ohio St analogy? You brought it up, so now you have to live with the fact that your analogy was wrong.

Yes, there's a difference between 6 months and 18 months--a significant one. With 6 months, an asst would have more incentive to jump earlier, and a recruit may see more uncertainty. No one said UM would get no recruits with an interim coach. Of course, UM will get some recruits, presumably many recruits. However, with an interim coach, there's a greater chance of losing more recruits. I think it's funny when someone (like '04) has no information, but he still thinks his opinion is better than information that comes straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[grizbrokebacker1]

I think it's funny when someone (like '04) has no information, but he still thinks his opinion is better than information that comes straight from the horse's mouth.

You've got to stop sleeping with Mr. Ed. Or at least don't allude to it on a public msg board.

 

[Cats2506]

I think it's funny when someone (like '04) has no information, but he still thinks his opinion is better than information that comes straight from the horse's mouth.

You've got to stop sleeping with Mr. Ed. Or at least don't allude to it on a public msg board.

are you saying that PR is a size queen :shock:

 

[argh!]

Committing to extending an interim head coach before bringing in a new AD is simply putting the cart before the horse. At most universities the AD is always above any coach on the organizational chart.
I think Brint took too literally the comment that an AD would want to bring in his "own guy." To my mind that doesn't mean that he comes to Missoula with "his guy" already pre-ordained. I suspect it will be difficult enough to bring a truly competent AD into Missoula to sort things out. To further complicate the process you're going to tie him to a short -term interim coach who only delays the implementation of his own plans?... That's a recipe for futility.

Does anyone not realize what a friggin mess Engstrom created when he fired his AD and Head Football coach in one ill-considered move :?: I thought so. This whole depressing situation was totally avoidable :!:

Remove one leg on your chair you can get by. Remove two and you're on your ass. That's our UM athletics as of this moment. Neither Main Hall nor much of GrizNation seem to have the stomach for doing the hard work when the status quo is soooo much easier... Lemmings

this whole moving of high ranking um officials was planned a long time ago, and for good reason. just hold on to your hat for a year or so, vigilante.
oh, wait - you are sitting on it - or perhaps in it, 6-7-77?

arghomoto san: Let us dissect your most recent irrelevancy beginning with "...high ranking um officials..." (Who, your barber?) "...planned a long time ago." (Uhh, like when and what's a longtime ago? Ol' Royce has only been on the job less than two years - hardly your long time ago.) "...for good reason." (meaning what exactly? And what is the ominous revelation that would have us keep our collective breaths baited "for a year or so?"... Your discourse is long on vague portent that never gets around to delivering. Sort of like a bad B grade horror flick. (BTW, Charlie would like you to settle up your bar tab...)

'a long time ago' in a scenario like this is 6 months. as for the allusion to a year or so, that was just a guess, made more for literary purposes than anything. as for charlie, what, three times the normal rate+ wasn't good enough?

 

[GrizBacker04]

I think it's funny when someone (like '04) has no information, but he still thinks his opinion is better than information that comes straight from the horse's mouth.

Like when you said that due to the verbal agreement that Pflugrad said O'Day gave him about a 3 year contract extension that UM would be forced to pay that to Pflugrad. That Montana law made a verbal agreement a binding contract. Hmmmm, how did that turn out? Oh yeah. Pflugrad is being paid for the last year of his original contract and not an additional three. Straight from the horse's mouth, right?

 

[GrizBacker04]

PlayerRep -- just in case you forgot just how sure and in the know you were regarding the 3-year verbal contract extension. And so, as you said at the end...please stop saying dumb things. Good day sir.

A verbal promise means nothing, really. No signed contract means no extension. That "promise" is a nice gesture, but not a written contract. You can promise anything to anyone, but until it is put down on paper, it carries no weight. Engstrom could simply say while the AD may promise a contract extension, the final decision is his and/or the board of regents.

That's not true, especially in MT. A verbal promise in a contractual setting is a contract. The proof of the verbal contract is usually the hurdle.

I heard that O'Day had already signed another one-year extension. Don't know if that's true.

I would guess the direct cost of the 2 firings will be from $500,000 - $1 million, or even more if this gets through trial.

Even if O'Day gave Pflugrad a verbal contract, which would be hard to prove, O'Day isn't the person who has the final decision. He can suggest that Pflugrad get a three-year extension, but then the board of regents would have to approve that extension. Also, in the story, it clearly said that O'Day's contract was up, although it rolled over each year. So, by way of not notifying O'Day within the 5-month time frame, he probably does have grounds to request another full year of pay on top of his remaining three months.

And even if this does go to trial, hard to see Pflugrad/O'day winning anything more than what they have received already. UM made a decision not to renew their contracts, which it is legally entitled to do. UM technically did not fire them, just bought out the remainder of their contracts and said have a nice day, you won't be getting new contracts.

04, a verbal contract is a verbal contract, and that's a contract. If O'Day promised it, it's not hard to prove. O'Day clearly has authority to act on behalf of UM. It doesn't matter if the BOR technically had to approve it, that's the U's problem not Pflu's. UM can't hide behind a technicality like that. Pflu and O'Day will get alot more in settlement than what the article said.

Also, UM fired them. UM hasn't bought out the contract. No such buyout agreement exists. UM hasn't paid them anything for a buyout. Whenever someone is relieved of duties, they have been fired.

Please stop saying such dumb things.

 

[PlayerRep]

PlayerRep -- just in case you forgot just how sure and in the know you were regarding the 3-year verbal contract extension. And so, as you said at the end...please stop saying dumb things. Good day sir.

That's not true, especially in MT. A verbal promise in a contractual setting is a contract. The proof of the verbal contract is usually the hurdle.

I heard that O'Day had already signed another one-year extension. Don't know if that's true.

I would guess the direct cost of the 2 firings will be from $500,000 - $1 million, or even more if this gets through trial.

Even if O'Day gave Pflugrad a verbal contract, which would be hard to prove, O'Day isn't the person who has the final decision. He can suggest that Pflugrad get a three-year extension, but then the board of regents would have to approve that extension. Also, in the story, it clearly said that O'Day's contract was up, although it rolled over each year. So, by way of not notifying O'Day within the 5-month time frame, he probably does have grounds to request another full year of pay on top of his remaining three months.

And even if this does go to trial, hard to see Pflugrad/O'day winning anything more than what they have received already. UM made a decision not to renew their contracts, which it is legally entitled to do. UM technically did not fire them, just bought out the remainder of their contracts and said have a nice day, you won't be getting new contracts.

04, a verbal contract is a verbal contract, and that's a contract. If O'Day promised it, it's not hard to prove. O'Day clearly has authority to act on behalf of UM. It doesn't matter if the BOR technically had to approve it, that's the U's problem not Pflu's. UM can't hide behind a technicality like that. Pflu and O'Day will get alot more in settlement than what the article said.

Also, UM fired them. UM hasn't bought out the contract. No such buyout agreement exists. UM hasn't paid them anything for a buyout. Whenever someone is relieved of duties, they have been fired.

Please stop saying such dumb things.

'04, I was right in what I said. UM fired/terminated Pflu. Look at the recent articles on the settlement. I believe they all refer to firing/termination. No reference to not renewing the contract. As for the extension, I said "If O'Day promised it, it's not hard to prove." Note the "if". Pflu settled quite favorably for him, presumably so that he can move on and take a new job. He could have gotten more money in a lawsuit. However, a lawsuit creates problems for getting a new job and moving on. Kramer had that lawsuit, and unable to get a new job and move on problem.

I like your "a verbal contract means nothing". What a dumb statement. A verbal contract is a valid contract, by definition, in every state.

Like I said, please stop saying dumb things. You don't know what you're talking about. I suppose I'll have to start pointing out all of your dumb comments, and not just some of them.

 

[Grizbacker1]

To counter Brint's email, if Engstrom removes the interim tag off of Delaney and gives him an 18-month contract (two seasons) you hinder the A.D. search in my opinion. The new A.D. is going to want to hire his/her own person to coach the most important program in the athletic department -- one that can decide if an A.D. is fired even regardless of wins, as we all know. I think if Delaney were to be extended, it would remove a lot of qualified A.D. candidates, because that individual will want to hire their own head coach.

If Delaney is given an 18-month contract and goes 6-5 next year, the A.D. is then forced to hope that the Griz turn it around next year (and risk another sub-par year) or come up with the money to buy out Delaney and hire the person they want. And if that happens, then the A.D. will be faced with criticism for yet another coach/employee that was bought out --one that he/she didn't even hire. Especially if recruiting goes well and the players respond to Delaney (and stay out of the non-sports headlines).

Getting the A.D. hire right is a more critical decision than extending Delaney another 12 months and risk potential candidates not applying because of that. Once the A.D. is hired, Delaney will have the luxury of having essentially a season-long interview, and if the Griz go something like 9-2 in the regular season and make a playoff run, which is a strong possibility depending on Johnson's status, it would be hard for the new A.D. not to hire him.

The future of Griz athletics, especially the football program, depends on who the next A.D. is, not whether or not Delaney gets an 18-month contract. UM needs to get the A.D. hire right - first and foremost.

I remember wayne Hogan bringing in "his guy" named Pat Kennedy...that worked out real swell. :roll:

 

[GrizBacker04]

Two things PlayerRep:

1- If you are going to call me out for my poor Ohio State analogy, which had the 7th-best recruiting class in the country this year (man, that interim coach really hurt its recruiting) guess I'll do the same to you. First of all, you were positive this would cost UM at least 500K to a million, and then even more than that depending on the lawsuits that followed, and that Pflu and O'day were going to get a whole lot more than just their contracts being bought out. Well, how did that turn out? It will be close to $500k, but that is just what was owed to Pflu/O'day. Not a penny more. That nice settlement Pflu got that you said was favorable to him was for TV/Camp/Radio money he would have made the rest of the year, and as his lawyer said, was less than what they wanted. Again, just money that he would have made during the last year of his contract. You can call whatever UM did as firing/termination/getting canned, etc., but at the end of the day UM bought out the remainder of Plfu's and O'day's contracts. Newspapers call it firing, UM will say they simply did not renew the contracts, which is legally what they did.

Speaking about contracts, since you were so hung up on the verbal contract, I actually have no doubt that on more than one occasion, O'day said to Pflu "you and your staff are doing a great job, going to start/am working on a three-year extension, you are going to get that extension, etc." So there is your precious verbal contract. With that being said, you really think that Pflugrad (especially his lawyer who would get between 10-20% of a settlement) would just walk away from around $650,000 if they knew they had a strong, winnable case simply so Pflu could move on and coach somewhere else. He is not going to coach anywhere this year, and that $650,000 is close to the equivalent to 4 years of pay as a position coach at say Oregon. But I guess moving on and coaching WRs in the Pac-12 next year is clearly better than collecting $650,000 AND THEN coaching WRs in the PAC-12 two years from now.

2 - Thank you for reminding me why I ignored message boards (unless I needed comic relief) during my 7 years working in college athletics -- a tenure that included two football coaching changes, an AD change, a President change and several other coaching/staff changes. While there are posters who appreciate conversations, differing opinions, etc., the majority of them are people like you -- wearing tinfoil hats who know exactly what is going on in an athletic department and how it is run. And if you disagree with the shiny-hat people, then you know nothing about anything and shouldn't be wasting your time questioning their knowledge. Which is true, I shouldn't be wasting my time here and won't from now on. Thanks for letting me see the light that was being reflected off of your helmet!

 

[PlayerRep]

Two things PlayerRep:

1- If you are going to call me out for my poor Ohio State analogy, which had the 7th-best recruiting class in the country this year (man, that interim coach really hurt its recruiting) guess I'll do the same to you. First of all, you were positive this would cost UM at least 500K to a million, and then even more than that depending on the lawsuits that followed, and that Pflu and O'day were going to get a whole lot more than just their contracts being bought out. Well, how did that turn out? It will be close to $500k, but that is just what was owed to Pflu/O'day. Not a penny more. That nice settlement Pflu got that you said was favorable to him was for TV/Camp/Radio money he would have made the rest of the year, and as his lawyer said, was less than what they wanted. Again, just money that he would have made during the last year of his contract. You can call whatever UM did as firing/termination/getting canned, etc., but at the end of the day UM bought out the remainder of Plfu's and O'day's contracts. Newspapers call it firing, UM will say they simply did not renew the contracts, which is legally what they did.

Speaking about contracts, since you were so hung up on the verbal contract, I actually have no doubt that on more than one occasion, O'day said to Pflu "you and your staff are doing a great job, going to start/am working on a three-year extension, you are going to get that extension, etc." So there is your precious verbal contract. With that being said, you really think that Pflugrad (especially his lawyer who would get between 10-20% of a settlement) would just walk away from around $650,000 if they knew they had a strong, winnable case simply so Pflu could move on and coach somewhere else. He is not going to coach anywhere this year, and that $650,000 is close to the equivalent to 4 years of pay as a position coach at say Oregon. But I guess moving on and coaching WRs in the Pac-12 next year is clearly better than collecting $650,000 AND THEN coaching WRs in the PAC-12 two years from now.

2 - Thank you for reminding me why I ignored message boards (unless I needed comic relief) during my 7 years working in college athletics -- a tenure that included two football coaching changes, an AD change, a President change and several other coaching/staff changes. While there are posters who appreciate conversations, differing opinions, etc., the majority of them are people like you -- wearing tinfoil hats who know exactly what is going on in an athletic department and how it is run. And if you disagree with the shiny-hat people, then you know nothing about anything and shouldn't be wasting your time questioning their knowledge. Which is true, I shouldn't be wasting my time here and won't from now on. Thanks for letting me see the light that was being reflected off of your helmet!

04, the question wasn't whether Ohio St had a good recruiting class; the question was whether they had lost recruits. You said they had not lost recruits; I provided hard information that you had lost recruits. Thus, showing you were wrong.

You just admitted that I was right by saying that the firings would cost between a half million and a million, by admitting they will cost a half million or more. Yes, it's true that I thought it would probably end up costing the university more. However, it's not clear to me whether the O'Day matter is over yet. Pflu decided it would be better for future job opportunties to settle and move on. He didn't want to end up not being able to get a job, like Kramer did.

I actually enjoy discussions. However, discussions include pointing out when others are wrong, or don't have the right information. My information is generally very good. Much of what you have said has been wrong, either factually or in my view. Just because you worked with athletics in probably the distant past, doesn't mean you know what's going on at UM now or that you understand the situation. Some posters, including apparently you, are thin-skinned and big babies, and can take someone disagreeing with what they say. If you can't take your posts being challenged, don't post or stop whining.

 

[GrizBacker04]

Two things PlayerRep:

1- If you are going to call me out for my poor Ohio State analogy, which had the 7th-best recruiting class in the country this year (man, that interim coach really hurt its recruiting) guess I'll do the same to you. First of all, you were positive this would cost UM at least 500K to a million, and then even more than that depending on the lawsuits that followed, and that Pflu and O'day were going to get a whole lot more than just their contracts being bought out. Well, how did that turn out? It will be close to $500k, but that is just what was owed to Pflu/O'day. Not a penny more. That nice settlement Pflu got that you said was favorable to him was for TV/Camp/Radio money he would have made the rest of the year, and as his lawyer said, was less than what they wanted. Again, just money that he would have made during the last year of his contract. You can call whatever UM did as firing/termination/getting canned, etc., but at the end of the day UM bought out the remainder of Plfu's and O'day's contracts. Newspapers call it firing, UM will say they simply did not renew the contracts, which is legally what they did.

Speaking about contracts, since you were so hung up on the verbal contract, I actually have no doubt that on more than one occasion, O'day said to Pflu "you and your staff are doing a great job, going to start/am working on a three-year extension, you are going to get that extension, etc." So there is your precious verbal contract. With that being said, you really think that Pflugrad (especially his lawyer who would get between 10-20% of a settlement) would just walk away from around $650,000 if they knew they had a strong, winnable case simply so Pflu could move on and coach somewhere else. He is not going to coach anywhere this year, and that $650,000 is close to the equivalent to 4 years of pay as a position coach at say Oregon. But I guess moving on and coaching WRs in the Pac-12 next year is clearly better than collecting $650,000 AND THEN coaching WRs in the PAC-12 two years from now.

2 - Thank you for reminding me why I ignored message boards (unless I needed comic relief) during my 7 years working in college athletics -- a tenure that included two football coaching changes, an AD change, a President change and several other coaching/staff changes. While there are posters who appreciate conversations, differing opinions, etc., the majority of them are people like you -- wearing tinfoil hats who know exactly what is going on in an athletic department and how it is run. And if you disagree with the shiny-hat people, then you know nothing about anything and shouldn't be wasting your time questioning their knowledge. Which is true, I shouldn't be wasting my time here and won't from now on. Thanks for letting me see the light that was being reflected off of your helmet!

04, the question wasn't whether Ohio St had a good recruiting class; the question was whether they had lost recruits. You said they had not lost recruits; I provided hard information that you had lost recruits. Thus, showing you were wrong.

You just admitted that I was right by saying that the firings would cost between a half million and a million, by admitting they will cost a half million or more. Yes, it's true that I thought it would probably end up costing the university more. However, it's not clear to me whether the O'Day matter is over yet. Pflu decided it would be better for future job opportunties to settle and move on. He didn't want to end up not being able to get a job, like Kramer did.

I actually enjoy discussions. However, discussions include pointing out when others are wrong, or don't have the right information. My information is generally very good. Much of what you have said has been wrong, either factually or in my view. Just because you worked with athletics in probably the distant past, doesn't mean you know what's going on at UM now or that you understand the situation. Some posters, including apparently you, are thin-skinned and big babies, and can take someone disagreeing with what they say. If you can't take your posts being challenged, don't post or stop whining.

Nowhere in my initial OSU comparison did I say that OSU did or didn't lose recruits - only that having an interim coach did not hurt its recruiting class, which it didn't. You were the one that brought up kids changing their commitments, which happens to every recruiting class at every school every year.

Also never said you weren't right with saying the settlement would be 500K to a million, but rather that you firmly believed that it would be much more with law suits. Which, again, if Pflugrad really believed he had a strong case and could win based on the verbal contract, you really don't think he would have pursued that for $650,000? He is not going to coach this year anyways, and walking away from that much money, and almost certainly more when factoring in 3 years of benefits, retirement contributions, etc., just to move on seems a bit of a stretch if you really believe the power of the verbal contract (which in your view, is a slam dunk, open-shut case). You wouldn't put your career on hold if in the end you were going to get 650K or more and you already had 200K coming to you? Plus, once you settled, it was a given that you would be hired again, which is the case with Pflu given all of his contacts. (Hauck would hire Pflu in an instant at UNLV). Kramer sued because he knew he had a very realistic chance at winning, something I am sure Pflugrad and his lawyer know they do not.

I worked in college athletics from 2003 to 2010, still in contact with many colleagues. Not sure if that qualifies as the distant past or not. And to counter what you will probably say next, it wasn't at an NAIA school either. At a school/conference a tad bit bigger than UM/Big Sky...although UM is where I got my start.

So glean what you would like from this post, twist it to make it fit for you, and prove me wrong/point out that I don't know what I am talking about. This is fun. I just might have to stick around a little while longer.

 

[PlayerRep]

PlayerRep -- just in case you forgot just how sure and in the know you were regarding the 3-year verbal contract extension. And so, as you said at the end...please stop saying dumb things. Good day sir.

That's not true, especially in MT. A verbal promise in a contractual setting is a contract. The proof of the verbal contract is usually the hurdle.

I heard that O'Day had already signed another one-year extension. Don't know if that's true.

I would guess the direct cost of the 2 firings will be from $500,000 - $1 million, or even more if this gets through trial.

Even if O'Day gave Pflugrad a verbal contract, which would be hard to prove, O'Day isn't the person who has the final decision. He can suggest that Pflugrad get a three-year extension, but then the board of regents would have to approve that extension. Also, in the story, it clearly said that O'Day's contract was up, although it rolled over each year. So, by way of not notifying O'Day within the 5-month time frame, he probably does have grounds to request another full year of pay on top of his remaining three months.

And even if this does go to trial, hard to see Pflugrad/O'day winning anything more than what they have received already. UM made a decision not to renew their contracts, which it is legally entitled to do. UM technically did not fire them, just bought out the remainder of their contracts and said have a nice day, you won't be getting new contracts.

04, a verbal contract is a verbal contract, and that's a contract. If O'Day promised it, it's not hard to prove. O'Day clearly has authority to act on behalf of UM. It doesn't matter if the BOR technically had to approve it, that's the U's problem not Pflu's. UM can't hide behind a technicality like that. Pflu and O'Day will get alot more in settlement than what the article said.

Also, UM fired them. UM hasn't bought out the contract. No such buyout agreement exists. UM hasn't paid them anything for a buyout. Whenever someone is relieved of duties, they have been fired.

Please stop saying such dumb things.

Yes, everything I said above is correct. A verbal contract is a contract under law, by definition. "If O'Day promised it (note the "if"), it isn't hard to prove. Again, that's true. UM did in fact fire them. Look at all the recent press statements on the subject, regarding the settlement

 

[PlayerRep]

I think it's funny when someone (like '04) has no information, but he still thinks his opinion is better than information that comes straight from the horse's mouth.

Like when you said that due to the verbal agreement that Pflugrad said O'Day gave him about a 3 year contract extension that UM would be forced to pay that to Pflugrad. That Montana law made a verbal agreement a binding contract. Hmmmm, how did that turn out? Oh yeah. Pflugrad is being paid for the last year of his original contract and not an additional three. Straight from the horse's mouth, right?

I didn't say O'Day had given him a 3-year contract, at least in what you just posted, I said "if' O'Day had given him a verbal 3-year contract. Below is the quote of my post that you posted above. Do you see the "if"? Do you understand what "if" means?

"If O'Day promised it, it's not hard to prove. O'Day clearly has authority to act on behalf of UM."

 

[GrizMusician]

Oh look... another eGriz pissing match...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[PlayerRep]

Two things PlayerRep:

1- If you are going to call me out for my poor Ohio State analogy, which had the 7th-best recruiting class in the country this year (man, that interim coach really hurt its recruiting) guess I'll do the same to you. First of all, you were positive this would cost UM at least 500K to a million, and then even more than that depending on the lawsuits that followed, and that Pflu and O'day were going to get a whole lot more than just their contracts being bought out. Well, how did that turn out? It will be close to $500k, but that is just what was owed to Pflu/O'day. Not a penny more. That nice settlement Pflu got that you said was favorable to him was for TV/Camp/Radio money he would have made the rest of the year, and as his lawyer said, was less than what they wanted. Again, just money that he would have made during the last year of his contract. You can call whatever UM did as firing/termination/getting canned, etc., but at the end of the day UM bought out the remainder of Plfu's and O'day's contracts. Newspapers call it firing, UM will say they simply did not renew the contracts, which is legally what they did.

Speaking about contracts, since you were so hung up on the verbal contract, I actually have no doubt that on more than one occasion, O'day said to Pflu "you and your staff are doing a great job, going to start/am working on a three-year extension, you are going to get that extension, etc." So there is your precious verbal contract. With that being said, you really think that Pflugrad (especially his lawyer who would get between 10-20% of a settlement) would just walk away from around $650,000 if they knew they had a strong, winnable case simply so Pflu could move on and coach somewhere else. He is not going to coach anywhere this year, and that $650,000 is close to the equivalent to 4 years of pay as a position coach at say Oregon. But I guess moving on and coaching WRs in the Pac-12 next year is clearly better than collecting $650,000 AND THEN coaching WRs in the PAC-12 two years from now.

2 - Thank you for reminding me why I ignored message boards (unless I needed comic relief) during my 7 years working in college athletics -- a tenure that included two football coaching changes, an AD change, a President change and several other coaching/staff changes. While there are posters who appreciate conversations, differing opinions, etc., the majority of them are people like you -- wearing tinfoil hats who know exactly what is going on in an athletic department and how it is run. And if you disagree with the shiny-hat people, then you know nothing about anything and shouldn't be wasting your time questioning their knowledge. Which is true, I shouldn't be wasting my time here and won't from now on. Thanks for letting me see the light that was being reflected off of your helmet!

04, the question wasn't whether Ohio St had a good recruiting class; the question was whether they had lost recruits. You said they had not lost recruits; I provided hard information that you had lost recruits. Thus, showing you were wrong.

You just admitted that I was right by saying that the firings would cost between a half million and a million, by admitting they will cost a half million or more. Yes, it's true that I thought it would probably end up costing the university more. However, it's not clear to me whether the O'Day matter is over yet. Pflu decided it would be better for future job opportunties to settle and move on. He didn't want to end up not being able to get a job, like Kramer did.

I actually enjoy discussions. However, discussions include pointing out when others are wrong, or don't have the right information. My information is generally very good. Much of what you have said has been wrong, either factually or in my view. Just because you worked with athletics in probably the distant past, doesn't mean you know what's going on at UM now or that you understand the situation. Some posters, including apparently you, are thin-skinned and big babies, and can take someone disagreeing with what they say. If you can't take your posts being challenged, don't post or stop whining.

Nowhere in my initial OSU comparison did I say that OSU did or didn't lose recruits - only that having an interim coach did not hurt its recruiting class, which it didn't. You were the one that brought up kids changing their commitments, which happens to every recruiting class at every school every year.

Also never said you weren't right with saying the settlement would be 500K to a million, but rather that you firmly believed that it would be much more with law suits. Which, again, if Pflugrad really believed he had a strong case and could win based on the verbal contract, you really don't think he would have pursued that for $650,000? He is not going to coach this year anyways, and walking away from that much money, and almost certainly more when factoring in 3 years of benefits, retirement contributions, etc., just to move on seems a bit of a stretch if you really believe the power of the verbal contract (which in your view, is a slam dunk, open-shut case). You wouldn't put your career on hold if in the end you were going to get 650K or more and you already had 200K coming to you? Plus, once you settled, it was a given that you would be hired again, which is the case with Pflu given all of his contacts. (Hauck would hire Pflu in an instant at UNLV). Kramer sued because he knew he had a very realistic chance at winning, something I am sure Pflugrad and his lawyer know they do not.

I worked in college athletics from 2003 to 2010, still in contact with many colleagues. Not sure if that qualifies as the distant past or not. And to counter what you will probably say next, it wasn't at an NAIA school either. At a school/conference a tad bit bigger than UM/Big Sky...although UM is where I got my start.

So glean what you would like from this post, twist it to make it fit for you, and prove me wrong/point out that I don't know what I am talking about. This is fun. I just might have to stick around a little while longer.

You just admitted again that I was right on the Ohio St matter. Ohio St lost an unusual amount of high-profile recruits, and the press was saying that. You have a funny way of arguing. You admit you are wrong, and the say you're right. If you understand college football recruiting, at least at UM's level, I think you would be agreeing with me. I assume you don't live in Missoula and don't talk to the athletic dept or coaches. Just out of curiosity, did you get fired from your job, or why are you no longer in that line of work?

 

[grizbrokebacker1]

My information is generally very good. Much of what you have said has been wrong, either factually or in my view.

And the #1 reason people hate Jack Mannequin..... :lol:

 

[GrizBacker04]

Two things PlayerRep:

1- If you are going to call me out for my poor Ohio State analogy, which had the 7th-best recruiting class in the country this year (man, that interim coach really hurt its recruiting) guess I'll do the same to you. First of all, you were positive this would cost UM at least 500K to a million, and then even more than that depending on the lawsuits that followed, and that Pflu and O'day were going to get a whole lot more than just their contracts being bought out. Well, how did that turn out? It will be close to $500k, but that is just what was owed to Pflu/O'day. Not a penny more. That nice settlement Pflu got that you said was favorable to him was for TV/Camp/Radio money he would have made the rest of the year, and as his lawyer said, was less than what they wanted. Again, just money that he would have made during the last year of his contract. You can call whatever UM did as firing/termination/getting canned, etc., but at the end of the day UM bought out the remainder of Plfu's and O'day's contracts. Newspapers call it firing, UM will say they simply did not renew the contracts, which is legally what they did.

Speaking about contracts, since you were so hung up on the verbal contract, I actually have no doubt that on more than one occasion, O'day said to Pflu "you and your staff are doing a great job, going to start/am working on a three-year extension, you are going to get that extension, etc." So there is your precious verbal contract. With that being said, you really think that Pflugrad (especially his lawyer who would get between 10-20% of a settlement) would just walk away from around $650,000 if they knew they had a strong, winnable case simply so Pflu could move on and coach somewhere else. He is not going to coach anywhere this year, and that $650,000 is close to the equivalent to 4 years of pay as a position coach at say Oregon. But I guess moving on and coaching WRs in the Pac-12 next year is clearly better than collecting $650,000 AND THEN coaching WRs in the PAC-12 two years from now.

2 - Thank you for reminding me why I ignored message boards (unless I needed comic relief) during my 7 years working in college athletics -- a tenure that included two football coaching changes, an AD change, a President change and several other coaching/staff changes. While there are posters who appreciate conversations, differing opinions, etc., the majority of them are people like you -- wearing tinfoil hats who know exactly what is going on in an athletic department and how it is run. And if you disagree with the shiny-hat people, then you know nothing about anything and shouldn't be wasting your time questioning their knowledge. Which is true, I shouldn't be wasting my time here and won't from now on. Thanks for letting me see the light that was being reflected off of your helmet!

04, the question wasn't whether Ohio St had a good recruiting class; the question was whether they had lost recruits. You said they had not lost recruits; I provided hard information that you had lost recruits. Thus, showing you were wrong.

You just admitted that I was right by saying that the firings would cost between a half million and a million, by admitting they will cost a half million or more. Yes, it's true that I thought it would probably end up costing the university more. However, it's not clear to me whether the O'Day matter is over yet. Pflu decided it would be better for future job opportunties to settle and move on. He didn't want to end up not being able to get a job, like Kramer did.

I actually enjoy discussions. However, discussions include pointing out when others are wrong, or don't have the right information. My information is generally very good. Much of what you have said has been wrong, either factually or in my view. Just because you worked with athletics in probably the distant past, doesn't mean you know what's going on at UM now or that you understand the situation. Some posters, including apparently you, are thin-skinned and big babies, and can take someone disagreeing with what they say. If you can't take your posts being challenged, don't post or stop whining.

Nowhere in my initial OSU comparison did I say that OSU did or didn't lose recruits - only that having an interim coach did not hurt its recruiting class, which it didn't. You were the one that brought up kids changing their commitments, which happens to every recruiting class at every school every year.

Also never said you weren't right with saying the settlement would be 500K to a million, but rather that you firmly believed that it would be much more with law suits. Which, again, if Pflugrad really believed he had a strong case and could win based on the verbal contract, you really don't think he would have pursued that for $650,000? He is not going to coach this year anyways, and walking away from that much money, and almost certainly more when factoring in 3 years of benefits, retirement contributions, etc., just to move on seems a bit of a stretch if you really believe the power of the verbal contract (which in your view, is a slam dunk, open-shut case). You wouldn't put your career on hold if in the end you were going to get 650K or more and you already had 200K coming to you? Plus, once you settled, it was a given that you would be hired again, which is the case with Pflu given all of his contacts. (Hauck would hire Pflu in an instant at UNLV). Kramer sued because he knew he had a very realistic chance at winning, something I am sure Pflugrad and his lawyer know they do not.

I worked in college athletics from 2003 to 2010, still in contact with many colleagues. Not sure if that qualifies as the distant past or not. And to counter what you will probably say next, it wasn't at an NAIA school either. At a school/conference a tad bit bigger than UM/Big Sky...although UM is where I got my start.

So glean what you would like from this post, twist it to make it fit for you, and prove me wrong/point out that I don't know what I am talking about. This is fun. I just might have to stick around a little while longer.

You just admitted again that I was right on the Ohio St matter. Ohio St lost an unusual amount of high-profile recruits, and the press was saying that. You have a funny way of arguing. You admit you are wrong, and the say you're right. If you understand college football recruiting, at least at UM's level, I think you would be agreeing with me. I assume you don't live in Missoula and don't talk to the athletic dept or coaches. Just out of curiosity, did you get fired from your job, or why are you no longer in that line of work?

I really have no idea how I admitted that you were right in the Ohio State matter. Yes, they lost recruits...but they replaced those with other high-profile recruits. Ohio State ended up with the 7th-ranked recruiting class in the country. That is TUUUURIBLE, as Charles Barkley would say. I do understand college recruiting - I understand that while a coach/player relationship is a part of the process, so to is winning, facilities, educational programs, level of play, coaching style, winning, facilities...oh, and winning. Playing in front of 26,000+, winning championships, going to the playoffs each year at a program that annually turns out NFL-quality players probably is going to trump Coach Joe being a great guy whose team goes 2-9 roughly 90 times out of 100.

Ah yes, I must have been fired since my views are so far off base to what you hold as the gold standard. My family had the opportunity to move back home and it also gave me the chance to spend more time with my family away from the grind that is college athletics. Working in an athletic department is fantastic, if you are single or your spouse works in the department as well. Nothing like starting a football season in August and having two days off (bye week) until the end of the November. Really get to spend time with your kids that way.

Just out of curiosity, outside of talking with people within the program, what credentials do you have do be a voice of reason for the Griz program? Outside of just repeating what they feel is best for them?

Finally if the extra year is so important to Delaney and staff, how was it that the UM football program was able to grow into such a powerful force and remain as such when the coaching staff was working on year-to-year contracts. Read, Dennehy, Glenn and Hauck early on must have been magicians in keeping things going saddled with such a disadvantage of a year-to-year contract.

 

[GrizBacker04]

Oh look... another eGriz pissing match...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Since this is my first one, trying not to get too much pee on my shoes/pants. Not sure if I am accomplishing it, however.