Arizona fires Rich Rod / hires Kevin Sumlin | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

Arizona fires Rich Rod / hires Kevin Sumlin

If he were in the playoff though, lets be honest, he wouldn't be getting terminated over an allegation, an investigation that found nothing and an extramarital affair.

he's getting whacked because he has a huge contract and basically a .500 record to show for it.
 
If he were in the playoff though, lets be honest, he wouldn't be getting terminated over an allegation, an investigation that found nothing and an extramarital affair.

he's getting whacked because he has a huge contract and basically a .500 record to show for it.

Possibly. But who knows. We don't know that the investigation found nothing. I suspect something turned up that UA doesn't want to make public at this time but exposes them to liability. I'm guessing RichRod knows that, but optically it's better for him to deny wrongdoing.

In other words, I bet on some UA site somewhere there is a private thread about the truth of what happened where 5 people are nodding their heads saying "yeah, he probably had to go".

Occam's razor and all.
 
Possibly. But who knows. We don't know that the investigation found nothing. I suspect something turned up that UA doesn't want to make public at this time but exposes them to liability. I'm guessing RichRod knows that, but optically it's better for him to deny wrongdoing.

In other words, I bet on some UA site somewhere there is a private thread about the truth of what happened where 5 people are nodding their heads saying "yeah, he probably had to go".

Occam's razor and all.


Agree 100% and it's not like UA has shown ridiculous expectations for their football program either. I doubt they planned on firing him for going 7-6
 
Well its a good thing that's settled. Get her!

ETA: so she files a notice of claim with the state, UA gets notified as a defendant (likely), and they open an internal investigation on their very expensive football coach. UA says, "hey, why don't turn all of your evidence over to us?" She declines to cooperate with UA's internal investigation, and likely will continue her own lawsuit thankyouverymuch... that means it's a bogus complaint?

Never said it was bogus. I said you and the other poster each have a differing opinion, each with as much weight as the other at this point.
 
Possibly. But who knows. We don't know that the investigation found nothing. I suspect something turned up that UA doesn't want to make public at this time but exposes them to liability. I'm guessing RichRod knows that, but optically it's better for him to deny wrongdoing.

In other words, I bet on some UA site somewhere there is a private thread about the truth of what happened where 5 people are nodding their heads saying "yeah, he probably had to go".

Occam's razor and all.

though aren't they paying him what they owe him ? why do that?
 
So they investigated a woman's claims, couldn't substantiate it, but found something else that made them say "holy shiitake" we gotta fire him.

Wonder if they found something similar to the accusations against the hoops team.
Lot's of these college based investigations have no clue about due process. So slanted.
 
though aren't they paying him what they owe him ? why do that?
They owe the buyout unless he is terminated for cause. UA has reported that they have no proof of a violation, but the victim was not cooperating. I read an article that stated that UA was not happy with the way RichRod was running the program.

Speculation:
1) Victim does not want to reveal her evidence just yet (attorney's legal strategy); UA strongly suspects there is potential she is right and is getting ahead of the story. If they victim proves he case, the termination is changed to For Cause and the buyout is voided.
2) UA unhappy with RichRod's mediocrity and is taking advantage of an opportunity to get out with little harm (recall, if RichRod gets a job, the new salary offsets the buyout.
3) UA administration/board/big donor may not like RichRod (similar to #2 but not based on performance, rather, personality).
 
though aren't they paying him what they owe him ? why do that?

To help brush this all under the rug and have him go away?

I don't know, obviously. It strikes me as odd though the theory that UA would do this as a cover for not liking his on-field performance. I mean, coaches are fired in droves every year, many with much better pedigrees that what he had at UA. If they didn't like that he's gone 17-21 over the past 3 years they could've just canned him in December. There certainly wouldn't have been a national outcry over it. And they'd still be paying him what he was owed on his contract.
 
Nah, that's nothing you couldn't work around with a OUIJA board and a little creativity. :p

Heck, Al Davis was dead for years and still ran the Raiders. ;)
He'd be coaching from the booth!
 
He's way richer for leaving, but, he should have stayed at WVU. Had the system down, and would have been another Don Nehlen lifer. hindsight...
 
They owe the buyout unless he is terminated for cause. UA has reported that they have no proof of a violation, but the victim was not cooperating. I read an article that stated that UA was not happy with the way RichRod was running the program.

Speculation:
1) Victim does not want to reveal her evidence just yet (attorney's legal strategy); UA strongly suspects there is potential she is right and is getting ahead of the story. If they victim proves he case, the termination is changed to For Cause and the buyout is voided.
2) UA unhappy with RichRod's mediocrity and is taking advantage of an opportunity to get out with little harm (recall, if RichRod gets a job, the new salary offsets the buyout.
3) UA administration/board/big donor may not like RichRod (similar to #2 but not based on performance, rather, personality).
I don't think you can retroactively say it was for cause
 
I don't think you can retroactively say it was for cause
I have seen buyouts include an escape clause to cover such instances. Essentially, it is a good faith enforcer. The payor gets the opportunity to take action before the @#$_ hits the fan and if the payee is at fault, the payor is off the hook in accordance with the buyout agreement.
 

Similar threads

Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
5
Views
557
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
6
Views
4K
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Friday for Football
Replies
6
Views
4K
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
0
Views
618

Forum statistics

Threads
169,372
Messages
4,828,052
Members
5,974
Latest member
CuseVegas

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
1,474
Total visitors
1,674


...
Top Bottom