Met with President Engstrom, UM will not request an appeal

[BWahlberg]

Just don't understand what the "downside" is for Engstrom to pursue the appeal. If we get turned down, at least we tried and some people may actually think that RE supports athletics at the University. Can't believe he is that dense, though the fact is that he doesn't want to piss off the liberal faculty who were a large part of starting this mess.

Brint, thanks for your good work.

I think the downside would be throwing money and efforts away at an impossible cause.

Would I rather the UM spend $250,000 to probably just be told "no" and then deducts those expenses from the athletic budget or would I rather they earmarked that same $250,000 for athletic facilities expansions? At this point investing in the future seems better spent to me.

And no, I'm not saying that was suggested or those numbers were given, just kind of grabbing numbers and hypotheticals there.

 

[PlayerRep]

This entire issue is so emblematic of our culture these days. No one taking any responsibility or accountability.

Look, we f*cked up. Just be men about it, take your punishment and move the f*uck on.

Glad to see that you believe Engstrom et al goofed up by not properly and adequately defending the ncaa investigation, obtaining experienced and high-powered counsel at start of the process, and offering up generous sanctions that the ncaa accepted immediately.

 

[PlayerRep]

Just don't understand what the "downside" is for Engstrom to pursue the appeal. If we get turned down, at least we tried and some people may actually think that RE supports athletics at the University. Can't believe he is that dense, though the fact is that he doesn't want to piss off the liberal faculty who were a large part of starting this mess.

Brint, thanks for your good work.

I think the downside would be throwing money and efforts away at an impossible cause.

Would I rather the UM spend $250,000 to probably just be told "no" and then deducts those expenses from the athletic budget or would I rather they earmarked that same $250,000 for athletic facilities expansions? At this point investing in the future seems better spent to me.

And no, I'm not saying that was suggested or those numbers were given, just kind of grabbing numbers and hypotheticals there.

It probably wouldn't have cost $25,000 to seek reconsideration of the sanctions. Didn't counsel for the investigation cost about $100,000?

 

[PlayerRep]

The crime resulting in the loss off scollies was lack of institutional control. Its considered a big one. In fact its the only one that has the death penalty. To the NCAA, its only pure luck, worse didn't happen as the adminisration and sanctioned coach were so out of control, worse could have happened. Not mentioned is the charges are so serious JOD is or has considered action against the NCAA to restore his reputation.

What was the lack of institutional control that resulted in the 2 larger infractions? Just curious as to what you mean. What/who was out of control? Please don't tell us that you think it's a head coaches responsibility, or as opposed to the compliance office, to police how a player is bailed out or how his legal fees are provided.

 

[George Ferguson]

Brint and Chris Coyle did a great service to Griz Nation by taking a stand. But I'm with Brint in that IF, like Brint said, it is an impossible proposition to get the sanctions changed or dropped, there is really no reason to commit resources to it. I'm with most, I hate the sanctions that were proposed and I believe they turned out to be wayyyy too severe, and the current football program is paying an unfair price. I will never feel OK about that. But it is now nearly June, an almost full year has passed since the NCAA announced the sanctions and ended the investigation. A full season, one that was pretty damn fun and successful, has now come and gone. At least, for me, personally, as both a Griz fan/Alumn I'm putting that chapter to bed. What's done is done and apparently it can't be undone. If others want to go on fighting the cause, I will support them and more power to them. But, while I'll probably never be completely over it, it's now part of UM's past for me. I'm strictly looking forward to being in War Memorial Stadium for the Wyoming game at this point.

 

[BWahlberg]

Just don't understand what the "downside" is for Engstrom to pursue the appeal. If we get turned down, at least we tried and some people may actually think that RE supports athletics at the University. Can't believe he is that dense, though the fact is that he doesn't want to piss off the liberal faculty who were a large part of starting this mess.

Brint, thanks for your good work.

I think the downside would be throwing money and efforts away at an impossible cause.

Would I rather the UM spend $250,000 to probably just be told "no" and then deducts those expenses from the athletic budget or would I rather they earmarked that same $250,000 for athletic facilities expansions? At this point investing in the future seems better spent to me.

And no, I'm not saying that was suggested or those numbers were given, just kind of grabbing numbers and hypotheticals there.

It probably wouldn't have cost $25,000 to seek reconsideration of the sanctions. Didn't counsel for the investigation cost about $100,000?

Good point PR, you're correct I believe.

 

[EverettGriz]

This entire issue is so emblematic of our culture these days. No one taking any responsibility or accountability.

Look, we f*cked up. Just be men about it, take your punishment and move the f*uck on.

Glad to see that you believe Engstrom et al goofed up by not properly and adequately defending the ncaa investigation, obtaining experienced and high-powered counsel at start of the process, and offering up generous sanctions that the ncaa accepted immediately.

There were plenty of "goof ups" to go around. That's my point. I agree with Brint. At this point, why throw good money after bad. Put that money toward a weight room. Or softball unis.

It's over. It's done. Move the f*ck on.

 

[getgrizzy]

haslam's explanation about the scholarships is both misleading and insulting. we average less than 63 over the past few years because of attrition. we're prone to having the same amount of attrition now as then. since we're starting at 59 now instead of 63 we'll be down to 57 in years we were down to 61. in other words the penalty doesn't replace the attrition and we are down four schols. strange he would try to slip that past everyone b

 

[RayWill]

Engstrom just reminds me of the whole thing that happened at UNLV basketball in the 90's. The president publicly acted like he supported the athletics but then it turned out he was the one behind all kinds of leaked material to the media trying to undermine them. That guy thought he would make UNLV the "Harvard of the West" just like Engstrom thinks he will make MT. Glad to see he looked into it bu the should of hired counsel during the storm and fought for his school.

 

[Grizlaw]

What? It makes perfect sense. The scholarship reduction imposed of 2 per year would be meaningless if it was off a figure of 63, which UM doesn't use. We'd just go right on offering 61 scholarships like we always do. Not really much "punishment" there.

I understand the point he's making, but I think the logic is flawed. If the reason we usually only use 61 is because of "unforeseen issues" like kids quitting the team, then there's no reason to assume that those types of things won't still happen when we're only allowed to offer 59 schollies. So for the years we're penalized, we should assume that we'll offer 59, and we'll end up only using 57 or so due to "unforeseen issues."

 

[PlayerRep]

haslam's explanation about the scholarships is both misleading and insulting. we average less than 63 over the past few years because of attrition. we're prone to having the same amount of attrition now as then. since we're starting at 59 now instead of 63 we'll be down to 57 in years we were down to 61. in other words the penalty doesn't replace the attrition and we are down four schols. strange he would try to slip that past everyone b

Engstrom tried to make/spin this point initially; not Haslam.

 

[tnt]

The crime resulting in the loss off scollies was lack of institutional control. Its considered a big one. In fact its the only one that has the death penalty. To the NCAA, its only pure luck, worse didn't happen as the adminisration and sanctioned coach were so out of control, worse could have happened. Not mentioned is the charges are so serious JOD is or has considered action against the NCAA to restore his reputation.

What was the lack of institutional control that resulted in the 2 larger infractions? Just curious as to what you mean. What/who was out of control? Please don't tell us that you think it's a head coaches responsibility, or as opposed to the compliance office, to police how a player is bailed out or how his legal fees are provided.

It doesn't matter what I think. Pflugrad was sanctioned for it among other problems. It was failure to report on the coaches part. As I recall there were some pretty severe recruiting sanctions placed on "the coach" that followed him to Utah. Then there was the matter of two extra coaches...........

Of course it could be argued that it was JODs job to make sure the compliance office did its job and there were no extra coaches in the football dept. and this whole mess was his fault. Let it go PR. The NCAA said it was lack of Institutional Control.

 

[kemajic]

Honestly I am not surprised. This "shows" Engstrom took this matter seriously and he is taking others advice. Great, he has there opinion and is just going to go with there suggestion. Frankly I think if Engstrom truly saw merit in the info BW and the group supplied Engstrom would at least approach the NCAA about it. You can't be told yes or no if you don't ask! This case did not need to be presented to the NCAA in a confrontational manner. I would think if the information BW and group was supplied in an honest and thoughtful manner the NCAA would listen. I think there is a good chance they may have shortened or lifted the scholarship reduction. Shoot they did it for Penn State and what went on there was far worse than this. At this point we will never know what the NCAA might have said. Well done Mr. Engstrom.

Let's see how our national search goes for a B Ball coach. Can I make a predication? I predict it will be someone on staff! They know the challenges and ends and out of Grizzly athletics blah blah blah..

I think it shows that the white paper and other prodding by certain supporters caused Engstrom to take action. The supporters suggested that the law firm, and made the initial call.

I think it shows that Engstrom does not want to p!ss off the QB club and went through the motions. I also think he does not want schollie reduction reduced and has likely already reduced the AD budget accordingly so he can spend the money elsewhere.

If UM with 63 schollies manages to consume 59-61, who is stupid enough to believe with 59 schollies, they can deliver 59.0? As you stated, we live with a real 4 schollie reduction.

 

[PlayerRep]

The crime resulting in the loss off scollies was lack of institutional control. Its considered a big one. In fact its the only one that has the death penalty. To the NCAA, its only pure luck, worse didn't happen as the adminisration and sanctioned coach were so out of control, worse could have happened. Not mentioned is the charges are so serious JOD is or has considered action against the NCAA to restore his reputation.

What was the lack of institutional control that resulted in the 2 larger infractions? Just curious as to what you mean. What/who was out of control? Please don't tell us that you think it's a head coaches responsibility, or as opposed to the compliance office, to police how a player is bailed out or how his legal fees are provided.

It doesn't matter what I think. Pflugrad was sanctioned for it among other problems. It was failure to report on the coaches part. As I recall there were some pretty severe recruiting sanctions placed on "the coach" that followed him to Utah. Then there was the matter of two extra coaches...........

Of course it could be argued that it was JODs job to make sure the compliance office did its job and there were no extra coaches in the football dept. and this whole mess was his fault. Let it go PR. The NCAA said it was lack of Institutional Control.

I know what the ncaa said; I wanted to know what you thought. And no, I will not let this go, until you and others get the facts right and stop saying untruths.

Pflu got his sanctions because UM was throwing him under the bus. The report indicates that Pflu, the AD, and the compliance officer knew the circumstances of the bail. Note that the ncaa said to UM during the investigation that it's okay for a booster to loan funds to bail out a player, so long as the loan is paid back faster than 7 days, like in a day or two. The report indicates that Pflu knew the bail out person was a booster (think he told the ncaa, when asked, that he assumed she was, but he didn't know for sure), knew the law firm was a booster but didn't know whether the particular lawyer was or was not. The AD and compliance person probably knew these things better than Pflu, or could have figured them out (while the coach was coaching; recall this was during the season of a damn good season).

The student asst thing is almost laughable. A college kid, who was a student asst who helped with films and who never played college football, helped out with a few things. To characterize him as a coach is beyong stupid. Most of what he did was because they let him help out a bit; they didn't ask him to help with all the listed little things. One of the specific things listed in the report was that he supervised study table. Wow. None of the couples/boosters provided the meal stuff were even known by Pflu. Never met them; didn't know their names.

The failure to monitor charge against Pflu seems odd to me. Why is it a coach's responsiblity to monitor bail and legal representation? UM is now monitoring those things, but it's the compliance group, not the head coach, that is doing the monitoring--as it should be. The institution was also given a failure to monitor for the same two things, by the way. His recruiting sanction was the loss of first three weeks of the fall of off-campus recruiting and off-campus evaluations during the fall. Offensive coordinators don't normally do much off-campus recruiting or evaluation in the fall, because they are too busy coaching and preparing for games. Not much of sanction in my view.

In my view, the mess was caused more by the anonymous tipper (rumors are that it came from within the athletic dept), the Missoulian for some incorrect reporting, and the university for not hiring experienced legal counsel at the outset and not properly addressing the investigation. I'm sorry, but I just can't get very excited about a head coach's "failure" to monitor and know that the mom of a player needs to be repaid a few hundred of bail money sooner than 7 days, and monitor and know that a local lawyer and law firm apparently can't evaluate a contingency fee case on a normal basis and apparently have to exclude players from pro bono legal services that it provides generally to college students--all while coaching during the season. Maybe you think that is the crime of the century, but I don't.

 

[PlayerRep]

Honestly I am not surprised. This "shows" Engstrom took this matter seriously and he is taking others advice. Great, he has there opinion and is just going to go with there suggestion. Frankly I think if Engstrom truly saw merit in the info BW and the group supplied Engstrom would at least approach the NCAA about it. You can't be told yes or no if you don't ask! This case did not need to be presented to the NCAA in a confrontational manner. I would think if the information BW and group was supplied in an honest and thoughtful manner the NCAA would listen. I think there is a good chance they may have shortened or lifted the scholarship reduction. Shoot they did it for Penn State and what went on there was far worse than this. At this point we will never know what the NCAA might have said. Well done Mr. Engstrom.

Let's see how our national search goes for a B Ball coach. Can I make a predication? I predict it will be someone on staff! They know the challenges and ends and out of Grizzly athletics blah blah blah..

I think it shows that the white paper and other prodding by certain supporters caused Engstrom to take action. The supporters suggested that the law firm, and made the initial call.

I think it shows that Engstrom does not want to p!ss off the QB club and went through the motions. I also think he does not want schollie reduction reduced and has likely already reduced the AD budget accordingly so he can spend the money elsewhere.

If UM with 63 schollies manages to consume 59-61, who is stupid enough to believe with 59 schollies, they can deliver 59.0? As you stated, we live with a real 4 schollie reduction.

Agreed.

 

[tnt]

The crime resulting in the loss off scollies was lack of institutional control. Its considered a big one. In fact its the only one that has the death penalty. To the NCAA, its only pure luck, worse didn't happen as the adminisration and sanctioned coach were so out of control, worse could have happened. Not mentioned is the charges are so serious JOD is or has considered action against the NCAA to restore his reputation.

What was the lack of institutional control that resulted in the 2 larger infractions? Just curious as to what you mean. What/who was out of control? Please don't tell us that you think it's a head coaches responsibility, or as opposed to the compliance office, to police how a player is bailed out or how his legal fees are provided.

It doesn't matter what I think. Pflugrad was sanctioned for it among other problems. It was failure to report on the coaches part. As I recall there were some pretty severe recruiting sanctions placed on "the coach" that followed him to Utah. Then there was the matter of two extra coaches...........

Of course it could be argued that it was JODs job to make sure the compliance office did its job and there were no extra coaches in the football dept. and this whole mess was his fault. Let it go PR. The NCAA said it was lack of Institutional Control.

I know what the ncaa said; I wanted to know what you thought. And no, I will not let this go, until you and others get the facts right and stop saying untruths.

Pflu got his sanctions because UM was throwing him under the bus. The report indicates that Pflu, the AD, and the compliance officer knew the circumstances of the bail. Note that the ncaa said to UM during the investigation that it's okay for a booster to loan funds to bail out a player, so long as the loan is paid back faster than 7 days, like in a day or two. The report indicates that Pflu knew the bail out person was a booster (think he told the ncaa, when asked, that he assumed she was, but he didn't know for sure), knew the law firm was a booster but didn't know whether the particular lawyer was or was not. The AD and compliance person probably knew these things better than Pflu, or could have figured them out (while the coach was coaching; recall this was during the season of a damn good season).

The student asst thing is almost laughable. A college kid, who was a student asst who helped with films and who never played college football, helped out with a few things. To characterize him as a coach is beyong stupid. Most of what he did was because they let him help out a bit; they didn't ask him to help with all the listed little things. One of the specific things listed in the report was that he supervised study table. Wow. None of the couples/boosters provided the meal stuff were even known by Pflu. Never met them; didn't know their names.

The failure to monitor charge against Pflu seems odd to me. Why is it a coach's responsiblity to monitor bail and legal representation? UM is now monitoring those things, but it's the compliance group, not the head coach, that is doing the monitoring--as it should be. The institution was also given a failure to monitor for the same two things, by the way. His recruiting sanction was the loss of first three weeks of the fall of off-campus recruiting and off-campus evaluations during the fall. Offensive coordinators don't normally do much off-campus recruiting or evaluation in the fall, because they are too busy coaching and preparing for games. Not much of sanction in my view.

In my view, the mess was caused more by the anonymous tipper (rumors are that it came from within the athletic dept), the Missoulian for some incorrect reporting, and the university for not hiring experienced legal counsel at the outset and not properly addressing the investigation. I'm sorry, but I just can't get very excited about a head coach's "failure" to monitor and know that the mom of a player needs to be repaid a few hundred of bail money sooner than 7 days, and monitor and know that a local lawyer and law firm apparently can't evaluate a contingency fee case on a normal basis and apparently have to exclude players from pro bono legal services that it provides generally to college students--all while coaching during the season. Maybe you think that is the crime of the century, but I don't.

I don't anyone has ever explained and given more examples of "lack of institutional control" ever Except you left out Jim Foleys recurring role. You did point out that at least one person the anonymous tipper or tippers knew something should have been reported. (which of course was one of the other charges) It really doesn't matter who should have been monitoring and reporting, just that they did. Apparently the NCAA felt the same way. The athletic department was on autopilot in far too many areas. As you pointed out, they are not now.

 

[UMGriz75]

Good point. IMO RE has shown a total lack of judgement throughout this ordeal. I really don't think that RE felt that firing Pflu and O'Day and attempting to expel JJ were huge deals ether. He really seems to not have his finger on the pulse of "reality" here. Horrible leader and decision maker.

He thought he would be a "hero" for showing decisive politically correct leadership and "showing the athletic community who'se boss." It was designed to appeal to a particular constituency. It was political posturing, pure and simple, at the cost and sacrifice of reputations and good people.

 

[UMGriz75]

haslam's explanation about the scholarships is both misleading and insulting. we average less than 63 over the past few years because of attrition. we're prone to having the same amount of attrition now as then. since we're starting at 59 now instead of 63 we'll be down to 57 in years we were down to 61. in other words the penalty doesn't replace the attrition and we are down four schols. strange he would try to slip that past everyone b

Engstrom tried to make/spin this point initially; not Haslam.

Engstrom has a PhD in chemistry; he is familiar with statistical methods. The idea that attrition lowered the average number of scholarships in the past, but then pretend that attrition would not continue to operate with the reduced scholarships is not just insulting; it was intentionally insulting.

 

[zengriz]

...he destroyed two good men...
...in the prime of thier careerz...
...biggest knee jerk reaction ever...

... :x ...

 

[cclarkblues]

Good point. IMO RE has shown a total lack of judgement throughout this ordeal. I really don't think that RE felt that firing Pflu and O'Day and attempting to expel JJ were huge deals ether. He really seems to not have his finger on the pulse of "reality" here. Horrible leader and decision maker.

He thought he would be a "hero" for showing decisive politically correct leadership and "showing the athletic community who'se boss." It was designed to appeal to a particular constituency. It was political posturing, pure and simple, at the cost and sacrifice of reputations and good people.

This nails it.