Phlugrad?

[Grizzoola]

Both of these matters were known by the end of 2011. Why wait to the middle of spring ball to fire the coach?

Outside of rumor & innuendo on eGriz, all I know is what I've read in the Missoulian and what statements have come out of either UM or Helena. This issue has been hashed and rehashed on eGriz for months. It's entirely possible that Engstrom fired the coach & AD for one or both of two reasons: 1) a cumulative body of evidence over perhaps years that indicated a certain amount of corruption in the Griz football program that needed to be stopped, howsomever dramatically and 2) something came up in the months and weeks before the firings that, to protect the coach & AD, as much as UM, we'll never know and perhaps do not even have the right to know.

So, hash & rehash. Let's move on. I'm not so sure the team & coaches are as demoralized as some of you say. We still have a proud and effective football program that may possibly be the better for this experience. Let's look ahead like football players and coaches do after losing a game & not let this get us down. Let's back Coach Delaney and his assistants, the players, and the program to post another winning season, a return to the playoffs, and perhaps a NC. Isn't that what sport is all about? Overcoming adversity?

 

[grizdoc]

something came up in the months and weeks before the firings that, to protect the coach & AD, as much as UM, we'll never know and perhaps do not even have the right to know.

AMEN to that! Nothing will bring either one of them back!

 

[WaGriz4life]

something came up in the months and weeks before the firings that, to protect the coach & AD, as much as UM, we'll never know and perhaps do not even have the right to know.

AMEN to that! Nothing will bring either one of them back!

Can you guys please find me one example in the history of collegiate athletics where an AD or Head Coach was fired, and no explanation was given?

 

[grizdoc]

something came up in the months and weeks before the firings that, to protect the coach & AD, as much as UM, we'll never know and perhaps do not even have the right to know.

AMEN to that! Nothing will bring either one of them back!

Can you guys please find me one example in the history of collegiate athletics where an AD or Head Coach was fired, and no explanation was given?

Well, they were not fired, they were non-renewed. Same results, they are gone. If they would have been fired, I am certain a reason would have been given. Given they were non-renewed and are on the payroll and have agreed to a settlement, we will never publicly know.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Where's the "let it go" option? What has been done, has been done. Crying about it won't bring either back.
I'd hate to see how you guys handled being dumped in high school. :shock:

 

[grizdoc]

Where's the "let it go" option? What has been done, has been done. Crying about it won't bring either back.
I'd hate to see how you guys handled being dumped in high school. :shock:

This article explains it fully for contract higher education administrators:

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_8ac13e2a-bdaa-11e1-bc6e-0019bb2963f4.html

As for being dumped in HS, can't speak to that :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

something came up in the months and weeks before the firings that, to protect the coach & AD, as much as UM, we'll never know and perhaps do not even have the right to know.

AMEN to that! Nothing will bring either one of them back!

Can you guys please find me one example in the history of collegiate athletics where an AD or Head Coach was fired, and no explanation was given?

Well, they were not fired, they were non-renewed. Same results, they are gone. If they would have been fired, I am certain a reason would have been given. Given they were non-renewed and are on the payroll and have agreed to a settlement, we will never publicly know.

Nope, they were fired. That's why they were no longer the coach and AD after Engstrom talked to them. Had they only been given notice that their contracts weren't being renewed, they would have continued in their positions until the end of the term of their contracts. There was/is no way to removed them from their positions, without firing them, or persuading them to resign.

 

[jcu27]

PR, it sure is fun watching you educate some of these morons.

 

[Brock Landers]

Who or what is Phlugrad?

 

[grizdoc]

AMEN to that! Nothing will bring either one of them back!

Can you guys please find me one example in the history of collegiate athletics where an AD or Head Coach was fired, and no explanation was given?

Well, they were not fired, they were non-renewed. Same results, they are gone. If they would have been fired, I am certain a reason would have been given. Given they were non-renewed and are on the payroll and have agreed to a settlement, we will never publicly know.

Nope, they were fired. That's why they were no longer the coach and AD after Engstrom talked to them. Had they only been given notice that their contracts weren't being renewed, they would have continued in their positions until the end of the term of their contracts. There was/is no way to removed them from their positions, without firing them, or persuading them to resign.

Yes, you are correct in a very strict legal intrepretation. However to Mom and Pop Montanan in Two Dot, making 15K combined, fired means, packing up your things, leaving your job and no more money.

Yes, both men were relieved of their duties, and are drawing very large paychecks (which I agree with as their contracts were not followed) for a long time. To most Montanan's that is not fired, that is hitting the lottery!

 

[AZGrizFan]

PR, I am not saying that I agree with the decision of Engstrom to notify Pflu and O'Day that their contracts would not be renewed, but what do you know that does not justify the move? It seems to me that Engstrom was well within his rights as President to make the move and their is nothing contractually that would prevent it.

The question is not whether Engstrom had the authority to terminate Pflu and O'Day, the question is whether he was justified or should have. The answer is that he was not justified and should not have. There is nothing publicly known or not known, that justifies it. The firings escalated the situation, and moved the sexual assault stories from local and internet news, to the mainstream national media. It was a huge mistake. It will cost UM alot of money, in settlements, legal fees, and lost donations. It has hurt UM significantly, and will haunt Engstrom for as long as he remains at UM.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The university is ALREADY in a better place, both administratively and football-wise. I don't think he's "haunted".

I disagree completely. The university is under significant stress. It is losing good and valuable people, who will not be easily replaced. Many people are questioning Engstrom's leadership and decisions. Some donors have withdrawn. Many have gone to the sidelines. At the same time, the payouts under many of the contracts for these people is huge. See Missoulian article today. This will be a huge unexpected cost for UM. The DOJ and other investigations are eating up alot of time and resources. Football is clearly not in a better place. The successful coach of the year is gone. A top assistant has departed. While the coaches and team have their heads down and are working hard, it is not easy. Also note some of the other comments being made by other posters about football. If UM loses JJ, loses a bunch of games, makes a bad decision on a new AD, makes a bad decision on the interim head coach label or head coach, loses assistants, and loses recruits; UM football will be significantly hurt for years to come. Engstrom's legacy would then be: the president who destroyed Griz football as we have come to know it. Hopefully, most of those things will not occur.

That's a lot of "ifs" and "buts" and opinions there.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, it sure is fun watching you educate some of these morons.

I learned some of it from you. I like people who stick up for what they believe in, and are tough enough to keep plowing forward through unfair criticism and attacks. I saw your other supportive comment several days ago, and appreciated it. Thx.

 

[MrTitleist]

Kemp and Johnson were not at a party. They had friends come over after the bars closed, which was shortly after the team got back. They had their music on too loud. Florio saying it was a loud and wild partry is part of the long list of inaccuracies by the Missoulian and the MPD. Also neither was intoxicated like the Police said. Neither was breathalyzed.

I live/lived right above Tru.. the party wasn't loud and out of control until the cops showed up and started harassing people. Once the tasers went off, then things got loud.

 

[Cats2506]

Kemp and Johnson were not at a party. They had friends come over after the bars closed, which was shortly after the team got back. They had their music on too loud. Florio saying it was a loud and wild partry is part of the long list of inaccuracies by the Missoulian and the MPD. Also neither was intoxicated like the Police said. Neither was breathalyzed.

I live/lived right above Tru.. the party wasn't loud and out of control until the cops showed up and started harassing people. Once the tasers went off, then things got loud.

Well somebody that called the police evidently thought it was loud, and the police had to make 2 visits to the party to try and quiet it down :roll:

I also remember a post of yours saying that it woke you up?

after 7-8 months time I am surprised that :jack: like you and PR even admit that there was a party at all.

 

[Spanky]

2506....enjoying yourself?

 

[MrTitleist]

Kemp and Johnson were not at a party. They had friends come over after the bars closed, which was shortly after the team got back. They had their music on too loud. Florio saying it was a loud and wild partry is part of the long list of inaccuracies by the Missoulian and the MPD. Also neither was intoxicated like the Police said. Neither was breathalyzed.

I live/lived right above Tru.. the party wasn't loud and out of control until the cops showed up and started harassing people. Once the tasers went off, then things got loud.

Well somebody that called the police evidently thought it was loud, and the police had to make 2 visits to the party to try and quiet it down :roll:

I also remember a post of yours saying that it woke you up?

after 7-8 months time I am surprised that :jack: like you and PR even admit that there was a party at all.

Yeah, it woke me up when the cops showed up and started tazing. Now head back to your home at Bobcat Nation, the adults are talking here.

 

[jcu27]

PR, it sure is fun watching you educate some of these morons.

I learned some of it from you. I like people who stick up for what they believe in, and are tough enough to keep plowing forward through unfair criticism and attacks. I saw your other supportive comment several days ago, and appreciated it. Thx.

Got to stand up for what you believe in otherwise you're standing for no reason. And no problem, you are one of the better posters on here.

 

[wbtfg]

Got to stand up for what you believe in otherwise you're standing for no reason.

-Deep thoughts by jcu27

 

[argh!]

greenie's got a frin!

 

[tourist]

One of the most famous quotes of the Vietnam War was a statement attributed to an unnamed U.S. officer by AP correspondent Peter Arnett in his writing about the provincial capital, Bến Tre, on 7 February 1968. Arnett cited an unidentified U.S. military official in his report: "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."[1]


Where was Engstrom in '68? Hmm.