-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Pflu's Original Support for Johnson
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
goatcreekgriz
Well-known member
I have always believed that Pflugrad had been told of the united message to be told to the media, and he failed to follow an express instruction. His lack of discretion cost him his job, and this acquittal does not retroactively vindicate Pflugrad. It's sad, and he's a good man, but that's how it works. O'Day is a different story.
goatcreekgriz
Well-known member
ranco said:
No. Engstrom was the boss, and Pflugrad had to abide by instructions from his boss. Pflugrad did not exercise the judgment required by his position. Whether the boss needs "to hit the road" is a different issue measured by different criteria.
JSWNBBY
Well-known member
Why is right to tell the truth? What the coach said was the truth. Bad timing? When else should of he said it, never? You all forget that our Constitutional system presumes that we are innocent, if that presumption is not overcome, you remain innocent and are found not guilty. So it's wrong to stand up for what is right and just and to stand against a false accuser?
And anyone who listened to the trial has to come away with the sound conviction that Jordan is a person of high moral character. Casual sex is not equal to someone with bad character. Give me a break.
And anyone who listened to the trial has to come away with the sound conviction that Jordan is a person of high moral character. Casual sex is not equal to someone with bad character. Give me a break.
goatcreekgriz
Well-known member
Insubordination justified relieving the coach from his responsibilities and deciding not to renew his contract, pure and simple. The guilt or innocence of a player, however well the coach knew the player, is irrelevant to the personnel decision. You can legitimately attack President Engstrom for a number of things, but not about his expectations regarding how the head football coach should deal with the media and the consequences for failing to live up to expectations.
GrizRanger
Well-known member
I have not posted about this whole situation even one time until now.
All I have to say is that I am very pleased that Jordan Johnson was found not guilty. Justice does not always prevail, so I am glad that justice finally prevailed for JJ in this case.
I also think the information about JJ evidenced during the trial has proven that Pflugrad knew much more about JJ’s character than Engstrom or many of the dorks who post at this site.
JJ, Pflugrad and O’Day come out of this situation with bruises, but they all have gained the respect and admiration of many people. It is a shame that we lost two good men, Pflugrad and O’Day, over this situation.
I hope we don’t lose JJ, but frankly if I were him I would restart college life anew at a different University with a decent President one could be proud of, and in a town where the Courts and prosecutors are less politically manipulated. This case should never have gone to trial. They put JJ and his family through hell!
It is sad that our beloved University has such an arrogant dipsh*t for a President, and our Board of Regents includes a bully (aka “thug”) named Pat Williams.
All I have to say is that I am very pleased that Jordan Johnson was found not guilty. Justice does not always prevail, so I am glad that justice finally prevailed for JJ in this case.
I also think the information about JJ evidenced during the trial has proven that Pflugrad knew much more about JJ’s character than Engstrom or many of the dorks who post at this site.
JJ, Pflugrad and O’Day come out of this situation with bruises, but they all have gained the respect and admiration of many people. It is a shame that we lost two good men, Pflugrad and O’Day, over this situation.
I hope we don’t lose JJ, but frankly if I were him I would restart college life anew at a different University with a decent President one could be proud of, and in a town where the Courts and prosecutors are less politically manipulated. This case should never have gone to trial. They put JJ and his family through hell!
It is sad that our beloved University has such an arrogant dipsh*t for a President, and our Board of Regents includes a bully (aka “thug”) named Pat Williams.
goatcreekgriz
Well-known member
GrizRanger said:
I do not disagree. You make some good points.
goatcreekgriz
Well-known member
JSWNBBY said:
Incorrect. The coach was instructed about how to deal with the media regarding allegations about players. There was a legitimate expectation. The instructions were not followed. That's insubordination. Now, I admire a person who stands up for what he believes at the risk of being insubordinate, but again that's a different issue.
EverettGriz said:
Nope, Pflu really didn't think the statement was inappropriate, and it's become clear over time, and from the trial, that the statement and other support for players was what got them fired. Much more than the straw. Everett, I like you as a poster and supporter of UM, but I am good friends with Pflu and O'Day, and spent alot of time in court. As it turned out, the statement was absolutely correct, and based on considerable experience with JJ and his family. The tide has turned. Engstrom is probably not going to survive at UM in the long run.
DoubleNicks
Well-known member
I will preface this with the fact that I don't exactly know why Pflu was fired and even though the comments seem to be a strong part of the reasoning, his firing could be because of something else.
That being said, how were Pflu's statements inappropriate? He commented on his knowledge of JJ's character, not his opinion of JJ's innocence. Also, consider the situation: these were answers to questions from the media, not Pflu going into the Missoulian, slamming his fist on Florio's desk and stating that JJ absolutely didn't do this. I guess Pflu could have said he had no comment, but after how Hauck was treated by both the media and the public for his tendency to play it close to his vest, I assume that has always played a factor in Pflu's openness to the media since his hiring.
That being said, how were Pflu's statements inappropriate? He commented on his knowledge of JJ's character, not his opinion of JJ's innocence. Also, consider the situation: these were answers to questions from the media, not Pflu going into the Missoulian, slamming his fist on Florio's desk and stating that JJ absolutely didn't do this. I guess Pflu could have said he had no comment, but after how Hauck was treated by both the media and the public for his tendency to play it close to his vest, I assume that has always played a factor in Pflu's openness to the media since his hiring.
PlayerRep said:
I, too, am friends with both of them, particularly Jim. And as a manager who has to make difficult human resource decisions, I likely would have made the same one Engstrom did at the time. As I've stated, the comment didn't get them fired. The comment was simply what lit the fuse. The powder keg was everything else going on.
Look, there is no larger supporter of UM or Griz athletics than me. But we went through an UGLY stretch. And when that happens, people lose their jobs. Professionals understand that, and both Jim and Robin are professionals.
And Engstrom will be just fine, and will almost certainly be at UM until he decides to leave or retire. There is, after all, much, much more to running a university than the athletic department.
I don't think it's wrong for a coach to stick up for a player, and in a "normal" context, I don't think Pflugrad's comments should be viewed as inappropriate (and certainly not worthy of dismissal).
The problem, though, is that the comments were made at a time when a complaint had been filed with the DoE against the football team, and Pflugrad's comments have the potential to give the DoE additional ammo against UM. Now, when you peel back the onion and look at the merits of the case against JJ, you reach the conclusion that Pflugrad's comments were probably correct, so in that sense, you might say that Pflugrad has been vindicated. However, as I (and I suspect others on this thread) know, when an agency starts investigating an institution, they don't always "peel back the onion" on every single piece of evidence they have. In writing their report, if the DoE feels that it can build a case against UM for creating a "hostile work environment," one can easily envision Pflugrad's comments appearing as part of a litany of examples of "conduct creating a hostile work environment" by UM officials, without necessarily taking into account the fact that the player was ultimately acquitted. I'm not saying that's fair or right, but it's sometimes the way investigative agencies operate. Thus, while Pflugrad's comments were not "wrong," they do have the potential to cause some harm to UM.
Engstrom's primary concern at the time, I assume, was managing the NCAA and DoE investigations (I don't recall whether the DoJ investigation had started yet). I don't know what had been said internally between Engstrom, O'Day, Pflugrad, or anyone else, but I suspect some version of the discussion goatcreek described probably happened -- certainly in the face of the various investigations, it would be extremely important to have a coordinated message to the media. We'll probably never get an official response from UM as to why Pflu was fired, but I suspect it was because his comments were viewed as having the potential to hurt UM with the various investigators, and firing him was a form of damage control. I don't necessarily agree that it was the right move, and I do sympathize with Pflugrad (and respect him for standing up for his player), but I also understand the thinking behind it.
The problem, though, is that the comments were made at a time when a complaint had been filed with the DoE against the football team, and Pflugrad's comments have the potential to give the DoE additional ammo against UM. Now, when you peel back the onion and look at the merits of the case against JJ, you reach the conclusion that Pflugrad's comments were probably correct, so in that sense, you might say that Pflugrad has been vindicated. However, as I (and I suspect others on this thread) know, when an agency starts investigating an institution, they don't always "peel back the onion" on every single piece of evidence they have. In writing their report, if the DoE feels that it can build a case against UM for creating a "hostile work environment," one can easily envision Pflugrad's comments appearing as part of a litany of examples of "conduct creating a hostile work environment" by UM officials, without necessarily taking into account the fact that the player was ultimately acquitted. I'm not saying that's fair or right, but it's sometimes the way investigative agencies operate. Thus, while Pflugrad's comments were not "wrong," they do have the potential to cause some harm to UM.
Engstrom's primary concern at the time, I assume, was managing the NCAA and DoE investigations (I don't recall whether the DoJ investigation had started yet). I don't know what had been said internally between Engstrom, O'Day, Pflugrad, or anyone else, but I suspect some version of the discussion goatcreek described probably happened -- certainly in the face of the various investigations, it would be extremely important to have a coordinated message to the media. We'll probably never get an official response from UM as to why Pflu was fired, but I suspect it was because his comments were viewed as having the potential to hurt UM with the various investigators, and firing him was a form of damage control. I don't necessarily agree that it was the right move, and I do sympathize with Pflugrad (and respect him for standing up for his player), but I also understand the thinking behind it.
I agree there is much more to running a university, and keeping enrollment up is certainly an important job for the President. Engstroms actions are directly responsible for the national attention brought to the university, and I don't think anyone can deny that the attention at least contributed to the decline in enrollment. I don't think he will be fine, I think he is in trouble. Us on egriz are just posters with opinions and sour grapes over this whole thing, but outside of our personas there are people who really know what happened and the cause and effect. This president is weak, and easily persuaded by certain people and groups. As much as Dennison made my skin crawl, and I think he bears a huge amount of blame for the perceived culture on campus, he would not have allowed as much damage to happen. He was at least a strong president.EverettGriz said:
One more thing I forgot to add. I personally think that one mans personal liberty is more important than an entire university. I think that is probably the same decision the Pflugrad and O'day came to.
