In reply to: If this is accurate, then BK has no more future at ND posted by NDFanSince81
...what can I trust?
For what it's worth, I have no idea if the rumor is accurate.
Phone rings. Chris Mortensen picks up.
TA: "Hi Chris, this is Trace [Armstrong]. Just wanted to let you know that your comments in Nov. about Brian aren't helping."
CM: "What do you mean?"
TA: "Well, Brian's quite happy at ND. I mean, it's been a shitty season alright, but that was a lot of one-off stuff. He's looking forward to next year. So he doesn't want anyone to get the wrong impression about the NFL. That won't help anybody -- you, me, or Brian."
CM: "Got it. Thanks for the tip."
TA: "Yea, he may want to get there in a few years, but for now he's got to keep everyone's focus on the program. Last thing he needs is distractions. It's hard enough recruiting against those cheating pricks in the SEC without every recruit's mom thinking I'll be going like Saban told 'em."
CM: "You got that right."
TA: "If there's news, you'll be the first to know. You know you can trust me. So let's keep this is in family."
CM: "You're the perfect agent, thanks."
That's all it would take to nip this shit in the bud. Instead, what we're getting is that the "Word is out there" about BK, specific reasons for his interest, and claims that it's more active than two years ago. BK could squash this very easily. but he hasn't. And neither has JS, by the way.
source, and you may be right. The speculation about this, in my opinion, at least passes the giggle test. It's certainly more plausible than the Bob Stoops' wife has hired a realtor in South Bend / Nick Saban's wife has hired a realtor in Austin nonsense that some people fall for during coaching searches.
As I said, I have no opinion on whether or not it is true. Unlike the coach's wife stuff, it's not obvious bullshit.
I'm not disturbed by the fact that neither Kelly nor Swarbrick have publicly quashed this. Those sorts of denials tend to get discounted by those who believed the original rumor, and keep the "story" alive for another news cycle. ("Our highly placed source, speaking anonymously because they are not authorized to comment publicly, assures us that ...)
I would be thrilled to see Kelly gone.
Armstrong is their agent.
You don't even need to be a high school graduate to put two and two together.
Also, let's say, just for the sake of argument, Mortensen isn't being fed information. Armstrong(Kelly) could use him to take the air out of the speculation.
this is a guy who has more GMs, Asst GMs, and NFL guys on his speed dial than Charlie Weis. Mort is a local guy who takes pride in his work. That detail gets overlooked.
Besides, there is too much garbage to sift through. Armstrong was an All-American at Florida and he didn't have enough cache to get Florida to give Kelly a look? Oh wait, he is also Urban Meyer's agent. Another detail that gets overlooked.
How about the Kelly to Raiders stuff said by Jack Arute? Is Armstrong involved there? Oh wait, Arute is represented by Mike Tannenbaum, the J-E-T-S ex-GM.
The problem in the college game and the NFL; there are more openings than slam-dunk hires. I expect Kelly's name to surface, as well as the usual suspects. Like I have said repeatedly; Kelly would be a fool to go to the NFL. The players would eat him alive.
Would I be walking into a 2-by-4 if I ran with the notion that Brian is frustrated with institutional obstacles at Notre Dame?"
No doubt that Mortensen has lots of contacts and sources, but in this particular case, it would seem that he's got a pretty good fact-checking source.
It's tough to imagine that accuracy wouldn't serve the interests of Mortensen, Kelly and Armstrong in this scenario.
That's the point about these exercises; trashing Armstrong (who is Meyer's agent) or Mortensen does not solve anything when guys like Arute and the knuckleheads from the OP's post bring up Kelly's name.
Another salient point, if Kelly and his agent is talking to folks about openings, either Jack has given these teams permission to talk to Kelly or Kelly's gone rogue; remember Kelly is still under contract. If Kelly has gone rogue, Jack should have the ability to fire Kelly with cause.
Of course, if Jack does not know what is going on with Kelly, ND probably has much greater concerns than just the HC.
I graduated from high school, graduated from Notre Dame, graduated from law school, passed a board certification exam, and attained an av rating in Martindale Hubble, without being able to put two and two together. Or maybe it's because I've learned the danger of relying on confirmation bias in putting two and two together.
Trace Armstrong represents both Kelly and Mortensen. I doubt he would leave Mortensen hanging out there if his reporting was way off base.
As has already been said, Kelly and/or Armstrong could squash the rumors in a second. They haven't. If anything, they appear to be a in serious campaign to find a credible place for BK to land.
It's possible he is hoping to get fired so he can get the buy out.
I would hope that public false or disparaging statements about his employer would trigger "for cause" separation provisions which would eliminate or drastically reduce Notre Dame's financial liability in the event the University decided to terminate Kelly before the expiration of his contract.
(To be clear, I would expect this in any coach's contract, not just Kelly's.)
Just being able to conduct discovery would be priceless.
I'd love to see Kelly's and Amstrong's computers and cell phones.
Not to mention cross-examining that arrogant gas bag.
he is not saying these things directly. If Swarbrick were to ask him if either he or Armstrong are starting the rumors and he says no and Swarbrick were to order him to squash the rumors and he doesn't do so, would that constitute "for cause"?
I don't even know that the contract has such a provision, let alone its precise language.
But it should have a provision that bars the employee and his agents from making disparaging comments about the employer. Note, the prohibition would not be limited to "false" statements, but would proscribe "disparaging" statements. Accordingly, a statement while arguably true ("redshirt" vs. "fifth-year") could still be disparaging and actionable.
Further, if the contract contains appropriate language, it not only should allow Notre Dame to terminate the employee without paying the otherwise due-and-owing severance compensation, but it also would be grounds for a breach-of-contract action by Notre Dame against the employee.