Pflu and O'Day's Input on NCAA Findings

[Grizbeer]

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.

WSU coach Paul Wulff, who headed Eastern's program during the 2003-07 period when the violations occurred, is forbidden to have contact with his team for the first three days of workouts next fall and must attend regional NCAA rules seminars for three years.

http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/2008733537_eastern12.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Griz2k]

I'm unclear of the details so someone please help me out, were Jim and Robin actually terminated prior to their contracts expiring or were their contracts just not renewed. I know the whole thing was a cluster but I wasn't sure of the timing of things. I ask only because I'm curious as to what legal grounds either would have against UM if their contracts were just "not renewed".

 

[grizpack]

Interestingly, JJ's eligibility will run out in January, 2015. A couple months short of a 3 year statute of limitations would run for JJ, ODay, Pflugrad, Foley..... (March 29). I bet we hear quite a bit more about it around then.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

I'm unclear of the details so someone please help me out, were Jim and Robin actually terminated prior to their contracts expiring or were their contracts just not renewed. I know the whole thing was a cluster but I wasn't sure of the timing of things. I ask only because I'm curious as to what legal grounds either would have against UM if their contracts were just "not renewed".

They were terminated. That's why they were no longer the AD and head coach, and had to vacate their offices. If a contract is merely not renewed, the employee would continue to have his job under the end of the contract. A contract is not just payment of money/benefits. The employee is entitled to his/her job.

 

[Grizbacker1]

News Flash 2506 is RE

 

[EverettGriz]

I'm unclear of the details so someone please help me out, were Jim and Robin actually terminated prior to their contracts expiring or were their contracts just not renewed. I know the whole thing was a cluster but I wasn't sure of the timing of things. I ask only because I'm curious as to what legal grounds either would have against UM if their contracts were just "not renewed".

They were terminated. That's why they were no longer the AD and head coach, and had to vacate their offices. If a contract is merely not renewed, the employee would continue to have his job under the end of the contract. A contract is not just payment of money/benefits. The employee is entitled to his/her job.

Well, officially their contracts were not renewed. Since the contractual date had passed to notify them of nonrenewal, they were paid for a year. I'm not an expert on State of Montana employment contracts, but I would be very surprised if any of them convey rights to a particular job or duties. Essentially yes, they were both removed from their positions, but they were not "terminated", in the accurate use of the term. Not that it really matters because we're just splitting hairs.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

I'm unclear of the details so someone please help me out, were Jim and Robin actually terminated prior to their contracts expiring or were their contracts just not renewed. I know the whole thing was a cluster but I wasn't sure of the timing of things. I ask only because I'm curious as to what legal grounds either would have against UM if their contracts were just "not renewed".

They were terminated. That's why they were no longer the AD and head coach, and had to vacate their offices. If a contract is merely not renewed, the employee would continue to have his job under the end of the contract. A contract is not just payment of money/benefits. The employee is entitled to his/her job.

Well, officially their contracts were not renewed. Since the contractual date had passed to notify them of nonrenewal, they were paid for a year. I'm not an expert on State of Montana employment contracts, but I would be very surprised if any of them convey rights to a particular job or duties. Essentially yes, they were both removed from their positions, but they were not "terminated", in the accurate use of the term. Not that it really matters because we're just splitting hairs.

I think of myself as an expert on Montana employment agreement law (HR consultant with access to good employment lawyers, so maybe they are the real experts). These guys were terminated. Removing someone from from their duties is termination. An employment agreement gives the employee a right to a particular job which is specified in the contract, subject to certain specified rights to terminate the employee prior to the end of the term. Montana's contracts say that an employee can be terminated without cause, by paying the employee through the end of the contract period. A Montana Supreme Court case may have impacted the validity of that provision, but the university contracts have not yet been challenged to my knowledge. The case essentially said that contracts that could be terminated ahead of their term by one party, would make the contract subject to Montana's statute requiring termination only for cause (that's a shortcut way of describing what the statute says).

What you said about notice is not quite right, except that it is true that O'Day's contract ran for a full extra year, from June 30 to June 30 I believe, because his seniority required notice of non-renewal 5 months before the contract would have expired.

If O'Day ever brings a claim (and I have no idea if he will), it's likely that the validity of the termination-not-for-cause provision will be challenged. If successful, then the university would have to show that they terminated him for cause, and explain and prove what the cause was.

 

[zengriz]

...they had no cause...
...royce panicked over johnson...
...the ncaa findingz are total bullsiht...

... ...

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I think of myself as an expert on Montana employment agreement law (HR consultant with access to good employment lawyers, so maybe they are the real experts). These guys were terminated. Removing someone from from their duties is termination. An employment agreement gives the employee a right to a particular job which is specified in the contract, subject to certain specified rights to terminate the employee prior to the end of the term. Montana's contracts say that an employee can be terminated without cause, by paying the employee through the end of the contract period. A Montana Supreme Court case may have impacted the validity of that provision, but the university contracts have not yet been challenged to my knowledge. The case essentially said that contracts that could be terminated ahead of their term by one party, would make the contract subject to Montana's statute requiring termination only for cause (that's a shortcut way of describing what the statute says).

What you said about notice is not quite right, except that it is true that O'Day's contract ran for a full extra year, from June 30 to June 30 I believe, because his seniority required notice of non-renewal 5 months before the contract would have expired.

If O'Day ever brings a claim (and I have no idea if he will), it's likely that the validity of the termination-not-for-cause provision will be challenged. If successful, then the university would have to show that they terminated him for cause, and explain and prove what the cause was.

And what would the damages be if UM lost such a suit? Only that which was required by the contract. So maybe O'Day could pretend to be AD for the period of time for which he received salary and benefits but did not perform AD work. You see the absurdity in such a proposition?

 

[Griz2k]

I'm unclear of the details so someone please help me out, were Jim and Robin actually terminated prior to their contracts expiring or were their contracts just not renewed. I know the whole thing was a cluster but I wasn't sure of the timing of things. I ask only because I'm curious as to what legal grounds either would have against UM if their contracts were just "not renewed".

They were terminated. That's why they were no longer the AD and head coach, and had to vacate their offices. If a contract is merely not renewed, the employee would continue to have his job under the end of the contract. A contract is not just payment of money/benefits. The employee is entitled to his/her job.

Well, officially their contracts were not renewed. Since the contractual date had passed to notify them of nonrenewal, they were paid for a year. I'm not an expert on State of Montana employment contracts, but I would be very surprised if any of them convey rights to a particular job or duties. Essentially yes, they were both removed from their positions, but they were not "terminated", in the accurate use of the term. Not that it really matters because we're just splitting hairs.

I think of myself as an expert on Montana employment agreement law (HR consultant with access to good employment lawyers, so maybe they are the real experts). These guys were terminated. Removing someone from from their duties is termination. An employment agreement gives the employee a right to a particular job which is specified in the contract, subject to certain specified rights to terminate the employee prior to the end of the term. Montana's contracts say that an employee can be terminated without cause, by paying the employee through the end of the contract period. A Montana Supreme Court case may have impacted the validity of that provision, but the university contracts have not yet been challenged to my knowledge. The case essentially said that contracts that could be terminated ahead of their term by one party, would make the contract subject to Montana's statute requiring termination only for cause (that's a shortcut way of describing what the statute says).

What you said about notice is not quite right, except that it is true that O'Day's contract ran for a full extra year, from June 30 to June 30 I believe, because his seniority required notice of non-renewal 5 months before the contract would have expired.

If O'Day ever brings a claim (and I have no idea if he will), it's likely that the validity of the termination-not-for-cause provision will be challenged. If successful, then the university would have to show that they terminated him for cause, and explain and prove what the cause was.

Looks like you and I have the same background. I've never had to deal with personal employment contracts though. The fact that they were paid through the end of their contract terms makes me wonder if the could use the Wrongful Termination Act as a basis for a lawsuit even if they were removed from their "official" duties. I have to assume RE consulted an attorney before acting.....but with him you never know. You have an interesting take. I'm interested to see what plays out. Check your pm.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

They were terminated. That's why they were no longer the AD and head coach, and had to vacate their offices. If a contract is merely not renewed, the employee would continue to have his job under the end of the contract. A contract is not just payment of money/benefits. The employee is entitled to his/her job.

Well, officially their contracts were not renewed. Since the contractual date had passed to notify them of nonrenewal, they were paid for a year. I'm not an expert on State of Montana employment contracts, but I would be very surprised if any of them convey rights to a particular job or duties. Essentially yes, they were both removed from their positions, but they were not "terminated", in the accurate use of the term. Not that it really matters because we're just splitting hairs.

I think of myself as an expert on Montana employment agreement law (HR consultant with access to good employment lawyers, so maybe they are the real experts). These guys were terminated. Removing someone from from their duties is termination. An employment agreement gives the employee a right to a particular job which is specified in the contract, subject to certain specified rights to terminate the employee prior to the end of the term. Montana's contracts say that an employee can be terminated without cause, by paying the employee through the end of the contract period. A Montana Supreme Court case may have impacted the validity of that provision, but the university contracts have not yet been challenged to my knowledge. The case essentially said that contracts that could be terminated ahead of their term by one party, would make the contract subject to Montana's statute requiring termination only for cause (that's a shortcut way of describing what the statute says).

What you said about notice is not quite right, except that it is true that O'Day's contract ran for a full extra year, from June 30 to June 30 I believe, because his seniority required notice of non-renewal 5 months before the contract would have expired.

If O'Day ever brings a claim (and I have no idea if he will), it's likely that the validity of the termination-not-for-cause provision will be challenged. If successful, then the university would have to show that they terminated him for cause, and explain and prove what the cause was.

Looks like you and I have the same background. I've never had to deal with personal employment contracts though. The fact that they were paid through the end of their contract terms makes me wonder if the could use the Wrongful Termination Act as a basis for a lawsuit even if they were removed from their "official" duties. I have to assume RE consulted an attorney before acting.....but with him you never know. You have an interesting take. I'm interested to see what plays out. Check your pm.

The case said something like this. If the contract allows the employer to terminate before the end of its term (even with a buyout payment), then the contract is not a contract within the meaning of the Montana employment statute that allows a written employment contract with a term not to be subject to the termination for cause requirements of the MT employment act. Thus, the employment situation would still require that the employee be terminated for cause. As you probably know, violation of the for-cause and other termination provisions allows the employee the opportunity to recover up to 3 (or is it 4) times his annual salary plus punitive damages in certain situations. This should answer a question that another poster up above asked. I'd be happy to talk to an employment attorney, if you want something more specific. This is pretty much right, though, unless the case has been modified in a later case or something like that.

 

[Phat Cat]

I dont this the ncaa investigation played much of a role in the firings. It was 90% caused by the jordan johnson pr nightmare.

Engstrom lucked out that the ncaa leveled a penalty to vindicate his actions.

Correct; they were fired because of pressure regarding presumed sexual assaults (to include accusations of gang rape and Donaldson. It was not just JJ, but Pflu stuck his foot in his mouth regarding JJ, which fired up pressure from the media, the female faculty and dipsh*ts like Pat Williams. Nothing to do with the NCAA investigations.

This just in: RE does not respond well to pressure.

You sir have hit the nail on the head. If Pful say's nothing to the press other than, " The team is happy to have JJ back on the field and back with the team." Both Robbin and Jim still have their jobs. After 18 months, this is the best the ncaa can come up with? Pretty chicken shit if you ask me.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

I dont this the ncaa investigation played much of a role in the firings. It was 90% caused by the jordan johnson pr nightmare.

Engstrom lucked out that the ncaa leveled a penalty to vindicate his actions.

Correct; they were fired because of pressure regarding presumed sexual assaults (to include accusations of gang rape and Donaldson. It was not just JJ, but Pflu stuck his foot in his mouth regarding JJ, which fired up pressure from the media, the female faculty and dipsh*ts like Pat Williams. Nothing to do with the NCAA investigations.

This just in: RE does not respond well to pressure.

You sir have hit the nail on the head. If Pful say's nothing to the press other than, " The team is happy to have JJ back on the field and back with the team." Both Robbin and Jim still have their jobs. After 18 months, this is the best the ncaa can come up with? Pretty chicken shit if you ask me.

Not at all true, but go with it if it makes you feel better.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I dont this the ncaa investigation played much of a role in the firings. It was 90% caused by the jordan johnson pr nightmare.

Engstrom lucked out that the ncaa leveled a penalty to vindicate his actions.

Correct; they were fired because of pressure regarding presumed sexual assaults (to include accusations of gang rape and Donaldson. It was not just JJ, but Pflu stuck his foot in his mouth regarding JJ, which fired up pressure from the media, the female faculty and dipsh*ts like Pat Williams. Nothing to do with the NCAA investigations.

This just in: RE does not respond well to pressure.

You sir have hit the nail on the head. If Pful say's nothing to the press other than, " The team is happy to have JJ back on the field and back with the team." Both Robbin and Jim still have their jobs. After 18 months, this is the best the ncaa can come up with? Pretty chicken shit if you ask me.

Not at all true, but go with it if it makes you feel better.

It is an opinion, how is it true or false? Please enlighten us what the truth is?

 

[Griz-O-Matic]

Here's how I see it....

http://missoulian.com/news/local/ex...cle_fee3cea0-f669-11e2-b2f1-0019bb2963f4.html
Former UM head football coach Robin Pflugrad and ex-athletic director Jim O’Day spoke on their own behalf.

THANK GOD THEY WERN'T SPEAKING ON MY BEHALF.....

According to the NCAA report detailing infractions from 2011, Pflugrad failed to adequately monitor the football program, allowing boosters to provide extra benefits to players, including bail money and legal representation.

YOU'RE THE FUCING HEAD COACH, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTSND WHAT A "BOOSTER" IS......

Currently the offensive coordinator for Weber State, Pflugrad has been suspended from his coaching duties for the first game of the 2013 campaign. He has also been leveled with recruiting restrictions for the upcoming season.

Pflugrad’s contention is that the NCAA was “extremely technical” in its Montana investigation. Specifically, he takes issue with the word “booster” in one specific instance.

In its report, the NCAA determined that a “booster” – the mother of another Griz player who resides in Missoula – bailed Gerald Kemp and Trumaine Johnson out of jail after their arrest on Oct. 23, 2011. She paid $130 for one player and $190 for the other.

Kemp’s grandfather, who lives out of state, later reimbursed the mother with a personal check for the total amount of the bail. However, under NCAA rules, he waited too long to do so, and Pflugrad failed to inform Montana’s compliance office.

“In the highest degree of technicality, I looked at that relationship, as a mother of a player whose teammate was in trouble, and when does that cross over to being a booster?” Pflugrad said. “If that’s my biggest mistake, then I’m going to move forward with it. Because there has to be some form of humanity in what we do.”

IT IS TECHNICAL, SO TECHNICAL THAT YOU WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH WEBER......

The NCAA also determined that Johnson and Kemp each received $1,500 in free legal representation stemming from the incident. O’Day and Pflugrad say they did not monitor that situation.

“I talked to quite a few coaches in the Pac-12 and the Big Sky Conference,” Pflugrad offered. “Not one of them have ever physically monitored the legal payments of an arrest.

IT WOULD BE NICE NOT TO HAVE TO MONITOR THE LEGAL PAYMENTS......

“You know the first thing I did, I made sure none of our coaches had bailed out players. That was my job and I moved on from there.”
GOOD JOB..........

Incidents involving Johnson and Kemp were not the only infractions by Montana, according to the NCAA report. But the general consensus is that the NCAA came to town as a result of that situation.

Its 18-month investigation has resulted in the loss of scholarships for upcoming seasons and the vacating of five wins from 2011.

“I understand some of those scholarship losses,” O’Day said, “only in the fact the NCAA has been in here 18 months and they’ve allocated a lot of resources and personnel and time to look at it.

GLAD YOU UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE SCHOLARSHIP LOSSES, THANKS FOR THE GOOD TIMES , JIM...

“They absolutely had to come away with something. It’s no different than the IRS when they go in and they are red-flagged on something. They’ve got to come away with something.”

ITS NOT THE IRS, IT'S THE NCAA, STOP MAKING EXCUSES.....

O’Day takes issue with vacating wins, claiming “there’s so much more to the story.”

JIM, PLEASE TELL US THE STORY......

“Until all of that comes out, which I believe it will, it’s kind of a disappointment,” he said. “It took a lot of hard work and effort by a lot of people on that team. To vacate all that is not fair to those kids.”

***

Although Pflugrad will pay a price for what happened in Missoula in 2011, Weber State head football coach Jody Sears remains firmly in his corner.

“We did an assessment and knew there was a possibility of some things coming down the road,” Sears said. “But like I told (Weber State AD Jerry) Bovee from the get-go, the kind of character and person of integrity Robin Pflugrad is and the amount respect he has in our profession ...

“It was in our opinion he was extremely forthcoming with the potentiality of things. We were looking more at the integrity and character in the man himself than the possibility of things out of our control. We stuck with it and we are extremely happy and blessed to have him on our staff. I still think that.”

Pflugrad will call the plays for Weber State this season, so it’s a considerable disadvantage not having him in that capacity for the Wildcats’ opener at Utah on Sept. 7. But knowing what he does now, Sears would still hire Pflugrad all over again.

“In many ways, he brings a great wealth of knowledge and experience to our program,” Sears said. “From the Xs and Os to discipline and (NCAA) compliance, he’s brought lots of value to our program.”

***

Pflugrad and O’Day were fired by UM President Royce Engstrom in March 2012 without the university giving a reason. The firings came after numerous allegations of sexual assault also surfaced, as well as questions about UM’s handling of those allegations.

In retrospect, Pflugrad takes issue with how that situation was handled.

“There was an overall climate and publicity that assisted in creating a certain atmosphere in which the administration overreacted,” he said. “That resulted in the termination of the athletic director and myself as head football coach.”

Whether Pflugrad ever lands another job as a Division I head coach remains to be seen. Regardless, he holds a place in his heart for Missoula and the Grizzlies. His lasting support was never more evident than this spring when he showed up at Washington-Grizzly Stadium to support his former players at Pro Day.

“That team’s special up there in Montana,” he said. “Those guys are special to me.”

Pflugrad and O’Day are both hesitant to speak off the cuff. Instead, they sit back and hope that someday all the details of Montana’s athletic ordeal come out.

“People wonder how long this will take to clear this up,” O’Day said. “Just like I said when we were removed from our positions, you’ve got to let history tell the story.

“I believe that’s the case here. It’s going to take some time for us to see just exactly what kind of damage it has done to the program and the university. Those are all things we’ll be able to look back on in 10 years and see really what happened.”

[/quote]

 

[ranco]

I dont this the ncaa investigation played much of a role in the firings. It was 90% caused by the jordan johnson pr nightmare.

Engstrom lucked out that the ncaa leveled a penalty to vindicate his actions.

Correct; they were fired because of pressure regarding presumed sexual assaults (to include accusations of gang rape and Donaldson. It was not just JJ, but Pflu stuck his foot in his mouth regarding JJ, which fired up pressure from the media, the female faculty and dipsh*ts like Pat Williams. Nothing to do with the NCAA investigations.

This just in: RE does not respond well to pressure.

You sir have hit the nail on the head. If Pful say's nothing to the press other than, " The team is happy to have JJ back on the field and back with the team." Both Robbin and Jim still have their jobs. After 18 months, this is the best the ncaa can come up with? Pretty chicken shit if you ask me.

Not at all true, but go with it if it makes you feel better.

It is exactly true. RE got his panties in a wad after Pflu's comment. He made a rash decision without thinking about the consequences. We (taxpayers) will end up paying a nice sum of money for his f'up. Has he been fired yet....?

 

[Dillon]

Correct; they were fired because of pressure regarding presumed sexual assaults (to include accusations of gang rape and Donaldson. It was not just JJ, but Pflu stuck his foot in his mouth regarding JJ, which fired up pressure from the media, the female faculty and dipsh*ts like Pat Williams. Nothing to do with the NCAA investigations.

This just in: RE does not respond well to pressure.

You sir have hit the nail on the head. If Pful say's nothing to the press other than, " The team is happy to have JJ back on the field and back with the team." Both Robbin and Jim still have their jobs. After 18 months, this is the best the ncaa can come up with? Pretty chicken shit if you ask me.

Not at all true, but go with it if it makes you feel better.

It is exactly true. RE got his panties in a wad after Pflu's comment. He made a rash decision without thinking about the consequences. We (taxpayers) will end up paying a nice sum of money for his f'up. Has he been fired yet....?

No - Pat Williams got RE's panties in a wad after Pflu's comment!

 

[Washgrizfan1]

Here's how I see it....

http://missoulian.com/news/local/ex...cle_fee3cea0-f669-11e2-b2f1-0019bb2963f4.html
Former UM head football coach Robin Pflugrad and ex-athletic director Jim O’Day spoke on their own behalf.

THANK GOD THEY WERN'T SPEAKING ON MY BEHALF.....

According to the NCAA report detailing infractions from 2011, Pflugrad failed to adequately monitor the football program, allowing boosters to provide extra benefits to players, including bail money and legal representation.

YOU'RE THE FUCING HEAD COACH, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTSND WHAT A "BOOSTER" IS......

Currently the offensive coordinator for Weber State, Pflugrad has been suspended from his coaching duties for the first game of the 2013 campaign. He has also been leveled with recruiting restrictions for the upcoming season.

Pflugrad’s contention is that the NCAA was “extremely technical” in its Montana investigation. Specifically, he takes issue with the word “booster” in one specific instance.

In its report, the NCAA determined that a “booster” – the mother of another Griz player who resides in Missoula – bailed Gerald Kemp and Trumaine Johnson out of jail after their arrest on Oct. 23, 2011. She paid $130 for one player and $190 for the other.

Kemp’s grandfather, who lives out of state, later reimbursed the mother with a personal check for the total amount of the bail. However, under NCAA rules, he waited too long to do so, and Pflugrad failed to inform Montana’s compliance office.

“In the highest degree of technicality, I looked at that relationship, as a mother of a player whose teammate was in trouble, and when does that cross over to being a booster?” Pflugrad said. “If that’s my biggest mistake, then I’m going to move forward with it. Because there has to be some form of humanity in what we do.”

IT IS TECHNICAL, SO TECHNICAL THAT YOU WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH WEBER......

The NCAA also determined that Johnson and Kemp each received $1,500 in free legal representation stemming from the incident. O’Day and Pflugrad say they did not monitor that situation.

“I talked to quite a few coaches in the Pac-12 and the Big Sky Conference,” Pflugrad offered. “Not one of them have ever physically monitored the legal payments of an arrest.

IT WOULD BE NICE NOT TO HAVE TO MONITOR THE LEGAL PAYMENTS......

“You know the first thing I did, I made sure none of our coaches had bailed out players. That was my job and I moved on from there.”
GOOD JOB..........

Incidents involving Johnson and Kemp were not the only infractions by Montana, according to the NCAA report. But the general consensus is that the NCAA came to town as a result of that situation.

Its 18-month investigation has resulted in the loss of scholarships for upcoming seasons and the vacating of five wins from 2011.

“I understand some of those scholarship losses,” O’Day said, “only in the fact the NCAA has been in here 18 months and they’ve allocated a lot of resources and personnel and time to look at it.

GLAD YOU UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE SCHOLARSHIP LOSSES, THANKS FOR THE GOOD TIMES , JIM...

“They absolutely had to come away with something. It’s no different than the IRS when they go in and they are red-flagged on something. They’ve got to come away with something.”

ITS NOT THE IRS, IT'S THE NCAA, STOP MAKING EXCUSES.....

O’Day takes issue with vacating wins, claiming “there’s so much more to the story.”

JIM, PLEASE TELL US THE STORY......

“Until all of that comes out, which I believe it will, it’s kind of a disappointment,” he said. “It took a lot of hard work and effort by a lot of people on that team. To vacate all that is not fair to those kids.”

***

Although Pflugrad will pay a price for what happened in Missoula in 2011, Weber State head football coach Jody Sears remains firmly in his corner.

“We did an assessment and knew there was a possibility of some things coming down the road,” Sears said. “But like I told (Weber State AD Jerry) Bovee from the get-go, the kind of character and person of integrity Robin Pflugrad is and the amount respect he has in our profession ...

“It was in our opinion he was extremely forthcoming with the potentiality of things. We were looking more at the integrity and character in the man himself than the possibility of things out of our control. We stuck with it and we are extremely happy and blessed to have him on our staff. I still think that.”

Pflugrad will call the plays for Weber State this season, so it’s a considerable disadvantage not having him in that capacity for the Wildcats’ opener at Utah on Sept. 7. But knowing what he does now, Sears would still hire Pflugrad all over again.

“In many ways, he brings a great wealth of knowledge and experience to our program,” Sears said. “From the Xs and Os to discipline and (NCAA) compliance, he’s brought lots of value to our program.”

***

Pflugrad and O’Day were fired by UM President Royce Engstrom in March 2012 without the university giving a reason. The firings came after numerous allegations of sexual assault also surfaced, as well as questions about UM’s handling of those allegations.

In retrospect, Pflugrad takes issue with how that situation was handled.

“There was an overall climate and publicity that assisted in creating a certain atmosphere in which the administration overreacted,” he said. “That resulted in the termination of the athletic director and myself as head football coach.”

Whether Pflugrad ever lands another job as a Division I head coach remains to be seen. Regardless, he holds a place in his heart for Missoula and the Grizzlies. His lasting support was never more evident than this spring when he showed up at Washington-Grizzly Stadium to support his former players at Pro Day.

“That team’s special up there in Montana,” he said. “Those guys are special to me.”

Pflugrad and O’Day are both hesitant to speak off the cuff. Instead, they sit back and hope that someday all the details of Montana’s athletic ordeal come out.

“People wonder how long this will take to clear this up,” O’Day said. “Just like I said when we were removed from our positions, you’ve got to let history tell the story.

“I believe that’s the case here. It’s going to take some time for us to see just exactly what kind of damage it has done to the program and the university. Those are all things we’ll be able to look back on in 10 years and see really what happened.”

[/quote]

Even understanding what a booster is, is not easy. Look at some of these bullets (below). How is a coach supposed to know if someone has done some of those things? How is a coach supposed to know who all of the boosters are? Does the university even have a master list of everyone has done these things? Does the university have a list of everyone who has ever "involved in promoting UM athletics"?

Why is it the head coach's job to know or do this? What about the university's compliance officer? Again, as I posted previously, the coach and the AD apparently didn't even know or know of some of these involved boosters. The head coach didn't know the lawyer providing legal services was a booster. He didn't know the arrangement for legal fees. He had a game to coach. He had an incident to deal with. He had a team that was concerned about whether the school was going to support the two players and the team, and their version of what occurred that night. The head coach didn't know the mom was a booster; he considered her to be the mom of another player. Is there any policy reason that a mom of a player shouldn't be able to honor the request of another player's family in this situation? Where's harm in this? What a ridiculous rule and interpretation.

"Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:

• Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.

• Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.

• Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.

• Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.

• Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

• Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.

• Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.

Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever."

 

[BDizzle]

I guess I'm a little confused on all this. So a booster is, among other things, somebody that has assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families. But isn't providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families one of the things that got us in this mess?

 

[tnt]

I guess I'm a little confused on all this. So a booster is, among other things, somebody that has assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families. But isn't providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families one of the things that got us in this mess?

"Extra" benefits is the problem. But the thing that got us in this mess is the investigation and interviews confirmed Pflu and others KNEW and didn't report about some of the benefits (a University official drove the two to the lawyers office do they do it for every student etc etc???)

Few who follow griz athletics closely don't know who "mamma Griz" is, the kids do. hard to believe no one in the AD did.