In a sweeping response today to West Virginia University's lawsuit, Rich Rodriguez's attorneys claimed he was fraudulently induced into signing his last contract extension as the Mountaineers' football coach. They also accused university officials of forcing him to resign by nullifying that contract in the end, then waging a smear campaign against him.

In the 27-page answer filed this afternoon in federal court in Clarksburg, W.Va., Rodriguez's attorneys also contended that the university "prematurely" filed its suit Dec. 27, failed to get the full authority of the Board of Governors in whose name the suit was lodged and needs to add a co-plaintiff -- the WVU Foundation. Their reasoning was that the WVU Foundation not only paid the coach's compensation and would receive any or all of the $4 million buyout in contention, but would be the body to show potential damages for his departure to Michigan.

The response referred to "slanderous" and "malicious actions" by university officials "enraging and inciting certain fans" after Rodriguez left, calling it a deliberate attempt to damage his reputation and "a spiteful retaliation for his forced resignation."

His lawyers additionally demanded a jury trial and appeared ready to take the case to court in a state where anti-Rodriguez sentiment still appears to run deep.

Rodriguez attorney Marv Robon of Toledo, Ohio, said today of the response: "The message is that West Virginia University doesn't have all of the cards they were telling everybody they have. And some of their cards are filled with bullet holes."

"The No. 1 legal issue is, can liquidated damages set extremely high like this be enforceable, or is it against public policy? The No 2 legal question is, the university didn't authorize the lawsuit. The Board of Governors never met. I talked to a couple of tem, and they found it shocking" that a suit was filed in their name. And Rodriguez's attorneys, to prepare for a trial, asked to inspect the records of the WVU Foundation, whom they requested to be added to the case alongside the university.

"It's nothing new or unexpected," university lawyer Thomas V. Flaherty said after reviewing the response. "We think there's no basis in fact or in law to their claims or their defenses. We continue to look forward to presenting our case before the court as soon as possible ... in whatever court it's in."

While agreeing with several points of the university's original suit about most every contract term but the buyout, Rodriguez's side reasserted previously reported claims that administrators revoked verbal pledges made to "induce" him into signing his extension Aug. 24. It further reiterated their former coach's claim that President Mike Garrison offered, "in front of witnesses," to reduce or erase a buyout clause to which Rodriguez objected.

Attorneys for the university have denied that Garrison made any such promise, and that the written contract would take precedence over any verbal agreement anyway.