Rodriguez slander; Tom Luginbill edition.
A notorious local reporter, in a notorious local newspaper, prints this little bit of unsupportable slander:
“Brady Hoke’s got to restore and enhance some relationships within the state of Michigan that were damaged to some degree either on purpose or inadvertently by Rich Rodriguez and his staff,” said Tom Luginbill of ESPN Scouts Inc.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence to support such a hateful and hurtful statement. The story as reported included no hard evidence to support the statement. Recruiting class statistics support no such conclusion.
If anyone can verify Tom Luginbill with solid evidence, let this be your invitation. Otherwise, I shall use this occasion to CALL OUT Tom Luginbill as a liar.
Edit. -
Wellll.... Isn't this interesting? The Board's bugginess is letting me edit this OP, but not "Reply."
So here goes:
I'm a lawyer; I know what "slander" and "libel" are. Tom Luginbill presumably said what he said to Mark Snyder's tape recorder in a phone conversation. That spoken defamation, if actionable, would be slander. Snyder's own written publication would be a libel. And yes you can just call it all "defamation" and not haggle over the nomenclature.
Now let's get to Mark Snyder, shall we? Snyder didn't just suggest that he or somebody else had some stray conversations with Michigan h.s. coaches. Snyder actually suggested that bad relations with Michigan h.s. coaches were a factor in Rodriguez's being fired by Brandon. Now, that can presumably be checked with Mr. Brandon. Snyder didn't do that. If indeed Snyder's outlandish allegation were true, and if indeed it really had served as a basis for such a substantial action as terminating the head football coach at the University of Michigan, we will be able to ask David Brandon about that. My money is on the side that Snyder has no such evidence. None at all. Certainly not from Brandon.
But more than that, if the entire story were true -- that there were not just one or two coaches or one or two uncomfortable incidents involving coaching and recruiting in Michigan, but instead that there was a major unreported story about bad relations between Rodriguez and Michigan h.s. caoches -- there would bound to be some record. Some serious, affirmable, documentable complaint. Multiple stories, witnesses. Specific things, with nameable coaches and players, and not merely limited to the Brandon Inner Circle.
So far, this miserable thread has not shown one single confrimed meaningful story. Snyder gave us nothing. Luginbill cited nothing in particular. That silly Kalamazoo Gazette story linked below is a big pile of nothing. I see two coaches quoted, and one of them said nothing other than that he liked Brady Hoke's press conference, and the other coach quoted his own kid who is not going to play football at Michigan, with that kid saying that he wouldn't want to play football at Michigan.
Let's be serious here, people. Because I consider this a serious allegation against Rich Rodriguez, who will hopefully be soon interviewed for a very important head coaching job at a major university. No one has as yet given us a single specific instance of Rich Rodriguez doing... what, exactly? Disrespecting Michigan coaches or kids? Who? When? Where? How? Isn't this what real reporters are supposed to do? What the fuck is Mark Snyder's real job?
So no, I didn't run away from this thread because people had better arguments. I haven't seen one good argument yet in support of this despicable allegation against Coach Rodriguez.
Edit II -
MGoUser "LandonC" posts this, which is fascinating:
At this point, why don't we just be happy with pro-Hoke articles? Hoke is going to need all the support possible to step in and be succesful, especially in a couple years when the base of the offense has moved on. If that comes at the cost of bashing Rodriguez, even as a huge Rodriguez supporter, I'm ok with it.
I don't agree with this, but I'm very glad that LandonC wrote it. Because I think a lot of people feel that way. 'Just move on. Onward and upward.'
Not me. I think the University of Michigan and the Detroit media have treated Rich Rodriguez badly. I think that Michigan has discgraced itself with the treatment of Rodriguez and his staff. I'll defend Rich Rodriguez because it is the right thing to do. I have nothing against Brady Hoke, who may be a very nice guy. But I won't place loyalty to Michigan above basic fairness to Rich Rodriguez. My enthusiasm for Michigan's Athletic Department is at an all-time low ebb. I am about to write a large check to the Athletic Department for my PSD. I've never had such misgivings about doing that, as I do right now. Don't ask me who I'd be rooting for if, purely hypothetically, a Rodriguez-coached Clemson team played Michigan in a bowl game in a few years.
Edit. III -
So OMG Shirtless cites "Antonio Watts" as support for this story. "Antonio Watts hates Rich Rodriguez." This Antonio Watts:
http://genuinelysarcastic.blogspot.com/2010/02/re-post-on-lawrence-thomas.html
No, I am sorry you are just going to have to be serious if you want to play in this thread. We are not talking about whether one guy has this story or that story. What we are talking about is the allegation that Rich Rodriguez was dismissed in part because of a large issue with his not being able to get along with Michigan h.s. coaches, and, don't forget, that Rodriguez's tenure led to such pronounced difficulties, that now Brady Hoke has to somehow repair the damage done.
And I am calling bullshit on that! It's not my story; I don't have to prove anything. It's Mark Snyder's story, and it is Luginbill's quote(s). I know well from past experience what sort of false and phony reporting Snyder is capable of. So please, don't try to tell me that we need to trust Snyder and some anonymous sources. And don't tell me about what somebody heard about a certain coach one time. I want to know what is the basis for the claim that Rich Rodriguez caused major problems with relations with Michigan h.s. coaches across the state.
Edit. IV -
@"Blue_Sox": You seem to think that I've gone over the top and that there is reason to defend this Snyder story:
in the ultimate bit of irony, you have now put us in a position to do the unthinkable and defend the Freep because you are so far over the top. I hope you can live with your all-time backfire.
What reason is there to defend this Freep story? Snyder speculates -- he reports -- on Brandon's reason(s) for firing Rodriguez, without ever having interviewed Brandon and without a quote from Brandon. Luginbill's quotes, for whatever they are worth, are unsupported. What is there about this story that would get passing marks in j-school? It's crap. It's a couple of vague Luginbill quotes, worked into the Freep's favorite theme; that Rodriguez was evil. All without a shred of evidence.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
Before you "call him out as a liar" you should understand that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
I love a good play on words! Do some more cuz that one was really good.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^
It isn't a play on words. It refers to a well known (and common) logical fallacy called the "argument from ignorance"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
January 27th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
Something along the lines of
a -> b
does not mean that
!a -> !b
?
January 27th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
yep. something like that.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:57 PM ^
I loved the class that we learned those rules in, because it makes you see the world in a new light.
January 27th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^
Philosophy class because that class is a bunch of BS IMO. I took the intro to philosophy and regretted taking this class since. I got an B+ out of this class but that was the least interesting class that I've took at Michigan.
January 27th, 2011 at 6:12 PM ^
You didn't get much out of that grammar class you took either, huh?
January 28th, 2011 at 12:53 AM ^
Yeah, philosophy is for NERDS.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I wish intellectual curiousity were a requirement for attending my beloved university. Clearly it is not.
January 31st, 2011 at 1:00 PM ^
I was actually referring to Discrete Mathematics, but I couldn't remember the name at the time. However, if you don't get something out of philosophy, you either had a bad teacher, or you weren't paying attention. You don't have to believe every word they throw at you, but you are expected to have altered perception of reality once you leave.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^
Haha, my thoughts exactly
January 27th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
January 27th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
In a court of law, a small probability of innocence=innocence.
And, it doesn't make it any less a logical fallacy, no matter how hard you tried to find the evidence.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^
Vraiment vous-êtes un des fameux carcajous?
Formidable!
January 27th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
Je suis un carcajou, mais pas si célèbre.
January 27th, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^
Zut alors!
January 27th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^
And what about innocent until proven guilty? That works for both parties involved.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
Well, nothing here is taking place in a court of law, so I'm not sure how that applies. I don't know if the original article is correct or not. What I do know is that it is a logical fallacy to think that the lack of evidence that it is correct means it is incorrect.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^
All it would take is one or two High School coaches to be upset for this quote to be valid:
Brady Hoke’s got to restore and enhance some relationships within the state of Michigan that were damaged to some degree either on purpose or inadvertently by Rich Rodriguez and his staff,” said Tom Luginbill of ESPN Scouts Inc.
I think you're really reaching on this one.
Luginbill said some relationships were damaged to some extent by Rich Rod, he even threw in the "inadvertently," to indicate it may not have even been on purpose. This article has evidence to validate Luginbill's quote. The bar he set was so low, I can't believe you're this bent out of shape by it.
MGoBlog thread on said the article - http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/hs-coaching-perspective-hoke
Remember Antonio Watts? He was bat shit crazy, but he was a High School football coach who was apparently upset by something Rich Rod did or didn't do.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
Section 1 declares something deplorable, asks us to think of the children and then drifts off in the face of reasoned arguments that the aforementioned article isn't all that wrong/improper
January 27th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^
almost lost an old UM friend in SF the other day because he emailed me some crap about how finally under Hoke we were going to get back to recruiting the midwest and stop wasting our time in California. Not only was Rodriguez right there with Lloyd in his Midwest recruiting, but it had become accepted wisdom that Michigan and the midwest weren't rich enough veins for players; many of the same people now coming out of the woodwork to embrace the new regime were pooping themselves with pleasure that we were drawing the Florida kids.
I'm over the fiasco and even think Hoke can thrive, but c'mon--it's like the Soviet Union, where you have to kill all the old people to erect your new version of the truth on the pile of their bodies.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^
is referring to the fact that "on purpose" is in the quote, the implication being that Rich Rod might have intentionally damaged relationships which is a hefty charge. I think the OP has a point but it's more the paper's doing than Luginbill and it really isn't important at this point. The local media in particular has often portrayed RR as a guy fucking up all things Michigan. According to them Rich Rod 1) lost embarrassingly on the field, 2) He DELIBERATELY broke MAJOR rules, (check number one)
Also, 3) He shit on his beloved West Virginia, 4) He shit on Michigan and it's traditions (he doesn't "get it"), 5) He is stealing money/ shredding papers/involved in Ponzi schemes and failed real estate deals..
6) He has damaged the university, current players that he didn't "run off" and relationships with other coaches in the state and the Big Ten (a conference in which his gimmicky systems won't work). 7) Ummm let's see he beats his wife and sells her body (no bullshit this was actually a rumor) 8) He is a neo-nazi and sings Josh Groban songs in times that are just weird because everything he does is weird beyond belief.
9) He is also responsible for Global Warming, Jersey Shore, Sarah McLaughlin, blue balls, crabs and the seven year itch, R. Lee Ermey and is so Shady they suspect he is Marshall Mather's real father.
All kidding aside I think we need to stop paying attention to the piling on intentional or "on purpose." RR is gone, hopefully the media will stop this stuff soon and give him some dignity which he deserves.
PS...Drew Sharp is gonna release an investigative piece on whether or not some of the former staff might have been listed as sex offenders...I guess Drew gets lonely at all those rest stop bathrooms.
January 27th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^
and not be a middle finger. on purpose simply means knowingly or being aware of ramifications. this can include not recruiting kids who like Michigan bc they didn't fit the system.
January 27th, 2011 at 8:26 PM ^
Simply reading the OP's edit...we can see some great points. I myself am not a lawyer but took some pre-law. I have always said the Freep verged on libel and RR took the high ground.
January 27th, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^
Simply reading the OP's edit...we can see some great points. I myself am not a lawyer but took some pre-law. I have always said the Freep verged on libel and RR took the high ground.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
that RR had "bad relations" with Michigan HS coaches comes from this sort of situation:
I was in school at UM in the mid-70s, and one of the guys in my classes was a DB from Traverse City. I'm sure he was a stud back in HS, but he was a backup under Bo. He made it pretty clear he was unhappy being a backup, but he stuck it out and eventually graduated. However, I heard later that his HS coach (don't know the name) swore that he was never going to send another player to UM as long as Bo was there because of the way this former DB of his was misused. Yep, that Bo was a complete buffoon when it came to player management.
Apparently, Hell hath no fury like a Michigan HS coach whose star player doesn't receive the "proper treatment" from the UM coaching staff.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
My guess is that football coach from TC in the 70's was Jim Ooley.
He was an interesting man. Beloved by the community though.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
I never got the focus on Michigan talent. As Michigan we should of course grab up the four stars that pop up now and then, but RR seemed to be doing that. He was recruiting Hayes and pulled him fron ND.
Given that Ohio is a Top 5 state in terms of football talent, the Chicago area has some good leagues and Western PA has a lot of talent come out of coal country, why on earth do the local reporters expect coaches to have a heavy focus on Michigan? I'd much rather a coach focus on pipelines to prep schools in those other areas than spend all their time making sure they get the 2 to 4 four stars that are produced statewide every year.
Face it, with the collapse of the Catholic league in Michigan we only have a handful of premier HS programs and our coaches are much better served to spend their time building pipelines elsewhere.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
The statement that "relationships . . . were damaged" is probably not an actionable one that can give rise to libel or slander ("defamation" is the catchall term). Courts sometimes refer to these statements as nonactionable "opinions" but the ultimate test is whether the statement is capable of being proven true or false in an objective manner. In this instance, my educated guess is that the statement can't be proven true or false ---> no defamation.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
*cough* law student *cough*
January 27th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^
You should see a doctor about that cough.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:15 PM ^
sounds bad, you should see a lawyer.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
I don't buy the notion that RR burned bridges with the state's coaches. We were still pulling guys from the state and I had no problem with focusing on the pipelines he established at WV.
Maybe he should've kept a guy on staff that was familiar with recruiting Big Ten country. But without knowing how the HS coaches felt from their mouths, I'm not reading to trash RR over rumor and speculation.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^
the article is correct.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^
Are you arguing that RR was universally liked by high school coaches? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a group of people where everyone liked him.
This is like suing McDonalds because you dropped your free lukewarm tapwater on your lap.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
"Portage Northern coach Pete Schermerhorn, a Region 8 director for the MHSFCA, said that U-M’s program maintained regular contact with him in years past whether the Huskies had a prospect or not. Under Rodriguez, communication wasn’t the same."
"Kevin Langs is a diehard U-M fan — so much so, he changed Climax-Scotts’ helmet design to the Wolverines-style winged look when he took over the Panthers program in 1999.
He and wife Kim even named their son, Beau, in honor of Schembechler. He could not convince her to spell it “Bo,” however.
“With Rodriguez, it felt like the trendy pick. With Hoke, it feels like the Michigan pick,” Langs said. “I wasn’t going to the clinic until noon (Friday). Now that Dantonio and Hoke are speaking back-to-back, I’m going at 9 a.m. just to hear both speak."
http://highschoolsports.mlive.com/news/article/7287880265125948872/area…
Like it or not, RR pissed off local coaches. I'm not sure if it's because he didn't kiss their asses as much as they would have liked or because he fired almost all of the previous staff and replaced them with people the HS coaches didn't know. It may also be because he thinks FL players are better than MI players. I don't know, but there is proof that Luginbill is correct.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^
January 27th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
Also, he may be an asshat, but his opinion carries weight and he was correct in his statement that the OP pointed out.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
January 27th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^
don't discount the reason being dantonio, who played it well, knowing it was his only shot to get the good recruits.
January 27th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^
Man, I missed this blog. Thank you baby Jesus for bringing it back.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
January 27th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
There aren't enough lolwuts in the world for this comment.
January 27th, 2011 at 7:56 PM ^
it's a well known line from talladega nights
January 27th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
Let it die.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
This is a tempest in a teapot.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^
What is it that RR could have possibly done to hurt the delicate sensibilities of H.S. football coaches in the state of Michigan? Honestly. RR held football clinics and camps just like his predecessors. RR also raised the profile of the walk-on tryouts and scholarship program at Michigan - a more inclusive approach for talented and eligible H.S. players.
Were their feelings hurt that he came from WVU? That he ran a spread offense? Come on man.
If you ask me, any exclusion behavior that did take place would have been on the hands of certain H.S. coaches in Michigan, not Rich Rodriguez. Rodriguez did all he could to reach out, and then some.
I can't help but think about how all of this pettiness would have been viewed by someone like Bo Schembechler.
Bo would have told everyone of them directly to their face to go to hell, but not without first warning them to keep their emo opinions to themselves and to stay out of his way.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
You really don't have to keep this up. 1) these comments are pretty valid. 2) there is another article from Luginbill in the Detroit News that is centered around his comments. Why not just post that? You do realize that Rich Rodriguez is no longer the coach, right?