Pflu and O'Day's Input on NCAA Findings

[EverettGriz]

Oh for sure you will go deep

Think you posted on the wrong site. You might want to go back to your other open tab for those who enjoy this kind of activity....

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Regardless of how you feel about their firings, now is the time for both Pflugrad and O'Day to say...nothing.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

Make no mistake, Pflu and ODay were not fired solely because of the NCAA investigations. But to suggest it didn't play any role is crazy. There was a LOT of bad shit happening with the program at that point (hell, I was yelling "Fire his ass!!" more than once when waking up seemingly daily to more bad news). But I assure you that by the time Engstrom pulled the trigger he knew enough about what the NCAA was looking into to consider it in his decision.

In retrospect, he clearly made the correct decision. If Pflu were still with the program, the penalties would have been far more severe. Say what you will, but the decision was the right one at the right time. And it took big balls to make it. I'd say Engstrom has handled the shit storms at UM well. Has he been perfect? Nope. But he's guided the U well through what could have been a disastrous period. Now, though, we're done with all of it and moving forward to a deep playoff run.

The NCAA things were not the reason they were fired. The NCAA investigation was barely started prior to the firings. These matters were not considered to be significant for months after the two were fired. The University didn't even hire NCAA experienced legal counsel for 6 months--a good indication that the University didn't consider the matter to be serious or very servious. Jim O'Day was quoted recently confirming that the NCAA things were not what caused the firings. Had the athletic director and coach still been employed at Montana, the investigation would have been handled and defended differently and better, and would have ended with a better result, is what I think.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

Both men make good points, especially in regards to the use of the word "booster" to describe a parent. I've never known Pflu and am really only an acquaintance to O'Day, but I do know that they are empathetic people who really cared about their players. That might have caused some of these "infractions", but you'll have a hard time making the argument to me that they purposely broke the rules. You can't control what boosters are going to do and you can't babysit players 24/7. 18-22 year olds are going to make mistakes, at times very selfish and harmful ones, regardless of who is in charge or how disciplined the program is.

The one thing we've learned is that their needs to be new or improved policies and procedures in our AD when it comes to reporting compliance issues and communicating potential compliance issues. When BSU had their NCAA penalty, they hired 3 additional compliance attorneys to the University Staff. I'm not sure UM does anything similar, but the NCAA findings did prove that we need improvement in that area and better communication of the rules to players, coaches, and boosters.

Maybe you should read the report, the NCAA detailed out that "representative 2" was a booster before her son was a student athlete and that the she had that relationship with the grandfather of student athlete 1 before her son was a student athlete, therefore the relationship was as a booster to family member of a student athlete rather than family member to family member

That is correct. However, many people believe that parents should be excepted from the booster rules, at least for minor and normal human interaction. The parent was acting as a parent and friend of the other player's family, not as a booster. Is there any school in the country where the parents of local players, whose parents are probably boosters, don't invite their kids' friends to dinner (sometimes at restaurants) or to their cabins for weekends? Parents should not be considered boosters for minor and normal "benefits" like this.

 

[EverettGriz]

Evidently you didn't read the post. I didn't say they were fired because of the investigation. I said you're silly if you don't believe the on-going investigation played a role. O'Day knows it did. Pflu knows it did. If that were the only issue, would they have been fired? Almost certainly not. But unfortunately, it wasn't the only issue. It was, however, an issue. To ignore that is ridiculous.

Jim O'Day was quoted recently confirming that the NCAA things were not what caused the firings.

I have nothing but respect for JOD, and consider him a very good friend. But all along he's contended that he was never told why he was fired. If that's the case, how can he definitively say that the NCAA investigation wasn't a consideration in the decision?

 

[Cats2506]

Evidently you didn't read the post. I didn't say they were fired because of the investigation. I said you're silly if you don't believe the on-going investigation played a role. O'Day knows it did. Pflu knows it did. If that were the only issue, would they have been fired? Almost certainly not. But unfortunately, it wasn't the only issue. It was, however, an issue. To ignore that is ridiculous.

Jim O'Day was quoted recently confirming that the NCAA things were not what caused the firings.

I have nothing but respect for JOD, and consider him a very good friend. But all along he's contended that he was never told why he was fired. If that's the case, how can he definitively say that the NCAA investigation wasn't a consideration in the decision?

The only reason eve given for nor rehiring these 2 clowns was that the administration wanted a "change in direction"

 

[Spanky]

2506....time for you to spend more time on the state college board. Your comments aren't appreciated, especially, coming from a fan of an inferior football program going back many, many years. We understand that you have enjoyed our troubles the last couple of years, but now that the smoke is beginning to clear, the Griz are about to return your team to the accustomed position of loser.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

Evidently you didn't read the post. I didn't say they were fired because of the investigation. I said you're silly if you don't believe the on-going investigation played a role. O'Day knows it did. Pflu knows it did. If that were the only issue, would they have been fired? Almost certainly not. But unfortunately, it wasn't the only issue. It was, however, an issue. To ignore that is ridiculous.

Jim O'Day was quoted recently confirming that the NCAA things were not what caused the firings.

I have nothing but respect for JOD, and consider him a very good friend. But all along he's contended that he was never told why he was fired. If that's the case, how can he definitively say that the NCAA investigation wasn't a consideration in the decision?

Because the NCAA investigation hadn't progressed very far before he was fired, is what he said. Also, perhaps his attorneys have seen emails that were sent at the time of the firings. From his quotes, it looks like he's consulted attorneys. Why would he say the NCAA investigation wasn't a factor in the firings, if that wasn't the case? I assume if you respect him as you said you said you're not saying he's lying. How can he said this "definitely", I don't know. However, he obviously knows more about the situation than either one of us. Do you have any basis, other than speculation, for saying the NCAA investigation must have been part of the reason?

 

[Cats2506]

2506....time for you to spend more time on the state college board. Your comments aren't appreciated, especially, coming from a fan of an inferior football program going back many, many years. We understand that you have enjoyed our troubles the last couple of years, but now that the smoke is beginning to clear, the Griz are about to return your team to the accustomed position of loser.

oh, good one, :roll:

I guess you would rather keep your head in the sand rather than hear truth.

 

[firmgriz]

2506, all you do is stir the pot with your idiotic comments that you try to spin as substantive input. You are about as helpful as a second a-hole, but you smell worse. And how big of a loser are you to spend this much of your life on an opposing team's message board? You exemplify the message board troll.

 

[EverettGriz]

I assume if you respect him as you said you said you're not saying he's lying. How can he said this "definitely", I don't know. However, he obviously knows more about the situation than either one of us. Do you have any basis, other than speculation, for saying the NCAA investigation must have been part of the reason?

No, I don't believe Jim is lying. But I think he's hedging his bets in case he decides to take legal action against UM. Obviously the findings of the investigation don't help him in that event, so it only makes sense to try to disassociate the reasons for the termination from those results. I don't begrudge him that; in fact, I'd likely do the same.

As for proof, no I don't have any, of course. However, by that same token, I wouldn't call my thinking "speculation". I'd call it common sense. Let's change the scenario slightly to better make my point:

Let's assume you're the president of a large bank. One of the bank's divisions is struggling. While it's still a profitable division, it has had a number of publicity issues (some warranted, some unwarranted), and is being viewed negatively in the public eye. You've been considering terminating the manager of that division, realizing that a change may be necessary if for no other reason than to change the public's perception of the bank. As you are considering that move, the Feds show up in your office and announce they are beginning an investigation into the activities of that very division, stating it likely violated federal banking regulations.

Now, given that scenario would anyone honestly say that the bank president wouldn't take that investigation into consideration when deciding whether or not to retain the division manager? I simply cannot imagine a scenario where that would be the case, and I think the same think applies with Engstrom, ODay and Pflu here.

 

[Hammer]

2506, all you do is stir the pot with your idiotic comments that you try to spin as substantive input. You are about as helpful as a second a-hole, but you smell worse. And how big of a loser are you to spend this much of your life on an opposing team's message board? You exemplify the message board troll.

What else is there to do when you are the biggest tool in Lewistown? Nobody will hang out with the douchenozzle. Even the other cat fans that post on this board say he is a total douche.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

I assume if you respect him as you said you said you're not saying he's lying. How can he said this "definitely", I don't know. However, he obviously knows more about the situation than either one of us. Do you have any basis, other than speculation, for saying the NCAA investigation must have been part of the reason?

No, I don't believe Jim is lying. But I think he's hedging his bets in case he decides to take legal action against UM. Obviously the findings of the investigation don't help him in that event, so it only makes sense to try to disassociate the reasons for the termination from those results. I don't begrudge him that; in fact, I'd likely do the same.

As for proof, no I don't have any, of course. However, by that same token, I wouldn't call my thinking "speculation". I'd call it common sense. Let's change the scenario slightly to better make my point:

Let's assume you're the president of a large bank. One of the bank's divisions is struggling. While it's still a profitable division, it has had a number of publicity issues (some warranted, some unwarranted), and is being viewed negatively in the public eye. You've been considering terminating the manager of that division, realizing that a change may be necessary if for no other reason than to change the public's perception of the bank. As you are considering that move, the Feds show up in your office and announce they are beginning an investigation into the activities of that very division, stating it likely violated federal banking regulations.

Now, given that scenario would anyone honestly say that the bank president wouldn't take that investigation into consideration when deciding whether or not to retain the division manager? I simply cannot imagine a scenario where that would be the case, and I think the same think applies with Engstrom, ODay and Pflu here.

Jim O'Day came out fairly well in the report, and wasn't singled out like several others. If banks fired managers every time the bank regulators made an inquiry or sent a letter, banks would not have any managers. The NCAA also makes frequent inquiries of schools. The NCAA inquired initially about the legal fees/bail in the taser matter. It doesn't look like O'Day had much of a role in that or any dirty laundry. At that early point of the investigation, it doesn't appear that O'Day was being looked at. When has any athletic director ever been fired at the outset of an NCAA investigation?

 

[NorthwestFresh]

I assume if you respect him as you said you said you're not saying he's lying. How can he said this "definitely", I don't know. However, he obviously knows more about the situation than either one of us. Do you have any basis, other than speculation, for saying the NCAA investigation must have been part of the reason?

No, I don't believe Jim is lying. But I think he's hedging his bets in case he decides to take legal action against UM. Obviously the findings of the investigation don't help him in that event, so it only makes sense to try to disassociate the reasons for the termination from those results. I don't begrudge him that; in fact, I'd likely do the same.

As for proof, no I don't have any, of course. However, by that same token, I wouldn't call my thinking "speculation". I'd call it common sense. Let's change the scenario slightly to better make my point:

Let's assume you're the president of a large bank. One of the bank's divisions is struggling. While it's still a profitable division, it has had a number of publicity issues (some warranted, some unwarranted), and is being viewed negatively in the public eye. You've been considering terminating the manager of that division, realizing that a change may be necessary if for no other reason than to change the public's perception of the bank. As you are considering that move, the Feds show up in your office and announce they are beginning an investigation into the activities of that very division, stating it likely violated federal banking regulations.

Now, given that scenario would anyone honestly say that the bank president wouldn't take that investigation into consideration when deciding whether or not to retain the division manager? I simply cannot imagine a scenario where that would be the case, and I think the same think applies with Engstrom, ODay and Pflu here.

I thought JOD was one of your good friends? We both know that's a joke. :roll:

 

[EverettGriz]

I assume if you respect him as you said you said you're not saying he's lying. How can he said this "definitely", I don't know. However, he obviously knows more about the situation than either one of us. Do you have any basis, other than speculation, for saying the NCAA investigation must have been part of the reason?

No, I don't believe Jim is lying. But I think he's hedging his bets in case he decides to take legal action against UM. Obviously the findings of the investigation don't help him in that event, so it only makes sense to try to disassociate the reasons for the termination from those results. I don't begrudge him that; in fact, I'd likely do the same.

As for proof, no I don't have any, of course. However, by that same token, I wouldn't call my thinking "speculation". I'd call it common sense. Let's change the scenario slightly to better make my point:

Let's assume you're the president of a large bank. One of the bank's divisions is struggling. While it's still a profitable division, it has had a number of publicity issues (some warranted, some unwarranted), and is being viewed negatively in the public eye. You've been considering terminating the manager of that division, realizing that a change may be necessary if for no other reason than to change the public's perception of the bank. As you are considering that move, the Feds show up in your office and announce they are beginning an investigation into the activities of that very division, stating it likely violated federal banking regulations.

Now, given that scenario would anyone honestly say that the bank president wouldn't take that investigation into consideration when deciding whether or not to retain the division manager? I simply cannot imagine a scenario where that would be the case, and I think the same think applies with Engstrom, ODay and Pflu here.

I thought JOD was one of your good friends? We both know that's a joke. :roll:

F*ck you. Jim is a friend of mine. And I know the pain he's feeling. So if you want to take it up with me, PM me. Asshole.

 

[EverettGriz]

If banks fired managers every time the bank regulators made an inquiry or sent a letter, banks would not have any managers

Agreed. But it wasn't JUST the investigation. As I've been attempting to point out, it was only one of the issues involved. I just think it's extremely unlikely that it played no role in Engstrom's decision.

 

[poorgriz]

2506....time for you to spend more time on the state college board. Your comments aren't appreciated, especially, coming from a fan of an inferior football program going back many, many years. We understand that you have enjoyed our troubles the last couple of years, but now that the smoke is beginning to clear, the Griz are about to return your team to the accustomed position of loser.

Geez... many of you guys are starting to sound like a broken record. In fact, you're starting to sound kind of like what us Cat fans sounded like throughout "The Streak"... when the ONLY game that mattered was having a crack at you guys to try to end the streak. Now of course, it's just another game on the schedule, albeit a huge one, but just a stepping stone towards higher goals (Please spare the "But you can't win in the playoffs" talk).

So my point being... all I keep hearing now is that, you have your star QB back and he's worth like 5 or 6 games, so there should be no reason why you don't go 11-1 next season. The NCAA distractions are now gone, so no excuses... and Cat\griz should play out almost exactly like it did in 2011, rather than 2010 or 2012.

Don't forget that they still need to play the games and see what happens. :roll:

 

[AZGrizFan]

2506....time for you to spend more time on the state college board. Your comments aren't appreciated, especially, coming from a fan of an inferior football program going back many, many years. We understand that you have enjoyed our troubles the last couple of years, but now that the smoke is beginning to clear, the Griz are about to return your team to the accustomed position of loser.

Geez... many of you guys are starting to sound like a broken record. In fact, you're starting to sound kind of like what us Cat fans sounded like throughout "The Streak"... when the ONLY game that mattered was having a crack at you guys to try to end the streak. Now of course, it's just another game on the schedule, albeit a huge one, but just a stepping stone towards higher goals (Please spare the "But you can't win in the playoffs" talk).

So my point being... all I keep hearing now is that, you have your star QB back and he's worth like 5 or 6 games, so there should be no reason why you don't go 11-1 next season. The NCAA distractions are now gone, so no excuses... and Cat\griz should play out almost exactly like it did in 2011, rather than 2010 or 2012.

Don't forget that they still need to play the games and see what happens. :roll:

Like Haley's Comet, every once in a while the 'scats find a capable QB and win a few games against the Griz and suddently ya'll are world beaters.

Or maybe not. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[griz8791]

Did any of the sanctions against EWU follow Wulff to Washington State the way some of these have followed Pflugrad to Weber? I remember thinking at the time that it wasn't fair for Wulff not to get tarred with any of the consequences of violations that had occurred on his watch, but maybe he was and I just wasn't paying close enough attention.

 

[Cats2506]

Did any of the sanctions against EWU follow Wulff to Washington State the way some of these have followed Pflugrad to Weber? I remember thinking at the time that it wasn't fair for Wulff not to get tarred with any of the consequences of violations that had occurred on his watch, but maybe he was and I just wasn't paying close enough attention.

I don't think so, the NCAA just instituted the idea of having penalties follow coaches a few years ago. Its a good rule though, when coaches cheat they cant just run to another team anymore, unless they run to the NFL like Kelly and Carroll