Coach Rod

[ramcat]

Definitely sensing a Turd in the Punch Bowl. First D backs execs countering claims, then sister referred into toxic work place, then texts that are clearly inconsistent with claimants
description of situation.

[jimson]

Any one see Raquel Rodriguez' tweet? I'll post a link. Suck at imbedding.

https://twitter.com/raquelrod_23/status ... 0216178689

Raquel should really, really stfu... but thinking she is smarter than she is runs in the gene pool.

Her copy the MW text message proves nothing...acting graciously toward the daughter of the predator means nada. I think her Daddy did his share to tear her family apart.

She sure does a cute Tammy Wynette.

Hey Raquel: your Dad? Not a good guy... stay on the sidelines for this one or you will be pulling yourself into conversations you do not want to have, and it will be your fault.

Now Rhett’s tweet, if true, would be a much more valid argument... assuming her sister does not weight 350 lbs. he has more critical reasoning than sis.

Seriously? you really believe the little Rods are doing this on their own without direction and script from RR's lawyers?

[Chicat]

Any one see Raquel Rodriguez' tweet? I'll post a link. Suck at imbedding.

https://twitter.com/raquelrod_23/status ... 0216178689

Raquel should really, really stfu... but thinking she is smarter than she is runs in the gene pool.

Her copy the MW text message proves nothing...acting graciously toward the daughter of the predator means nada. I think her Daddy did his share to tear her family apart.

She sure does a cute Tammy Wynette.

Hey Raquel: your Dad? Not a good guy... stay on the sidelines for this one or you will be pulling yourself into conversations you do not want to have, and it will be your fault.

Now Rhett’s tweet, if true, would be a much more valid argument... assuming her sister does not weight 350 lbs. he has more critical reasoning than sis.

Seriously? you really believe the little Rods are doing this on their own without direction and script from RR's lawyers?

Holy crap, I hope so. If their lawyers are telling them it’s a good idea to disparage this woman on social media they should be disbarred for incompetence and failure to faithfully advise their client to shut up and let them do their job. Rhett and Raquel are not doing their dad any favors whatsoever.

[ChooChooCat]

Any one see Raquel Rodriguez' tweet? I'll post a link. Suck at imbedding.

https://twitter.com/raquelrod_23/status ... 0216178689

Raquel should really, really stfu... but thinking she is smarter than she is runs in the gene pool.

Her copy the MW text message proves nothing...acting graciously toward the daughter of the predator means nada. I think her Daddy did his share to tear her family apart.

She sure does a cute Tammy Wynette.

Hey Raquel: your Dad? Not a good guy... stay on the sidelines for this one or you will be pulling yourself into conversations you do not want to have, and it will be your fault.

Now Rhett’s tweet, if true, would be a much more valid argument... assuming her sister does not weight 350 lbs. he has more critical reasoning than sis.

Seriously? you really believe the little Rods are doing this on their own without direction and script from RR's lawyers?

Holy crap, I hope so. If their lawyers are telling them it’s a good idea to disparage this woman on social media they should be disbarred for incompetence and failure to faithfully advise their client to shut up and let them do their job. Rhett and Raquel are not doing their dad any favors whatsoever.

This.

If their lawyers are telling the kids to do this good luck in court is all I have to say. Amateur hour.

[jimson]

I don't think so. I think this is a deliberate leak of damaging info.

[azpenguin]

Any one see Raquel Rodriguez' tweet? I'll post a link. Suck at imbedding.

https://twitter.com/raquelrod_23/status ... 0216178689

Raquel should really, really stfu... but thinking she is smarter than she is runs in the gene pool.

Her copy the MW text message proves nothing...acting graciously toward the daughter of the predator means nada. I think her Daddy did his share to tear her family apart.

She sure does a cute Tammy Wynette.

Hey Raquel: your Dad? Not a good guy... stay on the sidelines for this one or you will be pulling yourself into conversations you do not want to have, and it will be your fault.

Now Rhett’s tweet, if true, would be a much more valid argument... assuming her sister does not weight 350 lbs. he has more critical reasoning than sis.

Seriously? you really believe the little Rods are doing this on their own without direction and script from RR's lawyers?

Holy crap, I hope so. If their lawyers are telling them it’s a good idea to disparage this woman on social media they should be disbarred for incompetence and failure to faithfully advise their client to shut up and let them do their job. Rhett and Raquel are not doing their dad any favors whatsoever.

Bingo. Ever hear that time tested quote of “we cannot comment on pending litigation” from a person or corporation? That’s because your lawyers DO NOT WANT YOU COMMENTING ON PENDING LITIGATION. There are very good reason for that.

[jimson]

Maybe, but it seems the comment clampdown would have already happened. Maybe the kids didn't get the memo.

[btfd16]

"Title IX education is a priority for student athletes and coaches. The UA required training for years before the NCAA decided in August that such education was mandatory and will be regulated."


http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... &id=201408

[Merkin]

Looks like Scheer was talking to a member of this board. One of the lawyers here said as much.

[btfd16]

Looks like Scheer was talking to a member of this board. One of the lawyers here said as much.

Not to mention a ton of little unnecessary inaccuracies like dates. It's definitely weird.

[FlyonWall]

Looks like Scheer was talking to a member of this board. One of the lawyers here said as much.

Disagree.

http://www.jaburgwilk.com/news-publicat ... bdivisions

The notice is required to state: (a) sufficient facts that support the claim, and (b) a “specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount.” If this seems complicated and sounds like a lot of work, it is and does.

If you read this attorney's review of Arizona's notice of claim statute, cases and claims will get dismissed based on failures in the notice of claim. Leaving out sufficient facts to support the claim, or facts that support the specific amount the claim can be settled, can cost the plaintiff later. So putting in more detail to allow the public entity to adequately evaluate the demand prior to litigation is the safer route.

[BearDown89]

Looks like Scheer was talking to a member of this board. One of the lawyers here said as much.

Disagree.

http://www.jaburgwilk.com/news-publicat ... bdivisions

The notice is required to state: (a) sufficient facts that support the claim, and (b) a “specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount.” If this seems complicated and sounds like a lot of work, it is and does.

If you read this attorney's review of Arizona's notice of claim statute, cases and claims will get dismissed based on failures in the notice of claim. Leaving out sufficient facts to support the claim, or facts that support the specific amount the claim can be settled, can cost the plaintiff later. So putting in more detail to allow the public entity to adequately evaluate the demand prior to litigation is the safer route.

Ha. I worked for Jaburg & Wilke once upon a time - '99-'00ish. Good firm. Nothing wrong with that article, but it doesn't change my thoughts in my earlier post that the exhaustively detailed 9-page narrative drafted by Augie Jimenez in this case is not how I would've done it. Apparently whoever Scheer talked to might agree. Either way, doesn't really matter.

[FlyonWall]

People can have different opinions on style, but those opinions don't make it improper to put in that level of detail. And perhaps the woman's attorney felt the greater detail could lead to greater likelihood of quick settlement with a public university.

[splitsecond]

I wonder why women would be hesitant to come forward with harassment or misconduct allegations as they are happening?

*Reads carcassdragger and splitsecond’s posts*

Never mind, I got my question answered.

What if in this case, maybe, as I don’t speak from first hand knowledge, the women involved allegedly had a 12 year history of sleeping with her married boss(es), both of which happened to be the Head Coach, and both of which happened to be married, to which she served as the personal assistant to both.

and I’m asking, not telling, would that ding credibility at all or show motive for what was perhaps alternative intent in that complaint?

im asking to know where the line is drawn to show complicate behavior, or are we to believe and supposed to believe that in all these cases the dominant figure in each individual case, male or female, is immediately responsible and guilty of the claims?

again I’m asking, cause in this day and age of rampant sexual harassment, is there a blurred line, or is it black and white?

obviously there is no place for harassment anywhere anytime whatsoever.

Interested in your feedback.

Here is the point of the post I made that you quoted:

Women report workplace sexual harassment or misconduct right away and oftentimes they’re labeled as “disgruntled” or “a troublemaker” by their coworkers. Why can’t she just brush it off? Is she trying to get her boss’s job? Etc.

Women don’t report it right away, but when it gets so bad they have to transfer or quit or they feel they need to take legal action they are labeled as gold-diggers, or people say it couldn’t have been that bad because they put up with it for so long. Why didn’t they report it sooner? What did they do to encourage it? Maybe she’s just a slut and now she’s trying to make some money off it.


I believe women until I’m given a really good reason not to believe them. On top of that, it doesn’t matter to me if a woman goes out drinking with the guys or participates in sexual banter or wears revealing clothes, even if she sleeps around with guys in her office. That doesn’t give anyone the right to harass her, force her to do things outside of her job description (like keep the boss’s affair a secret), or to grab, pinch, rub, or kiss her against her will.

Could this woman in particular be lying about these accusations? Sure. Has anyone provided proof that she’s lying outside of trying to say she’s got low morals and worse character? Absolutely not. If RichRod has evidence that what she says is false, I’d love to hear it because when anyone lies about things like this, it makes it that much harder for others to be believed.

I really think you are still misunderstanding my position here. As 97 said, there is no place for harassment of any kind. The issue that I had initially in this particular instance was with the fact that there was an investigation done that had a conclusion, and the victim refused to comply with that investigation, and then went ahead and filed suit. Those facts alone raised doubt in my mind as to the validity of the allegations. That was my initial reaction. Once I read the proof of claim, I had two basic opinions that came from it:

1. RichRod is a P.O.S. for his infidelity and involving others int he cover up (and I believe he implied that portion is true)
2. I have serious concerns that the victim is using RichRod's shitty actions to leverage a payday.

I also believe accusations should be believed on their face, or maybe more appropriately, left at face value, until there is reason to doubt them. That's the only way to really prevent people from coming forward. But we also lie in a society where people increasingly do not fear any recourse by their own words in all sorts of areas. When someone's livelihood or life is going to be ruined before the process is completed, I think that is a major problem. Now, when I reacted to the firing, RichRod hadn't yet admitted to his affair. Had I known that portion, my reaction would have not been the same initially. My reason to doubt the accuser would have not taken root at that point, and would have come later, when I read the proof of claim and the other information that I have seen now.

Part of why we have problems processing this sort of thing is that we as humans were never meant to have all the information instantaneously at our fingertips like we do now. While it certainly helps to make sure things don't get swept under the rug like they did in the past, it also greatly exacerbates the angry mob mentality. My position is simply the position that I take to try and bridge that gap. Perhaps in this instance I reacted to quickly as did many others going both directions on the issue. But my instinct does appear to be right that there is some serious room to question the veracity of the accusations, with the caveat that RichRod is in fact a piece of shit who should have been fired regardless.

[BearDown89]

Good legal breakdown here:
http://amp.si.com/college-football/2018 ... ssion=true" target="_blank

[jimson]

I especially do not like this:

“If this case were to go to trial in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis,” Jimenez warns, “neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways.”

This language seems extortionary to me.

[FlyonWall]

I especially do not like this:

“If this case were to go to trial in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis,” Jimenez warns, “neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways.”

This language seems extortionary to me.

Your analysis seems like you never read the extortion statute, which I posted previously in this thread, and which the basis of the suit fits the definition of the affirmative defense. By your analysis, threatening to bring suit in the public arena, that includes these allegations, that are so bad that the jury will certainly find against you, is extortion. If that were true then the Arizona notice of claim statute requires an illegal act.

All that statement does is provide a "fact" supporting the amount of the claim as required by the notice statute. I also posted the article on the notice statute which discusses the underlying rationale, being to allow the public entity to evaluate the allegations and avoid litigation.

[Harvey Specter]

I especially do not like this:

“If this case were to go to trial in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis,” Jimenez warns, “neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways.”

This language seems extortionary to me.

Your analysis seems like you never read the extortion statute, which I posted previously in this thread, and which the basis of the suit fits the definition of the affirmative defense. By your analysis, threatening to bring suit in the public arena, that includes these allegations, that are so bad that the jury will certainly find against you, is extortion. If that were true then the Arizona notice of claim statute requires an illegal act.

All that statement does is provide a "fact" supporting the amount of the claim as required by the notice statute. I also posted the article on the notice statute which discusses the underlying rationale, being to allow the public entity to evaluate the allegations and avoid litigation.

I do not think it is extortionary, but I don't think it was smart - unless he thinks the parties he is suing are idiots.

It's an elephant in the room that anyone who is not hibernating is well aware of. Calling attention to it makes it appear as though he would not be filing this suit were it not for the hypersensitivity to the issue.

IF the assertions that his client alleges are true - then he should go after RR's scalp with a vengeance. The fact that the current climate benefits him is a bonus that does not need to be called out; highlighing attention to it in the media gives the appearance that he is being an opportunist.

That's the way I would perceive it, anyway... if I was a prospective juror. Then again, I do not have a practice facility named after me...

[jimson]

I especially do not like this:

“If this case were to go to trial in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis,” Jimenez warns, “neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways.”

This language seems extortionary to me.

Your analysis seems like you never read the extortion statute, which I posted previously in this thread, and which the basis of the suit fits the definition of the affirmative defense. By your analysis, threatening to bring suit in the public arena, that includes these allegations, that are so bad that the jury will certainly find against you, is extortion. If that were true then the Arizona notice of claim statute requires an illegal act.

All that statement does is provide a "fact" supporting the amount of the claim as required by the notice statute. I also posted the article on the notice statute which discusses the underlying rationale, being to allow the public entity to evaluate the allegations and avoid litigation.

I do not think it is extortionary, but I don't think it was smart - unless he thinks the parties he is suing are idiots.

It's an elephant in the room that anyone who is not hibernating is well aware of. Calling attention to it makes it appear as though he would not be filing this suit were it not for the hypersensitivity to the issue.

IF the assertions that his client alleges are true - then he should go after RR's scalp with a vengeance. The fact that the current climate benefits him is a bonus that does not need to be called out; highlighing attention to it in the media gives the appearance that he is being an opportunist.

That's the way I would perceive it, anyway... if I was a prospective juror. Then again, I do not have a practice facility named after me...

It doesn't meet the legal definition sure, but I think it reinforces the view that this is an opportunistic money grab.

[FlyonWall]

I especially do not like this:

“If this case were to go to trial in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis,” Jimenez warns, “neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways.”

This language seems extortionary to me.

Your analysis seems like you never read the extortion statute, which I posted previously in this thread, and which the basis of the suit fits the definition of the affirmative defense. By your analysis, threatening to bring suit in the public arena, that includes these allegations, that are so bad that the jury will certainly find against you, is extortion. If that were true then the Arizona notice of claim statute requires an illegal act.

All that statement does is provide a "fact" supporting the amount of the claim as required by the notice statute. I also posted the article on the notice statute which discusses the underlying rationale, being to allow the public entity to evaluate the allegations and avoid litigation.

I do not think it is extortionary, but I don't think it was smart - unless he thinks the parties he is suing are idiots.

It's an elephant in the room that anyone who is not hibernating is well aware of. Calling attention to it makes it appear as though he would not be filing this suit were it not for the hypersensitivity to the issue.

IF the assertions that his client alleges are true - then he should go after RR's scalp with a vengeance. The fact that the current climate benefits him is a bonus that does not need to be called out; highlighing attention to it in the media gives the appearance that he is being an opportunist.

That's the way I would perceive it, anyway... if I was a prospective juror. Then again, I do not have a practice facility named after me...

That is fair. But I bet this is the most analyzed notice of claim in the last 25 years. It is a procedural hurdle. I am not sure the jury would ever be shown this notice of appeal as evidence, but of course it depends. Is it being used for impeachment purposes for an inconsistent statement (allowed), or to prove the truth or untruth of the allegations contained (not allowed)? See what the Arizona Supreme Court has to say whether a notice of claim is admissible. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-c ... 82543.html

[Harvey Specter]

I especially do not like this:

“If this case were to go to trial in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis,” Jimenez warns, “neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways.”

This language seems extortionary to me.

Your analysis seems like you never read the extortion statute, which I posted previously in this thread, and which the basis of the suit fits the definition of the affirmative defense. By your analysis, threatening to bring suit in the public arena, that includes these allegations, that are so bad that the jury will certainly find against you, is extortion. If that were true then the Arizona notice of claim statute requires an illegal act.

All that statement does is provide a "fact" supporting the amount of the claim as required by the notice statute. I also posted the article on the notice statute which discusses the underlying rationale, being to allow the public entity to evaluate the allegations and avoid litigation.

I do not think it is extortionary, but I don't think it was smart - unless he thinks the parties he is suing are idiots.

It's an elephant in the room that anyone who is not hibernating is well aware of. Calling attention to it makes it appear as though he would not be filing this suit were it not for the hypersensitivity to the issue.

IF the assertions that his client alleges are true - then he should go after RR's scalp with a vengeance. The fact that the current climate benefits him is a bonus that does not need to be called out; highlighing attention to it in the media gives the appearance that he is being an opportunist.

That's the way I would perceive it, anyway... if I was a prospective juror. Then again, I do not have a practice facility named after me...

It doesn't meet the legal definition sure, but I think it reinforces the view that this is an opportunistic money grab.

Whose view? Yours?

I may be reading in a sentiment that is not there, but I get the sense you are rolling your eyes with your old school view thinking “Boys will be boys... but she should have just kept her mouth shut and no way does she deserve that kind of cash. She’s just being a prude and the boys were trying to have a little fun”.

If RR did what is alleged, I will be glad to see the money he has stolen from UA for his “firing without cause” (I laugh as I type that) handed over to this woman.

If she is crazy and making this up, then not only does she have a very active imagination, but her lawyer is a fool and she will have created a great deal of embarrassment for herself.

[Chicat]

I am of the same mind Harvey. I also think that some people NEED her to be making this up for their own personal reasons, whatever those may be...

[btfd16]

I am of the same mind Harvey. I also think that some people NEED her to be making this up for their own personal reasons, whatever those may be...

Could also say vice versa. Just let the court figure it out and then the entire board will be on the same side.

[Chicat]

I am of the same mind Harvey. I also think that some people NEED her to be making this up for their own personal reasons, whatever those may be...

Could also say vice versa. Just let the court figure it out and then the entire board will be on the same side.

If the opposite is true, it's because people want to give women the benefit of the doubt due to how often these things end up being true. I can't understand the opposite mindset. For instance, I keep seeing "did you forget about Duke Lacrosse??", which was over a decade ago, but I don't see anyone offering up any other instances which prove that women make up these kind of accusations all the time.

[FlyonWall]

I think what gets missed in these alleged-predators are "entitled to due process," versus alleged victims are "entitled to be believed" is that both are true in different circumstances and are not therefore mutually exclusive.

In the court, the person is entitled to due process, especially where the allegations are of a criminal nature like assault.

On the other hand, the takedowns of alleged-predators before proceedings in court revolve around public positions, like senators who depend on public support, Hollywood figures whose ability to work depends on reputation, and coaches at public universities who are the face of the institution. In these arenas, the person's reputation is at issue, and other parties may choose to not work with people under those allegations without waiting for court proceedings.

[btfd16]

I am of the same mind Harvey. I also think that some people NEED her to be making this up for their own personal reasons, whatever those may be...

Could also say vice versa. Just let the court figure it out and then the entire board will be on the same side.

If the opposite is true, it's because people want to give women the benefit of the doubt due to how often these things end up being true. I can't understand the opposite mindset. For instance, I keep seeing "did you forget about Duke Lacrosse??", which was over a decade ago, but I don't see anyone offering up any other instances which prove that women make up these kind of accusations all the time.

I get that completely. I haven't pulled out the Duke argument, but if you would like a more recent one I would cite Robby Anderson, RB from OU.

I think what gets missed in these alleged-predators are "entitled to due process," versus alleged victims are "entitled to be believed" is that both are true in different circumstances and are not therefore mutually exclusive.

In the court, the person is entitled to due process, especially where the allegations are of a criminal nature like assault.

On the other hand, the takedowns of alleged-predators before proceedings in court revolve around public positions, like senators who depend on public support, Hollywood figures whose ability to work depends on reputation, and coaches at public universities who are the face of the institution. In these arenas, the person's reputation is at issue, and other parties may choose to not work with people under those allegations without waiting for court proceedings.

I like this. Now if there were multiple women that came with the same story of harrassment or people like Krisanne, the other secretary that was no more than 10 feet away, corroborated the story, I would be inclined to jump the gun more. Until then, I know RR and I know MW. Therefore, I will wait.

[Chicat]

I am of the same mind Harvey. I also think that some people NEED her to be making this up for their own personal reasons, whatever those may be...

Could also say vice versa. Just let the court figure it out and then the entire board will be on the same side.

If the opposite is true, it's because people want to give women the benefit of the doubt due to how often these things end up being true. I can't understand the opposite mindset. For instance, I keep seeing "did you forget about Duke Lacrosse??", which was over a decade ago, but I don't see anyone offering up any other instances which prove that women make up these kind of accusations all the time.

I get that completely. I haven't pulled out the Duke argument, but if you would like a more recent one I would cite Robby Anderson, RB from OU.

If you cited ten more examples I think that would put the percentage of malicious false reporting in the <.1% range. And that’s being extraordinarily generous.

[jimson]

I may be reading in a sentiment that is not there, but I get the sense you are rolling your eyes with your old school view thinking “Boys will be boys... but she should have just kept her mouth shut and no way does she deserve that kind of cash. She’s just being a prude and the boys were trying to have a little fun”.

You have one thing right. I think demanding to be made a multi-millionairess is ridiculous.

I am not so blind with RR hatred that I can't see the red flags.

Not that I'm sad to see him go, he reached scumbag status just with his admitted infidelity IMO.

Her claims were taken seriously and there was an investigation. If they had merit, UA shouldn't be paying him 6 million dollars.
Fuck him, see ya in court RR, unless, of course her claims are so flimsy the U doesn't think it can prevail "in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis, and neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways.”

[CalStateTempe]

Any one see Raquel Rodriguez' tweet? I'll post a link. Suck at imbedding.

https://twitter.com/raquelrod_23/status ... 0216178689

Raquel should really, really stfu... but thinking she is smarter than she is runs in the gene pool.

Her copy the MW text message proves nothing...acting graciously toward the daughter of the predator means nada. I think her Daddy did his share to tear her family apart.

She sure does a cute Tammy Wynette.

Hey Raquel: your Dad? Not a good guy... stay on the sidelines for this one or you will be pulling yourself into conversations you do not want to have, and it will be your fault.

If RR legal defense is anything like his on the field? Yikes

Bend but don’t break and field OKG lawyers he’s hoping to coach up?

Now Rhett’s tweet, if true, would be a much more valid argument... assuming her sister does not weight 350 lbs. he has more critical reasoning than sis.

Seriously? you really believe the little Rods are doing this on their own without direction and script from RR's lawyers?

Holy crap, I hope so. If their lawyers are telling them it’s a good idea to disparage this woman on social media they should be disbarred for incompetence and failure to faithfully advise their client to shut up and let them do their job. Rhett and Raquel are not doing their dad any favors whatsoever.

This.

If their lawyers are telling the kids to do this good luck in court is all I have to say. Amateur hour.

[CalStateTempe]

Looks like I missed some fun the past few days...

[dmjcat]

More fall out from the RRod firing........a prominent booster is now referring to the UA as a "Third World University"

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... b0a68.html" target="_blank

One prominent UA booster said the payoff to RichRod has given him pause to reconsider his financial support of the athletic department.

“I’d offer a million for him to go away and let RichRod fight it,” he told me. “Now I’m wondering how they are using my donations. Right now, I am at a total stop until I get some answers. I’m sick of the glad-handing bull. We need a new culture, that’s for sure. This secrecy bull … the basketball and track stuff, I feel like I’m part of some third-world university program now.”

[prh]

More fall out from the RRod firing........a prominent booster is now referring to the UA as a "Third World University"

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... b0a68.html" target="_blank

One prominent UA booster said the payoff to RichRod has given him pause to reconsider his financial support of the athletic department.

“I’d offer a million for him to go away and let RichRod fight it,” he told me. “Now I’m wondering how they are using my donations. Right now, I am at a total stop until I get some answers. I’m sick of the glad-handing bull. We need a new culture, that’s for sure. This secrecy bull … the basketball and track stuff, I feel like I’m part of some third-world university program now.”

Pretty typical Hansen article. Booster is unnamed, for good reason. That's a pretty tone deaf statement to make, on multiple levels.

[threenumberones]

More fall out from the RRod firing........a prominent booster is now referring to the UA as a "Third World University"

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... b0a68.html" target="_blank

One prominent UA booster said the payoff to RichRod has given him pause to reconsider his financial support of the athletic department.

“I’d offer a million for him to go away and let RichRod fight it,” he told me. “Now I’m wondering how they are using my donations. Right now, I am at a total stop until I get some answers. I’m sick of the glad-handing bull. We need a new culture, that’s for sure. This secrecy bull … the basketball and track stuff, I feel like I’m part of some third-world university program now.”

Pretty typical Hansen article. Booster is unnamed, for good reason. That's a pretty tone deaf statement to make, on multiple levels.

Because he's written those checks, he absolutely has the right to have that opinion.

[prh]

More fall out from the RRod firing........a prominent booster is now referring to the UA as a "Third World University"

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... b0a68.html" target="_blank

One prominent UA booster said the payoff to RichRod has given him pause to reconsider his financial support of the athletic department.

“I’d offer a million for him to go away and let RichRod fight it,” he told me. “Now I’m wondering how they are using my donations. Right now, I am at a total stop until I get some answers. I’m sick of the glad-handing bull. We need a new culture, that’s for sure. This secrecy bull … the basketball and track stuff, I feel like I’m part of some third-world university program now.”

Pretty typical Hansen article. Booster is unnamed, for good reason. That's a pretty tone deaf statement to make, on multiple levels.

Because he's written those checks, he absolutely has the right to have that opinion.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but the way he portrayed it was very poor. Comparing it to the third-world is downright ridiculous. Being sick of the glad handing bull is quite reasonable, but if anything, that was Byrne and that's gone now. We can agree we need a new culture, and the article addresses that Robbins is especially looking for a culture of excellence. The secrecy bullshit-- well we just got rid of the biggest part of that. Some secrecy is always going to exist; does he expect the department to tell boosters of every little detail. Normal companies don't function that way. People know what they need to know, not every problem going on that could be leaked out.

And the last part that I really don't get, is his idea of throwing RR $1m and have him fight it. If this guy thinks we're a joke of a department, well, hmm, why don't we drag ourselves through the mud and expose every little issue we might have? I would assume such a big booster is experienced in the business world; I'm not sure who would want every problem in their company exposed. That's why settlements occur. The negative PR and other associated fallout is usually worse than making the problem go away with money.

I know that penny pinchers hate that but do we want to save a few million bucks and come out looking like Baylor, or do we want to move on? And don't answer with we shouldn't have put ourselves in the situation, because it's too late for that and irrelevant now.

[TheGreatCatsby]

In that article didn't realize that last year there was also another university office investigation into RichRod in February, over player mistreatment allegations by a former player. Then later on got to hear about sexual harassment, infidelity, culture of secrecy and fear, no wonder all fall Heeke was about as tight lipped on RR as you can get, just talking about him seemed to make Heeke visibly uptight. Watched that link above somewhere of RR's post game ASU presser, never saw that before, that was odd.

Also wasn't aware Click and Moreno were so much on the outs over these past years with RR in place.

And we can chalk up another victory over ASU on this saga. Our coach was at least twice as toxic as Graham was, and we only had to pay half as much to make him go away.

[Chicat]

My first thought was that it sounded like one guy needing his balls cupped, but I have to say that I feel the exact same way. What in the name of Cedric Dempsey are we fucking doing here? I’m pissed that we are pretty much achieving an ASU level of incompetency and scandal.

[UAEebs86]

My first thought was that it sounded like one guy needing his balls cupped, but I have to say that I feel the exact same way. What in the name of Cedric Dempsey are we fucking doing here? I’m pissed that we are pretty much achieving an ASU level of incompetency and scandal.

My opinion of Greg Byrne goes down almost every day now.

[UAEebs86]

[btfd16]

Hey David Reynolds, back off my college football.

Hansen also gets ripped a few times.

[prh]

Hey David Reynolds, back off my college football.

Hansen also gets ripped a few times.

Lots of really awful takes. I especially like the one complaining about the buyout and then saying Rita should get restitution--umm...they're still married so that $6m counts.

However, that John Schmidt guy, let's get him in here!

Also, the hired gun takes are hilarious. Aren't we all hired guns for somebody? I'm not working for my company out of nostalgia or personal history.

[Harvey Specter]

Hey David Reynolds, back off my college football.

Hansen also gets ripped a few times.

My personal favorite...

Please consider this my formal application to be the next head football coach at Arizona. I recently retired and am looking for a challenging position that could pay me tons of money. I believe that I fulfill at least one of the qualities of the last three coaches at Arizona. Due to my complete lack of knowledge of complex offenses and defenses, I feel I could easily match or surpass the record of coach Mackovic.

Unfortunately I don't use profanity, so I wouldn't have the same sideline tirades as coach Stoops. Also unlike RichRod, I treat women with respect and common courtesy. I hope you won't hold these character flaws against me. I look forward to your prompt response. And so it goes... if the athletic director position should soon open up, please consider me for that job, too.

Charles Schultz

[Merkin]

[ASUHATER!]

Time to lock this thread and burn it down to cleanse ourselves from 6 years of mediocrity.

[Chicat]

I’m going to sticky it.

As a warning.

[btfd16]

Keep it for updates on the lawsuit

[prh]

Stick it in arch rivals

[Chicat]

Stick it in arch rivals

If this happens?

No problem.

[prh]

That's gotta be sarcastic, right? That makes zero sense for everyone except RR

[TatetheGreat]

RR would go back to Jalen Hurts because he looked better in practice.

[Chicat]

RR would go back to Jalen Hurts because he looked better in practice.

Naw, Jalen has to give up his schollie because Rhett needs it.