PlayerRep said:grizindabox said:PlayerRep said:grizindabox said:PR, and what I will say is no matter whom was in charge, without all the off field issues, RE wouldn't have had to make any of those decisions. Trust me, I am not sticking up for RE because I believe he is a spineless yes-man that is hurting UM as a whole, and the football program even more. But we all know that every time he gets in a difficult spot, he is gonna flop like an old raggedy Ann doll.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that off-field issues caused Engstrom to grossly overreact, fire Pflu/O'Day (and perhaps more), and be the main cause of the decline of UM football? Did the off-field issues cause him to offer up 4 schollies to the ncaa? I sure don't see that connection.
My point is that one doesn't happen without the other. No off-field issues and RE doesn't have to make any decisions. No RE, and we can assume someone else would have handled it differently.
Got it, but he primary cause of this was RE. No one else would have done what he did. I once read that in the history of ncaa football, a head football coach and AD had been fired at the same time only one other time. Penn St. UM's situation was about 1% of what Penn St was. Gross over-reaction and mistake by RE.
I agree with nearly everything you said there, except one thing. The primary cause were the legal issues of a few of the players that prompted the gross over-reaction. Grizindabox is correct in stating that without them, there is nothing to react to. I concur with everything else though.