Talk:Rich Rodriguez

Selection as Alabama coach still a rumor

The article has been prematurely edited to show Rich Rodruiguez as Alabama's coach. While it pretends to include a "reference," the linked article is just a published rumor, and not even from a well-known source. No official statement has been made by either school, and no public knowledge of a signed contract exists. I am reverting the article, and it should continue to say WVU until any changes are TRULY announced at 3:00 P.M. today. (Besides, the changes made weren't even well-done) Aerodave 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not a rumor any more [1]. I 100% agree that rumors are bad ... and the article should not say he is the "current" Bama HC since he obviously is not ... but this looks like a legitimate media source. BigDT 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"two sources close to the search" sounds like it's still a rumor to me. Note that the Birmingham News has been wrong about basically everything they've printed (Spurrier rumors, etc) since thanksgiving. --68.84.102.249 03:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

At least one other source - [2] - has picked up on the report. I don't know ... I'm inclined to believe a mainstream media report. If it were a blog ... ok ... dismiss it. Still, though ... I remember in 2000 when Beamer to UNC was a done deal and all of the media were reporting it. We all know how that worked out. If any established user changes it back, I won't revert it ... but I'm inclined to leave it as is unless something refuting the report comes out. BigDT 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An article in the Charleston Gazette disputes the report above. Also, given that no contract has been signed, and the deal has not been publicly confirmed by either Rich Rodriguez or the Alabama athletic department, I think it's premature to state as a matter of fact that he's the new Alabama coach, even if it may happen soon.--MogWV 04:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ESPN SportsCenter just reported RichRod to Bama as fact, saying he has an agreement in principle to the deal. ESPN is about as reliable as it gets. BigDT 04:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the last article in the Gazette was taken down and replaced with this one confirming the agreement in principle.--MogWV 04:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, no matter how reputable the sources, there's no dispute that it's all still pending. Until WVU announces he's out, and until UA announces that he is officially the coach, it is unencyclopedic to report it as fact. Since a contract has not yet been signed he is NOT, in fact, the Tide's coach yet. To say he is the coach when the reports only say he will accept the position is obviously incorrect.

A section of this article that says that the situation is pending, that an offer has been made would be appropriate, and could be maintained as part of the biographical history no matter the outcome. But if it's still pending, and still speculation, it should be treated as such. Aerodave 04:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, ESPN has now reported on SportsCenter multiple times that RR is going to Alabama and that the paperwork is just a formality. However, the WV Gazette - http://www.wvgazette.com/section/103/200612081 - quotes RichRod as saying that he has made no decision and that the ESPN report was fiction ... so, no, it wasn't speculation - it was the best information we had at the time. However, now that RichRod has said it was a false report, I agree, leave it off. BigDT 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like they got the deal done last night. [3] and [4] and

[5]...just waiting for UA or WVU to issue an official press statement. TronNDoE 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ESPN radio said that he is considering a counter-offer. Maybe WVU is getting Beamered? BigDT 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alabama papers report that he has. West Virginia papers reports that he hasn't. You have a classic conflict in sources. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ... I'm inclined to believe the WVU version at the moment simply because (1) they are more recent and (2) they actually quote RichRod rather than "sources". At any rate, it's all going to be over with very soon so I suggest that we leave the article as is for now. There is a good version that has everything changed to Bama that we can instantly revert to should something firm come out. BigDT 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ESPN radio now reporting he's officially staying. Sorry Bama. You got Beamered. BigDT 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's staying.

The idea that he had agreed to the Alabama job in principle has not been proven, and was denied by RichRod himself. I'm removing that section, as it infers he reneged on a deal.

Deleting comments from the talk page

The user that blanked this Talk page shouldn't have. I'm not saying this section shouldn't one day be removed. But while the Alabama drama is still fresh news, it's important to keep a record of this discussion. At the very least, people will wonder why the article has restricted editing, and this discussion will help. Aerodave 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not acceptable to remove comments form article talk pages under any circumstances unless it is to remove personal attacks, archive old comments on the talk page, or the commenter removes his own comments to save face. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

General discussion about a topic unrelated to writing an encyclopedia can be removed at any time. (I'm not offering a commentary on whether this removal met that standard, but this isn't a message board and removal is not limited to the circumstances you gave.) --B (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Rich Rodriguez really hispanic? Just because he has the last name "Rodriguez", that doesn't mean he is hispanic. I'd like to see that sentence removed or see a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.196.240 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that Rich Rodriguez is NOT Hispanic. There was some fanfare last year when Mario Cristobal was hired at FIU that he was the first and only I-A Hispanic head coach. In fact, this New York Times article mentions that: http://www.nytimes-institute.com/OLD_SITE/2007_Miami/2007_miami/10players.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.123.200 (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

His family is originally from Spain, which is not Hispanic (that term is properly used only for the people of Mexico, Latin America, etc.). --B (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic is a term that can mean different things depending on who uses it. According to the wikipedia article Hispanic the official US Government definition for census purposes is "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race." Clearly that includes Spain. I also located an interview where he discusses being a Hispanic head coach (http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=7256), so he does self identify that way. Maracle (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Girl Scouts?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.137.101 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from anon

WVU has not sued Rodriguez. The action is what is known as a Declaratory Action which is a request of the court to deem the existing contract to be valid. In this action no damages are sought and no suit is brought. A law suit cannot be filed until after January 19, 2008 assuming the $1.33 million installment payment is not made as part of the liquidated damages clause contained in the employment contract. (DA)

They've amended their complaint to include breach of contract now that the deadline for his first payment has passed. Maracle (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Recruiting fund

Several references have been added recently to an issue regarding the use of money from a recruiting fund for private air travel (http://www.register-herald.com/sports/local_story_022232247.html). The references have implied that Rodriguez inappropriately used the funds for other purposes. The articles in fact state that it was the WVU Athletic Department that used the funds for other purposes over Rodriguez's objections. I just wanted to point this out since it has been inserted incorrectly twice now. This issue is covered in the section titled Contract Controversy at the moment. Maracle (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I think its important in all of this to maintain the perspective of bystander and not editorial writer. Burnsfessler (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Buyout phrasing

While the phrase is accurate, I've never heard a buyout referred to as "liquidated damages." I've reverted this because I think it's clearer and because the media uniformly uses the word buyout. -TheMile (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, so I put "liquidated damages" term back. The term is precisely accurate. That is how the contract itself refers to that particular paragraph. The term "buyout" is slang, and is misleading, in that it makes it sound like it is OK to breach a contract and buy your way out, which is clearly POV. Just because the media uses language loosely in referring to the clause does not mean that an encyclopedia should do the same. Cmichael (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an article about a football coach, if so much weight is going to be placed on a contract dispute it seems to me that being as specific and accurate about the dispute as possible is the best way to handle it. Wikipedia's article on liquidated damages is actually very good and I think it helps a reader to understand the legal arguments on both sides just by reading the article summary (that it is a predetermined amount of damages for breaching a contract, and that courts will only order them to be paid to the extent actual damages occured). This seems to be a big part of what their dispute is about. Maracle (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a parenthetical note so that the article can remain accurate (per Cmichael) and so the people can relate this article to the media coverage (per TheMile). y'amer'can (wtf?) 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. Cmichael (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Larry Aschebrook

This section is convoluted and just plain inaccurate in some respects. I don't have time to fix it right now, and am leaving this note mostly as a reminder to myself to do so when I get a chance. If somebody else wants to work on it in the interim, my feelings wont be hurt <grin>. Cmichael (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of "Departure from WVU" section

I took out most of the details about the legal maneuvering during the lawsuit. It all seemed relevant when it was a current event, but now that its in the past, it seems to me to be unnecessary detail which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Cmichael (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Somebody cut and pasted the details back. I just removed them again. If you feel this level of detail really needs to be in there, let's talk about it here, OK? Thanks. Cmichael (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Glenville 1991 Season Record

There was some inconsistency in the Glenville section. It originally stated he went 1-7-1 in 1990, then 5-5 in 1991. Then stated 4-5-1 in 1991 in the very next sentence. I deleted the line stating he was 5-5 as 4-5-1 is the correct record, so there is now only one reference to the 1991 season record. Also changed the sentence structure slighty for better comprehension given all the n-dashes that were in the sentence with the record and aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.27.236 (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Born in Chicago?

The article from MichiganToday, while it contains a few errors, is written by John Bacon who is a noted author and a reliable source. But aside from that, Rodriguez himself is the one talking about moving to West Virginia. Since most of the edits come from people who clearly joined Wikipedia just to edit this page, I'd like to point out that when we have a reliable source interviewing someone that takes precedence over anything else. For example, it's fact that he is from Grant Town, and without verification it's easy to assume he was born there. I was born in Encinitas, California and moved to Michigan when I was about 9 months old. Most people assume I was born in Michigan. --MichiganCharms (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually witness this interview? Just because it has quote marks doesn't make it credible. I find the No Honeymoon article very suspect, it is full of incorrect information. I also find it odd that the AP, the University of Michigan's profile of Rodriguez when he was hired, West Virginia University's profile, the Detroit Free Press and ESPN would all say that his birthplace is Grant Town. -- Jnpmd (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, John Bacon is a credible source. There are two major errors in the article, not exactly enough to call out the credibility of a best selling author who has been writing a feature on the team. WP:BLP is on my side. Provide me one credible source where Rodriguez himself states he was born in Grant Town. -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bacon may be credible, but the article is seriously flawed. If you even admit that the article has major errors, why would you site it as a reliable source? Jnpmd (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the errors are actually minor. He never won a D-II National title, West Virginia University is called "University of West Virginia"... none of those errors change the fact that Rodriguez himself says he was born in Chicago. I have yet to find a single other instance where he discusses where he was born. We could, if this becomes a major issue, write or e-mail his office for an official answer. -MichiganCharms (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The article appears on a University of Michigan web site, and is an obvious puff piece. His college days would have been over if he hadn't made the team at the end of his first year? What a bunch of drivel. I worked my way through WVU years before Rich did, without any help from football, and while it wasn't easy, it was certainly do-able. And West Virginia was so bad that he only survived by bouncing a ball off the shed, day in and day out? Puleeze. Finally, Rich is not well known for accurate recollection of the facts. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of where Rod was born, but I certainly can't see any reason at all to consider this article to be a credible source. Cmichael (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, your opinion seems more then a little biased. I'm trying to get a third party to give their opinion, let's just let the article stand at whatever it's at now until then. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person..."(italics mine) The cited "article" appears on a University of Michigan website and is, essentially, a press release about a representative of the University. It has not been subjected to objective, third-party editorial review. The article is obviously biased toward presenting Rich in a positive, sympathetic light, telling the story of his trials and tribulations before arriving in Ann Arbor. I would find it equally unacceptable if it were published by West Virginia University, Ohio State, the City of Chicago, or any other self-serving entity. It may well be true that he was born in Chicago, but per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources."(italics again mine) Cmichael (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the TSE Sports and Entertainment website, you can review Rich Rodriguez's biography when booking him for a speaking engagement or public appearance. According to his biography, he was born and raised in West Virginia. It also states his place of birth as Grant Town, WV. I agree that sometimes people state they are from a state, even when they were born in another place. However, Rodriguez has often referred to himself as a native West Virginian. The word "native" implies he was born in West Virginia. http://athletes-celebrities.tseworld.com/sports/coaches/rich-rodriguez.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by UMgoBlue (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't care, if we have consensus let's change it. If other sources change to match Rich's account, we can change it then. Grant Town it is. --MichiganCharms (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I attended a University of Michigan football game for the first time this year. While at The Big House, I purchased an 'official' game program. To my shock and amazement, it listed the place of birth as "Chicago, IL" for Rich Rodriguez.

Scan it and post a link to the picture. Honestly, if the University is going to claim he was born in Chicago, then we probably shouldn't disagree. -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I will scan the official University of Michigan game program picture/article which clearly states that Rich Rodriguez was born in Chicago, IL and post the link. I am not quite sure how to do it but I will figure it out. Any suggestions are welcome. I still have the program (kept it as a sovenier) so I will definitely be able to scan and post the link sometime this week. In the meantime, here is another article that I pulled up on the subject. http://mvictors.com/?p=1465 Here is the source of the article. http://michigantoday.umich.edu/2008/11/rodriguez.php

Wikipedia isn't about truth. It's about verifiability. The mvictors.com link just refers back to the original University of Michigan link. The game program is also a publication of the University of Michigan. We need to hear it from an unbiased, critically edited source. Publications of the University of Michigan, and articles that point directly back to those publications, all are likely to be of common origin. One source just don't meet the verifiability test, in the face of multiple independent sources with contradictory information, IMHO. Cmichael (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is empiracal evidence that Rich Rodriguez HIMSELF has said that he was born in Chicago. Who are we to refute that? Doesn't it stand to reason that he would know, better than anyone else, where he was born.

Additionally, short of proving up the evidence through an actual birth certificate, the next best things are: 1) Rich Rodriguez, himself, saying that he was born in Chicago, and 2) the official game program for the University of Michigan. Why is the game program such compelling and dispositive proof? Because coaches are held account for every word written in them. Coaches have been fired for mis-reporting information in their official bios.

Why would Rich Rodriguez risk his job over something so small and trivial? A simple cost/benefit analysis would rule out the possibly of fraud in this instance. Moreover, short of proof of fraud, I submit that we have to take what is written into his bio at face value. Bios are scrubbed against falehoods. And there is no reason to think such a falsehood has been perpetrated in this instance. In my humble opinion, the OFFICIAL game program of the University of Michigan should put this issue to rest. It is clear and convincing evidence.

Yes, official biographies are considered better sources. Honestly, there are going to be so many West Virginia fans swarming over this that I question whether or not it's even worth it. But, the MVictors article does give me cause to challange the source being used for him being born in Grant Town. Provide one that firmly says he was born there.-MichiganCharms (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely a West Virginia fan, but I don't see what that has to do with his place of birth. I personally could not care less if he was born in Grant Town, Chicago, or Timbuktu. My problem is that we only have one source (the University of Michigan) that says he was born in Chicago. (Or maybe it's more accurate to claim that the U of M says that Rich says he was born in Chicago). In any event, if we had an independent source from somewhere that agreed with UM, I'd be all for making the change. Please do look at WP:RS. Cheers! Cmichael (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We have multiple sources that state that Rich Rodriguez was born in Chicago. The mother of Rich Rodriguez and Rich Rodriguez himself. Moreover, the 'one source' you allude to is so strong and compelling that (short of an actual birth certificate) it provides the strongest possible documentary evidence on this subject. Again, official bios are scrubbed and fact checked ad infinitum. This discussion forum has already made the determination that "official biographies are better sources". Until West Virginia fans can be provide proof other than mere opinion evidence, or the opinion evidence formed by print journalists who, in many instances, assumed that Rich Rodriguez was born in Grant Town, certainly the words of Rich Rodriguez himself, his mother, and the official University of Michigan game bio provide the strongest possible corroborative evidence that Rich Rodriguez was, in fact, born in Chicago, IL.

As someone on BLP's talk page pointed out... there is no hospital in Grant Town to be born in. -MichiganCharms (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Childbirth is a normal and natural process, not an illness, and often does not occur in a hospital, particularly among older generations. If I am annoying you by insisting that we follow Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, then I apologize. Each of the "multiple sources" you cite points back to a server operated by a single institution, so there could easily be a single point of error replicated throughout the organization. Independent, actively edited, reliable secondary sources -- that's what we need. Show it to me in the New York Times and I'll be much more impressed. Cmichael (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do feel you've gone well beyond the point of logical objection, but I really don't care enough to argue such a frivolous matter when there is actual work to be done on this article. -MichiganCharms (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Cmichael (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is sad. Fine, so the Chicago birthplace is in question for the reasons well stated above. But after all of the energy put into the arguments back and forth, his page still lists Grant Town as the birth place and links to a "source" (an U-M alumni site) that simply states "Rodriguez, a native of Grant Town, W.Va.". That's the Wikipedia source that meets all the standards above? If you can't find an acceptable source for his birthplace, shouldn't that be clearly stated to the reader? User:gregdooley

Please refer to WP:SOCK. Cmichael (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The U-M 2009 Spring Football Guide also confirms "Born: May 24, 1963 in Chicago, Ill." instead of "native of Grant Town" page 99. http://mgoblue.com/uploadedFiles/Sports/Football/Articles/2000s/2009-2010/fbl-2009-staff-richrod.pdf Yes, this is a University source. You should at least state that Grant Town is disputed his University bio in this record. User:gregdooley

Birthplace

Of the multiple independent sources currently cited for Rodriguez's birthplace being Chicago, 1 is a blog, 1 is about as journalistic as a blog (Scout), and 1 is NNDB. None of these three is likely to have done any research regarding Rodriguez's birthplace beyond, say, visiting Wikipedia. On the other hand, [6] appears to be an actual biographical article done with access to Rodriguez himself.

None of these are particularly reliable sources. While certainly third-party, the three used currently to put his birthplace at Grant Town are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

I acknowledge that the Michigan Today article may, in some points of view, not be third-party. In my opinion, this is incorrect, as the article was not written by Rodriguez himself. I don't think there's any way the article's affiliation with U of M would make the author falsify such a trivial detail. In any case, this article appears to be significantly more reliable than the other three, according to WP:RS. It's written by someone with actual journalistic credentials that quite obviously does _some_ fact checking (see the article's correction).

Unless someone can find a better source that puts his birthplace as Grant Town, I submit that we should change it to Chicago.

TheMile (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My original objections to the Michigan Today article were mostly around the fact that it is an obvious advertising piece, promoting Michigan Football in general, and Rodriguez in particular, and that it contained several other obvious errors of fact. I just revisited the article, and I see that the most egregious errors have been corrected (see the note at the bottom of the article). It also now contains a link to a brochure promoting Rodriguez and Michigan Football. So, it is not a static page, nor can it be considered "journalism."

This is a trivial matter which probably does not deserve the attention it has been given, up to and including the use of suspected sockpuppets to advance a particular position. My gut tells me that he probably was, in fact, born in Chicago.

Having said that, I don't feel real good about changing long-standing Wikipedia content based on a single source which is just an advertising page with dynamic content, changing frequently to advance the interests of its sponsor. Every other source that has been advanced in support of change springs from the root of this Michigan Today article.

Bottom Line: The sourcing on both sides of this argument is inadequate. Given that, I submit that the burden of proof is on those who propose to change. Provide a source that truly meets WP:RS and I'll fully support the change. Cmichael (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Michigan Today article is flawed, but "Just an advertising page" is hyperbole. It's an article with a vested interest to place Rodriguez in a positive light, but acting as if it would intentionally lie about a fact such as his birthplace is nonsense.

The article is still better than a couple of blogs. Regarding a "burden of proof," whether or not the current state of the page is long standing is irrelevant. What the page should say should be based solely on which set of sources is more reliable.

The only pertinent question then becomes: which sources are more reliable? Do you think the currently cited sources are more reliable than the Michigan Today article? TheMile (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, a source that's worth a damn: [7] That's from an actual newspaper, and easily trumps any of the sources we've discussed so far. TheMile (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll buy that. Cmichael (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I take exception to User:TheMile's assertion that the Michigan Today article is anything other than advertising. It is not. College football is big business and, for the schools, it's all about the money. The article's clear purpose is to promote Michigan's products, including its football team and its coach. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is anything but a reliable source. Cmichael (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

While I am similarly hesitant with the idea of using an obvious puff piece as a reliable source, I'd hardly call it blatant advertising. There are articles in Michigan Today which provide information that could be very useful to Wikipedia articles on the University, so dismissing it outright seems wrong to me. --MichiganCharms (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Blatant" is your word, not mine. Actually, Michigan's advertising is rather subtle. But, it is still advertising. And, using it as a source is no different than using a MacDonald's ad as a source for an article on the nutritional value of hamburgers. Cmichael (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Humorous Aside: I see that this argument might be heating up again, so was searching for some better sources and happened upon Rodriguez's Facebook page. I would never propose Facebook as a reliable source, but smiled when I saw that it listed his birthplace as Grant Town. I wondered if some would argue that "he must have been born in Grant Town, because he said it his very own self on Facebook." Then I realized that they had just copied the first paragraph from our article into his Facebook profile. Cmichael (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here is a reliable source that says "Grant Town." And another. And a third. Michigan Daily, which seems to have had good access to him, clearly states he was born in Grant Town. This one is a little more shaky, also grabbing the first paragraph from our article. Here he says in a 2006 interview that he "grew up" in Grant Town, but does not specifically name his birth place. Ditto Mlive.com. Interestingly, Reference.com, which looks for all the world like a reliable source (owned by ask.com) just reprints our article in its entirety. Allexperts.com says "Grant Town." The Free Library provides an interview in which he says he "grew up" in Grant Town, but again the place of birth is not specifically mentioned. I just can't find any source that says he was born in Chicago except for those which track back to that original University of Michigan piece. Cmichael (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Kalamazoo article [8] doesn't track back to the original U of M piece, and specifically makes a distinction between his birth place versus where he grew up. That said, there's an awful lot of sources that say Grant Town. As you discovered, it's quite possible there's just a lot of lazy research with people just sourcing this very article, but who knows. Frankly, I just don't care enough to try to sort it out any further. TheMile (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had a picture of the 10 foot tall sign that once stood along the road entering Grant Town. I can't imagine they would make that up. Unfortunatly after his departure from WVU it was taken down. Garkeith (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the sign from Grant Town after it was defamed. http://mvictors.com/images/2008/Q3/sign.gif No, it doesn't say "birthplace of" because he was born in Chicago. Rodriguez grew up in West Virgina, he walked on the football team, he became a coaching legend there and he wanted to stay there. His bios read "native of" or "from" because he is/was proud of that and wanted to be a part of the West Virigina brand. Eithe way please don't change it- it's much more fun this way. [user:gregdooley] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.30.94 (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2008 Games

The paragraph on the 2008 Michigan football season has turned into a jumbled mess. I haven't really followed it closely, maybe somebody who has could jump in and put it in chronological order, or perhaps even construct a table? Cmichael (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the existence of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team I don't really see the need to write out every game here. A link should suffice with a brief summary. Also, I should point out that this isn't Michigan's worst season. It is the most losses they've ever had in a year. Their actual winning percentage was lower in 1962, 1936 and 1934. In 1934, for example, they went 1-7. IMO, that's "worse" than 3-9. Solsun (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A brief summary and a link certainly works for me. Cmichael (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

NICKNAME

As far as his nickname, he is reffered to in the WV media as Coach Rod, never just "ROD" That I have ever heard. The nickname needs to be left "Coach Rod" Garkeith (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Brandstatter

Please take a moment and comment whether this article should or should not be deleted. Ikip (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

KEEP- What possible reason could be argued to delete the head coach of the Michigan Wolverines, former coach of WVU and the father of the spread offense. That is just crazy. Garkeith (talk)

Justin Boren Controversy

I started to put the Boren paragraph back in with some cleanup, as I think it is an important part of the story, however I realized that the citation is a blog, which is unacceptable. I would be in favor of including the information, though, if it is properly cited. Cmichael (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

IP just replaced the content, I removed it. I have no problem with the content, but blogs are not appropriate for citations. Cmichael (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I edited the section in hopes of tryig to stop what appears to be an edit war between 2 posters. In the future, instead of reverting, a poster should try to edit out POV content in a section. The content appears reasonable and cited by good sources (FREEP). Simply because the topic is not something a UM fan would like, does not mean it should not be included. --CraigMonroe (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That passage is clearly NNPOV or original research. "Offensive behavior?" "Legendary coach?" What's more, the Free Press link is broken. TheMile (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Then clean it up. Also, the original research argument is a bit much. --CraigMonroe (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)