In an amended resignation letter, Rich Rodriguez defended his departure from his native state and alma mater by arguing that West Virginia University leaders breached a verbal contract with him -- an agreement he said included a pledge from President Mike Garrison to lower or erase his $4 million buyout.

Attorneys for the university said yesterday, however, that no such verbal agreement was made by Garrison and that the written contract setting the former football coach's buyout at $4 million takes precedence under state law.

"Whatever discussion may have occurred would be independent of this contract," said university attorney Jeff Wakefield. "This contract speaks for itself. It's very clear. Unambiguous.

"To the extent of Mr. Rodriguez and [his attorneys] to suggest that there was some agreement on the buyout clause independent of this agreement, that was never made."

In the letter, dated Jan. 10 -- three weeks after he became Michigan's head coach -- Rodriguez wrote that the verbal agreement was struck Aug. 24 so that he would then sign his contract extension despite being uncomfortable with the buyout provision.

He said the letter was intended to "put in writing my reasons that I felt [the university] has material and substantial breaches in our Agreement." It was obtained yesterday by the Post-Gazette from sources close to the situation. It is expected to be entered as evidence when Rodriguez's attorneys file his response by Feb. 4 to the university's breach-of-contract lawsuit. Rodriguez also wrote that he believed the contract was breached at midseason when athletic director Ed Pastilong told him a promised locker room improvement project "was off because of a lack of funds." Work has since begun, though.

Rodriguez began the letter with his recollection of a discussion at that contract-signing meeting in his Puskar Center office.

"Mike Garrison stated that he did not believe in buyouts and that if I wanted to leave ... 'the buyout would be reduced to 2 million or eliminated altogether,' " Rodriguez wrote. "He knew I did not want to sign it with the large buyout but assured me that as soon as he took office [in September] he would address it."

Rodriguez wrote that he also felt duped into that $4 million buyout when originally signing a term sheet Dec. 8, 2006, when the extension was first reached to prevent him from jumping to Alabama. He said that university officials told him then that the donors who funded his new deal demanded such a hefty price tag, and he said he later discovered the donors hadn't asked for it.

Wakefield, however, said Garrison made no such statement Aug. 24 about changing the buyout terms.

"The university's stance is to deny such an agreement and comment was made," Wakefield said.

Rodriguez signed extensions June 24, 2006, and again last August, but it's a clause in his original deal, signed Dec. 21, 2002, that plays a vital role here. That contract carries what is called an integration clause, meaning that no other contracts or agreements are binding unless signed by both parties. University lawyers specified that clause in the lawsuit they filed Dec. 27 seeking the full $4 million buyout from Rodriguez.

Paul Haagen, co-director of the Duke law school's Center for Sports Law and Policy, said a verbal contract normally carries as much clout as a written one -- except where an integration clause exists.

"If it does [exist] here, the written agreement is the final agreement and the verbal agreement cannot be introduced," Haagen said. Although, he added, Rodriguez's side could argue for fraud: "Essentially, 'Did they trick him into signing?' "

Even if Rodriguez's lawyers can prove Garrison made the remark, other factors come into play.

"Does [Garrison] have the authority to bind or control the university? That's not self-evident. Was he expressing a view or an opinion, or was he making a commitment?" Haagen said. A judge could force Garrison to keep his word if it was indeed a promise and if Rodriguez relied on that basis, he added.