CURIOUS INDEX, 1/18/08
|
Smear. Yum. Rich Rodriguez says he’s the victim of a smear campaign. This happens when there’s $4 million dollars and a buyout clause in contention and everyone starts to play with the good knives. One tiny question that perhaps someone could answer for us: didn’t anyone make a provision for the buyout clause causing all the furor, or even think about it? Or was the intent for Rodriguez to wig out on the clause all along, claiming that WVU hadn’t lived up to their promises all along and thus violating their contract with him? Lawyaz, in the comments plz. (In case you missed it on Wednesday, Brian had an excellent post as to why this paperwork tiff is complete crap. It’s got charts and everything.) Your January Surprise: you’re Virginia, and your starting qb isn’t enrolled in classes yet! Surprise! (Throws streamers, buzzes noisemakers.) Jameel Sewell and three other UVA football players do not appear on the rolls at UVA. Considering the school’s sterling academic reputation, Deion Rules are unlikely here, and you can probably count them as lost, transferring, or otherwise indisposed for the 2008 season: classes began on the 16th in Charlottesville. College football causes crime. And we’re not just talking about weed and Florida football: Our results suggest that the host community registers sharp increases in assaults, vandalism, arrests for disorderly conduct, and arrests for alcohol-related offenses on game days. Upsets are associated with the largest increases in the number of expected offenses. These estimates are discussed in the context of psychological theories of fan aggression. Again, economists working in the Duh Studies Department for you, the people. We could have told you that, given the eight convenience store workers we killed in the last two consecutive losses to Auburn. If you see a Tiger kicker walking onto the field in 2008 in Auburn, just close all stores in the area as prophylaxis. Manginopolis wins the Bear Bryant Award in coaching. He totally frickin’ blew your mind by coaching Kansas to a 12-1 record this year. Have a special burger on us, brah.
Please. If life wants to be cool to all of us, then this will happen in what SMQ is calling “the Orgeron option.” |
||
1
Dear God, if Orgeron ends up at LSU the testosterone that will eminate from Baton Rouge may well turn every gay man in Louisiana straight and 33% of the women into butch lesbians. Western Mississippi may also experience this “manning up” effect.
Comment by Biggus Rickus — January 18, 2025 @ 10:01 am
2
DaCoachO’s pirogue tour of Greater Houma is not to be missed.
And yeah. They’ll hear him all the way to Alexandria. He’ll restore Biloxi to its former grandeur. The riverboats will quake in their concrete pilings.
Comment by brougham — January 18, 2025 @ 10:10 am
3
Biggus,
If the Orgeron ended up @ LSU, no hotel would book that damn strong team for fear of extreme towel theft.
Comment by CapstoneAlum — January 18, 2025 @ 10:11 am
4
do you have any idea how horny that picture makes me? hot little asian woman? horny… gigantic hamburger? horny… one eating the other (in either order)? horny…
Comment by Adam — January 18, 2025 @ 10:20 am
5
This is what I get for being a Virginia fan. This stupid stuff happens to us all of the time.
Comment by Big E — January 18, 2025 @ 10:21 am
6
Without having seen the clause, this lawya thinks it’s hard to tell. RichRod might be daring WVU to sue and have all its dirty laundry spilled out in discovery, which would disrupt the entire program as coaches (current and former) were deposed, players deposed, athletics administrators deposed, etc. WVU is probably banking on Michigan to pay up lest its sterling name be sullied for years by having its head coach constantly embroiled in litigation. Just don’t take too much from the media here, folks - reporters rarely take the time to get it right, going mostly for quotes and piss-poor generalizations. We won’t know the full story until John Feinstein or someone else writes the tell-all novel, Woodward-style.
Comment by sdf fan — January 18, 2025 @ 10:26 am
7
Capstone,
That’s alright. He’d rather camp outside of town, preferably in a nearby swamp, and kill some alligators, bears or hunters with his bare hands after game prep is done for the day. You know, stay sharp.
Comment by Biggus Rickus — January 18, 2025 @ 10:28 am
8
I think people are seriously overestimating WVU’s desire to avoid dirt. Michigan, yes. WVU? Hell, it is West F’n Virginia, and their woman just ran off with the space heater. I somehow don’t think how things look to the greater public is really factoring in to their thought process right now.
Comment by meg — January 18, 2025 @ 10:34 am
9
If Rich Rodriguez is a smear campaign victim, then what is Petrino?
Comment by Stephen Colboar — January 18, 2025 @ 10:34 am
10
If Rich Rodriguez signed his contract extention last year and thought that the new buyout amount would not be enforced, he is a bigger fucktard than I gave him credit. He held them up last year, now he wants to reneg on an agreement he willingly signed. Maybe he can just coach in a ski-mask next year for Michigan. I’m going to guess this gets settled soon. I’m guessing the 4 million gets paid in 3 installs like it was supposed to be or UM fires RR, like Bama did Price or ND did O’Leary, without ever coaching a game. Then look for Les Miles to be contacted again.
Comment by Crabapple Buck — January 18, 2025 @ 10:40 am
11
With the exception of a corn dog tailgater burning down our old gym in 1996, vandalism is pretty rare in Auburn - even on game days.
However, if Wes Byrum kicks a game winner (or two) in Morgantown in 2008, some couches are gonna burn.
Comment by TIGERinATL (no LSU fan) — January 18, 2025 @ 10:51 am
12
Brian is not entirely correct about a couple of things going on, most notably failing to mention the central role of the buyout dispute in his discussion of WFV Filegate. He’s also wrong that the existence of his copies of the documents would negate the wrong of Rodriguez destroying his versions. But he’s right about the bigger picture, which is that WVU’s narrative — of data lost forever — is implausible, ridiculous, and completely undercuts its credibility.
So what could actually impact the only ~real~ dispute here, that of the $4 million? Here’s what I’d be looking for, behind all the sturm und drang (these are questions, not answers):
(1) Did Rodriguez destroy documents that would be subject to discovery in the contract litigation?. . . It’s a no-no to destroy documents you know will be the subject of litigation. (Hint, Arthur Anderson.)
(2) Did Rodriguez take any documents with him that were proprietary to WVU? . . . Recruiting files, for example. Even if he only took copies, and sent the originals to the president of WVU wrapped up in the finest of linens, I’d be looking for evidence that he took proprietary information from WVU for use at his next job. Now, is portability of this sort of stuff contemplated in his contract, or the general practice in the industry? I don’t know — but some stuff belongs to the employer, and can’t be used by the employee at his next job.
(3) Did Rodriguez destroy documents belonging to WVU (documents that are not “personal”)?. . . This is sort of a minor thing unless there is demonstrable malice behind the action. (Note though that Brian is wrong in saying any document in Rodriguez’s possession is by definition “personal;” not so, again, some stuff belongs to the employer — often “everything” does.) Now, why should we care?
. . . Because litigation is ugly. It reeks like Tressel’s hotel room the Morning After. Both sides are digging up as much petty dirt as possible to use to shape a narrative. Rodriguez wants to show WVU as utterly incompetent, even as intentionally misleading him about big things like facility improvements and little things like embossed stationery and fancy coffee machines.
WVU wants to show that Rodriguez left in bad faith, and in fact never intended to stay when he signed his contract extension. Any failure on WVU’s part would be subsumed by his use of the contract for his own personal benefit without carrying out his obligations under it.
SO, why is this so ugly? Say it with me — $4 million. IF Rodriguez paid the money, things wouldn’t be ugly. IF WVU released him from it, things wouldn’t be ugly. But WVU is mad, and so is Rodriguez (now, at least), and we have a fight over money.
The rest of the reporting is bunk. This isn’t a catfight, or about personalities, or anything else. It’s just more fun to think of it that way, the same way we ignore the role of money in every other facet of college football. Sometimes it’s more fun to pretend.
Comment by MST3K — January 18, 2025 @ 10:51 am
13
TIGERinATL,
It may be rare AT Auburn.
It isn’t rare to have your shit vandalized though:
http://woopig.net/board/index.php?topic=35131.0
Before:
http://loserwithsocks.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/aubefore.jpg
After:
http://loserwithsocks.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/auafter.jpg
Comment by Stephen Colboar — January 18, 2025 @ 11:05 am
14
There were no provisions in RRod’s contract for other schools. WVU filed suit to get a summary judgement showing they were upholding their end of the agreement (upgraded facilities, salary increases, etc.)
Comment by Paco — January 18, 2025 @ 11:06 am
15
[Applause]
Comment by Acorns — January 18, 2025 @ 11:09 am
16
Oh, and the way the contract is worded, RRod would personally have to pay the $4mil. So if Michigan (read: boosters) gave him the money to pay it, he’ll still have to pay taxes on the gift.
Comment by Paco — January 18, 2025 @ 11:10 am
17
FWIW, the lawyaz in my comments consistently say that it’s not really a matter of breach but of the dubious enforceability of punitive buyout clauses. There was no hint of breach in John Beilein’s contract but after some legal wrangling the amount M paid got sliced in half. This will likely be much the same, with both sides unsure of how a lawsuit will actually play out and willing to settle.
MST3K’s points may be valid but I think they’re orthogonal to the buyout issue.
As far as the “smear”: It’s one thing to quietly gather evidence for a court case and it’s another to make outlandish public claims that simply cannot be true (”We have no idea who’s on scholarship!”) in an effort to make your outgoing coach look like a douche. This is not about the money. Newspaper articles will not affect a federal court.
Comment by Brian @ MGoBlog — January 18, 2025 @ 11:19 am
18
The administration got beat up over agreeing to Beilein’s reduced buyout. I doubt that will happen again.
Comment by Paco — January 18, 2025 @ 11:22 am
19
MST - Interesting questions. Regarding #2, aren’t we going down a slippery slope? Couldn’t one argue that the offensive system that RR created belongs to the school that he created it at. Often Universities have such contracts with their professors, where innovation belongs (and the profits thereof) at least in part to the school. Wouldn’t it be interesting if a college sued a coach for a cut of the profits from his next job based on the fact that he created his offensive scheme at that school? (I know RR created this offense before W(f’in jihad)VU, but its worth thinking about in regards to Proprietary-ness)
Comment by Hemlock Philosopher — January 18, 2025 @ 11:28 am
20
[insert big words, legal precedents, and legal mumbo jumbo here…for i am not a lawya]
Comment by gerry dorsey — January 18, 2025 @ 11:29 am
21
#13. That’s kinda my point.
Comment by TIGERinATL (no LSU fan) — January 18, 2025 @ 11:39 am
22
Not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one on TV, but playing devil?s advocate here, from all I have read thus far WVU itself never released these articles to the media; they were forced to speak out about them by the anonymous reports. From what I have heard, the investigation has been going on since around the first week of January but WVU officials kept it under wraps. There have been rumors and innuendo swirling but no confirmation of anything as they looked into things and no one blamed RR. All anyone has is these ?unnamed sources claiming to be from the WVU athletic department.?
Imagine if we all applied the tenets of the RR way of dealing with contracts. Our economic status would be screwed, although I am thinking of all the money I can save reneging on my car payments and student loans. Our military would be in a shambles because no one in their right mind wants to go to the Middle East. If the mortgage crisis is bad now, think of what would happen if we played the RR way of ?just ignore it and it will go away.?
Bottom line: what good are contracts if no one has to uphold them? Why have them at all? Maybe we should do to coaches what we do to players; no contracts but if you switch teams you have to sit out a year. In the meantime, the contracts are there for a reason. If he is so valuable to UM, maybe they can pick up the tab (although UM did state from the get-go that they would not pay and RR would have to take care of his business on his own.) If WVU reneged on any part of the contract, it was RR?s obligation to send it in writing; copies of all court documents can be found online yet not one is a complaint about anything in the contract not being done. Since he cannot prove the university welshed on the contract, he needs to pay his bar tab and move on.
Comment by orioness66 — January 18, 2025 @ 11:40 am
23
Never saw a van with its ass burned off before. It’s good Bulldogs have short tails.
Regarding the RR situation, what else do we have to do until kickoff? I say we start seveal vicious yet baseless rumors.
Speaking of starting vicious and baseless rumors, Doug, have you seen Carl Rove lately?
Comment by SunDawg — January 18, 2025 @ 11:46 am
24
Several dammit; stupid keyboard.
Comment by SunDawg — January 18, 2025 @ 11:47 am
25
Couple things:
1. Mike London (UVa DC) is all but gone to U. Richmond, as Ian predicted.
2. Brian is right, clauses in K’s (it means contract, I’ze a lawya!) that make you pay your employer to quit are, to say the least, frowned upon. Like frowned upon the same way liquidated damages are frowned upon, and specific enforcement of employment k’s is frowned upon.
“But zOMG he signed it, freedom of k! ONOZ!”: how’s that strike against the government coming, Ms. Rand?
Comment by Exile on Broadway — January 18, 2025 @ 11:49 am
26
# 4
Adam…Girl kind of reminds me of Asia Carrera….I got a hold of her real email address and we were pen pals for a while (sticky keyboard mishap ended our relationship however) AsiaC@earthlink.net for any who dare…she’ll break your heart.
Don’t know any email address for hamburgers. Sorry
Comment by You Are Tebows' Lunch — January 18, 2025 @ 11:51 am
27
#11, an LSU fan did not burn down the old Gymnasium.
Comment by NewAZTiger — January 18, 2025 @ 11:54 am
28
#26… if i could find a way to justify to my wife that it was a good thing to be a pen pal with an asian porn star, i’d be all over it…
Comment by Adam — January 18, 2025 @ 11:58 am
29
MST3K - One major quibble. If I have my dates correct, Rodreguiz cleaned out his office on December 18, 2007. The declaratory judgment action filed by WVU occurred later. Thus there was no pending litigation to be avoided.
To the larger point - what RR and WVU are technically fighting about is whether the liquidated damages clause - the $4,000,000 figure - is a reasonable approximation of WVU’s damages. WVU already has another coach and it will have some difficulty proving that the ___ of days it took to find one cost it $4,000,000. WVU may reasonably believe that RR is 4 million better than Stewart, but it will have to be able to prove that.
I would be shocked if this case didn’t settle and fairly soon after signing day is over. At that point, neither side would have much to gain from posturing and cooler heads could prevail (assuming WVU will ever cool down).
As an aside, I have to relay a quote from Chris Balas, a Michigan rivals admin. He wondered whether the anonymous source in the WVU Athletic Department who was talking about the paper shredding destruction should be referred to as “Deep Goat.” (Perhaps just us older guys will find humor in that).
Comment by maskedavenger — January 18, 2025 @ 11:59 am
30
Absolutely true, it’s a question of enforceability. All of this “stuff” is relevant to that though. And I wouldn’t underestimate the role of public relations in the lawsuit.
(1) Rodriguez’s substantive defense to the enforcement of the buyout clause is that WVU breached the contract first — and logically then he shouldn’t have to pay the buyout penalty for removing himself from that situation. WVU responds that Rodriguez is the one who served in bad faith in order to counter that view; if he acted in bad faith, ultimately abandoning the program (having never intended to stay), then he should pay the penalty, they argue.
(1)(a) No lawsuit ever brings a single claim when it reaches it’s final form. Everything but the kitchen sink is the rule most lawyers follow — not that it’s necessarily the right decision, of course. So if they want to push Rodriguez to settle, and pay, they move to enforce the buyout, AND charge him with material breach of contract and ask for damages for that too; the game is to inflate potential damages in order to get a “reduced” settlement for what they wanted in the first place. Yay, law.
(2) Then there’s the “legal issue” and then there’s the ~narrative~ the lawyers put before the court (read, “jury”). And lawyers really, really care about the narrative.
(2) Finally, public pressure is very relevant to settlement, regardless of the precise legal issue. ~Especially~ where the parties are public universities and football coaches and others interested in ticket sales, AP rankings, etc.
Comment by MST3K — January 18, 2025 @ 12:06 pm
31
maskedavenger,
I’m not sure that the lawsuit has to be formally ~filed~ for the destruction of documents to be a problem. If legal proceedings are threatened, or obviously are going to happen, it’s ill-advised to start shredding. Of course, this is all speculation in the present case.
(By the way, being a lawyer sucks. Being a Masked Avenger is WAY cooler, and offers more opportunities for instant gratification.)
Comment by MST3K — January 18, 2025 @ 12:12 pm
32
#27 - I knew that it was a moron of our own who dumped his grill ashes, but it tells so much better to blame it on LSU.
Comment by TIGERinATL (no LSU fan) — January 18, 2025 @ 12:51 pm
33
“(By the way, being a lawyer sucks. Being a Masked Avenger is WAY cooler, and offers more opportunities for instant gratification.)”
Alas, I am like Daredevil, a lawyer by day.
Comment by maskedavenger — January 18, 2025 @ 1:06 pm
34
Good call with the discussion of the buyout clause as a reasonable liquidated damages provision. I was going to mention it until I saw your comment. Basically, like you said, the key is whether the provision is a reasonable approximation of damages or so severe as to be punitive, because punitive provisions will not be enforced by the court.
I think WFV is probably going to argue that they will lose up to $4 million in lower sales of licensed goods and through other revenue streams. Perhaps they could even argue that the success of their football team has led to increases in charitable donations to the school, etc. Their main difficulty is going to be in proving that such predictions are accurate, since courts tend to hate speculative estimates of damages. The other hard part is proving that there’s a $4 million drop-off in the difference between Rodriguez and Stewart.
Perhaps the funniest thing is that buyout clauses and all other liquidated damages clauses were created to shorten litigation by providing an estimate of future damages to either party. In this case, it looks like the buyout clause will do little to shorten the length or the cost of the litigation.
Comment by Jeff from LA — January 18, 2025 @ 1:57 pm
35
“Perhaps they could even argue that the success of their football team has led to increases in charitable donations to the school, etc. Their main difficulty is going to be in proving that such predictions are accurate, since courts tend to hate speculative estimates of damages.”
In WFV’s case, there are published articles where major boosters have stated that if DickRod leaves they are no longer going to support WFV. So this might be easier to prove than in most cases.
Comment by Pirate_mate — January 18, 2025 @ 2:36 pm
36
Ok, I guess those articles are going to make it easier. They’ll probably have to depose those boosters, but if the boosters assert those statements on depo or on the witness stand, then that will definitely strengthen WFV’s case.
Comment by Jeff from LA — January 18, 2025 @ 3:31 pm
37
RR has ensured all us CFB nuts will have plenty to discuss as he digs himself a marvelously complex legal hole…and, yes, being a lawyer can suck…hard.
I’m thinking about going to bartending school…everyone likes bartenders, don’t they? I like all of mine…ooh, but then I can’t spend all day fartin’ around on my computer. Shit, any other ideas? Frickin’ superhero-ing is just too enervating…oh, martini time…gotta go.
Comment by sb — January 18, 2025 @ 4:50 pm