OT: Texas Tech fires Mike Leach

[upstater1]

Each University system has its own board of regents. So, tu's bor has no input into A&M bor, and vice versa.

With that said, anything that f's up tech is a +1 in my book.

Well, yes, each system has its own Regents.

But I was trying to distinguish between the Regents of the university system and the board of trustees that oversees that university at Lubbock, and has no authority over any other school.

The Regents provide oversight of much more than the school at Lubbock.

By the way some of these Regents are real pieces of work, going so far as to try to establish a curriculum for the university they oversee. The equivalent would be like putting Curious George in charge of Microsoft.

 

[upstater1]

Craig James meddled big time with that coaching staff and his son is apparently a real jerk who feels entitled because of his old man. Baby James was put in a closet as a way to "time out" the whining child.
Tech fired Leach over money. He was owed huge $$$. He'll get most of it with a settlement of a coming lawsuit.

He'll get nothing. He was owed $800k.

They'll make that much up in the first or second year of the signing of the new contract with the new coach who will not make anywhere near what Leach was making.

That being said, this whole thing broke a week ago, so whether or not they were trying to save $800k, the timing of what they did cannot be questioned at all. They took action within a week of hearing about the incident with James.

Coincidental timing? Yes, but there it is.

If you read his contract, he clearly violated it.

 

[upstater1]

Game Time: Global Thermonuclear War In Lubbock - Houston News - Hair Balls

Here's a good article-o.

Also I saw the shed/garage in some news reports. I was thinking it was a "closet", but that's not the case. And he was being supervised by trainers. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't have done it.

I don't see what the big deal is...he said he had a concussion, so they told him to go someplace dark and quiet. What were they supposed to do? Just tell him to go home, I guess. It's not like he was imprisoned. It is possible that they doubted his concussion, how do you prove such a thing, and maybe that's not good...you must take a player's word for it, or a doctor's (but the doctor's only know what the kid tells them).

Seems a little bit of an overreaction-aroo on the part of everyone.

I don't think James alone got SMU busted, it was a litany of things they did.

You're getting things confused.

The shed is different from the closet.

The shed is the thing you see there.

The electrical closet was a room entirely different and it was inside the press room.

The trainers sat outside the dark room and came in every 13-15 minutes to make sure the kid wasn't sitting down. That happened for 2 or 3 hours. The door was locked.

You can't honestly tell me that was a form of treatment for a concussion?

Plus the ass't coach himself made clear this was punishment, and no doubt he helped to torpedo Leach's lawyer.

 

[TruthSeeker]

*

1.) Coaches can discipline players.

2.) Coaches can require players attend practice even if they can't physically take part in the practice.

3.) Taking the kid out of bright light is a good thing when dealing with concussion, and the doctor reportedly stated that the actions taken were beneficial to the kid.


If Leach loses this case, pretty much every coach and teacher in America can be fired for cause immediately.


*Assuming there was no physical nature to the 'detention' and that nothing further comes to light.

Your "logic" is laughable. But it's clear that your mind is made up, so I won't bother being one of those who attempt to refute it. I'll just go along and laugh with most everyone else.

 

[upstater1]

You guys simply don't get it. What the coach did, based on all, including his own lawyers statements verges very very closely to false imprisonment. You all get that right?? Added to that, the team doctor had just diagnosed him with a concussion. There is no disputing any of that. You simply can't do that, both the ex-coach and the school will be very very lucky if they aren't sued for huge $$'s. I also wouldn't be surprised if we find out in a few weeks there are criminal charges being filed. Maybe you could get away with stuff like this twenty years ago, but not today, not any more. Heck you aren't even allowed to swear at recruits in basic training anymore. The world has changed

James didn't file an official complaint (any kid at a university can file a complaint, and trust me, a lot of kids do). He informally asked for an apology. Leach refused to talk to his superiors about the case. So, I don't think he'll be suing the coach or the school.

 

[upstater1]

Heck you aren't even allowed to swear at recruits in basic training anymore. The world has changed

You're not? Why not? I doubt that's a PC thing more than it is something else. Swearing is neutral.

 

[ramon]

Mike Leach was railroaded by Texas Tech, Adam James and his dad.
Is he arrogant band ****y yes.
But he did nothing wrong in putting a kid with a mild concussion in a darkened room..which is appropriate for his medical condition as bright lights can worsen symptoms.
the James kid had a vendetta against Leach and he knew he could get him fired with assistance from his ESPN commentator dad.

 

[patfanken]

my 2 cents

It seems clear to me that the Barstool report rang truer than most of the comments I read. Most people don't understand that the political struggles that are common place in most universities make what goes on in DC look positively polite. There is no question that Leach created many enemies while at TT.

As to the incident itself, I find the so called issue of false imprisionment rather ridiculous. As a former teach/coach, every detention I gave out might be concidered "false imprisionment".

Also as a former player, I am familiar with concussions (though my only severe concussion came in a car accident). I know that when anyone has a concussion it is best to keep them awake and in a cool dark place. So placing him a cool dark place for a couple of hours doesn't seem like "punishment" to me.

I think the "incident" itself was more of an excuse for the university to act than a reaction to a single issue.

BTW- I think the university has a right to fire him. You should be able to fire anyone if your are the boss. But that doesn't mean they did the "right thing".

Other snippets

1. I remember Craig James as being an EXCELLENT running back, who had acouple of good years for the Pats before succumming to injuries that ended his career. IIRC he had a 1200 yd season, which was more impressive because he usually shared the RB role. His first 2 years with the Pats he averaged 4.9 and 4.7 ypc. My memories of him are very positive

2. I take with a grain of salt any selected comments by "teammates". In any group of 90 odd players you can find both positive and negative comments about any coach.

3. There is more to this story that is being told to us right now. Anyone who is making ANY absolute opinions based on current reports could find themselves out on the limb when the "real" story finally is revealed.

 

[shmessy]

Also as a former player, I am familiar with concussions (though my only severe concussion came in a car accident). I know that when anyone has a concussion it is best to keep them awake and in a cool dark place. So placing him a cool dark place for a couple of hours doesn't seem like "punishment" to me.

Ken, shouldn't MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS be making that call and carrying it out, not football coaches????

Isn't that what it all boils down to?

If the action taken was as described, then Leach is just as liable in this situation as he would be if he was writing life insurance policies for the kid without having an insurance license.

It's pretty simple. Football coaches do not prescribe treatment for concussions. They have every right to keep a kid out of practice, take away captainships, kick kids off the team, call him a "she', etc. But they cannot decide physical treatment of an injury based on their layman's knowledge.

If the call to do this was the trainer's/medical staff's then fine - - any complaint anyone would have would have to be directed at them, not the coach. If the call was made by the coach, then there's a problem.

At this point, we don't know who made the determination. I'm sure it will come out eventually. I would imagine, however, that the lawyered-up The Board of Regents (and ask yourself, really, when would a BOR NOT be lawyered-up before making a human resources decisions on the highest paid employee of a university?) has enough information to have made this decision with confidence of beating down any legal challenge.

Remember, this is the same gang who wrote up a contract for Bobby Knight laden with all kinds of coach-player behavioural stipulations. If anyone knows the dimensions of that playing surface it would be them.

 

[upstater1]

my 2 cents

It seems clear to me that the Barstool report rang truer than most of the comments I read. Most people don't understand that the political struggles that are common place in most universities make what goes on in DC look positively polite. There is no question that Leach created many enemies while at TT.

As to the incident itself, I find the so called issue of false imprisionment rather ridiculous. As a former teach/coach, every detention I gave out might be concidered "false imprisionment".

Also as a former player, I am familiar with concussions (though my only severe concussion came in a car accident). I know that when anyone has a concussion it is best to keep them awake and in a cool dark place. So placing him a cool dark place for a couple of hours doesn't seem like "punishment" to me.

I think the "incident" itself was more of an excuse for the university to act than a reaction to a single issue.

BTW- I think the university has a right to fire him. You should be able to fire anyone if your are the boss. But that doesn't mean they did the "right thing".

Other snippets

1. I remember Craig James as being an EXCELLENT running back, who had acouple of good years for the Pats before succumming to injuries that ended his career. IIRC he had a 1200 yd season, which was more impressive because he usually shared the RB role. His first 2 years with the Pats he averaged 4.9 and 4.7 ypc. My memories of him are very positive

2. I take with a grain of salt any selected comments by "teammates". In any group of 90 odd players you can find both positive and negative comments about any coach.

3. There is more to this story that is being told to us right now. Anyone who is making ANY absolute opinions based on current reports could find themselves out on the limb when the "real" story finally is revealed.

You're making it a lot more complicated than it should be.

The constant refrain from Leach's coaches and also Leach this morning that the kid was a punk just reinforces the idea that this was punishment.

He was in that room for 3 hours, and he was not allowed to sit "or lean" on something. Now, how is that treatment for a concussion?

It's punishment, and really nothing more needs to be said.

I'm not saying the kid suffered. That's not the point. The point is that this Leach guy punishes kids after concussions (whether the kid is a punk or not is immaterial). Other players on the team noted that he was "caged" after a concussion. Whether those kids are bitter at the coach or not is immaterial as well.

It's 2010. You can't send the message to players that they should think twice about reporting a concussion, especially in college when the coach is making $2 million plus and the players are getting room&board&scholarship.

It doesn't need to be made more complicated than that.

 

[upstater1]

Ken, shouldn't MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS be making that call and carrying it out, not football coaches????

Isn't that what it all boils down to?

If the action taken was as described, then Leach is just as liable in this situation as he would be if he was writing life insurance policies for the kid without having an insurance license.

It's pretty simple. Football coaches do not prescribe treatment for concussions. They have every right to keep a kid out of practice, take away captainships, kick kids off the team, call him a "she', etc. But they cannot decide physical treatment of an injury based on their layman's knowledge.

If the call to do this was the trainer's/medical staff's then fine - - any complaint anyone would have would have to be directed at them, not the coach. If the call was made by the coach, then there's a problem.

At this point, we don't know who made the determination. I'm sure it will come out eventually. I would imagine, however, that the lawyered-up The Board of Regents (and ask yourself, really, when would a BOR NOT be lawyered-up before making a human resources decisions on the highest paid employee of a university?) has enough information to have made this decision with confidence of beating down any legal challenge.

Remember, this is the same gang who wrote up a contract for Bobby Knight laden with all kinds of coach-player behavioural stipulations. If anyone knows the dimensions of that playing surface it would be them.

The trainer on ESPN said that he was instructed by Leach to stick the kid in the electrical closet, but he didn't do that. He said James wasn't in the closet at all. But the trainer did say that he did stop James from leaning or sitting.

The trainer also said this went on for 3 hours which contradicts the lawyer who said it was for 1 or 2 hours.

Lastly, the trainer said it wasn't a shed but it was a "sports medicine garage."

OK, you tell me what that is.

In short, the trainer is questionable.

Leach said he deferred to the doctor, though James said the doctor told him to stand on the sidelines with sunglasses. Leach read a statement from the doctor which said that James was not harmed by being ina room and not allowed to sit or lean for 3 hours.

I see that statement as dissembling things quite a bit. I'm not sure anyone claimed James was harmed. The doctor though has students in his care and he should be concerned with the message the so-called "treatment" for a concussion sends to the other students under his care.

No one comes out smelling like a rose.

I don't blame Craig James for what he did (protect his kid) but no doubt his parenting comes into question with all the character attacks.

Leach is doing himself a total disservice by following his lawyer's advice to call the kid lazy and entitled. Yes, killing the kid's reputation may be effective in getting the public on his side, but it would not go down well with an AD looking for a coach. Attacking your students is not smart, not only in this particular case because it reinforces the idea you were punishing the kid, but because it's a big no-no at schools.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Does anyone really believe he punished a kid for getting injured? There's more to the story that isn't being reported. I don't trust ESPN particularly when this involves a blood relation.

Well, you can read what Leach's lawyer was saying. It's already been quoted in this thread.

I agree with Upstater. Leach's lawyer's argument convinces me that Texas Tech was right in getting rid of Leach. Of course, I've heard a lot of other things that sway me in that direction as well.

You know, Leach wouldn't have (essentially) any supporters out there if TT was a 3-10 team this year. His support is solely because of his winning record, not because of how he treats his players and those around him.

 

[TruthSeeker]

While I agree with this reading of why he was fired, James did indeed have a concussion, as he was treated by a doctor who made that diagnosis.

Since GroganCountry's justification of Leach's actions stems from the assumption that Adam didn't have a concussion, then we're right back where we started.

It doesn't really matter how good a football player Craig James was, what the attitudes of SMU students are or even how well Adam James played football. This is all about how a coach chooses to "discipline" a player who was diagnosed with a concussion and justify that discipline by saying (through his lawyer) that this was appropriate medical treatment. I really thought that no one in their right mind would buy that argument, but apparently some on this board do.

And then, when confronted with this, Leach continued to show exactly who he was as a man by the way he has handled himself - no apology, no give and take, only attack those who dared to confront him. It appears that Leach is a man who is used to being in total control and browbeating anyone who challenges him. Ultimately, that's what got him fired.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Craig James ... snitched out SMU to the NCAA ... earning SMU the only "death penalty" in the history of college football.

Ya, I hate those people that tell the truth. It's those who cover-up, deny and obstruct that are the good guys.

I understand now why you're advocating for Leach.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your "logic" is laughable. But it's clear that your mind is made up, so I won't bother being one of those who attempt to refute it. I'll just go along and laugh with most everyone else.

Way to ignore the last line, slick.

 

[upstater1]

Ya, I hate those people that tell the truth. It's those who cover-up, deny and obstruct that are the good guys.

I understand now why you're advocating for Leach.

Not to mention that he had no part in the investigation at SMU.

The Patriots had already lost the Super Bowl by the time that went down in 1987, and James had also spent time in the USFL. He was 5 years gone.

 

[JMarr]

Ya, I hate those people that tell the truth. It's those who cover-up, deny and obstruct that are the good guys.

Ya, and I hate snitches, in almost any context. Here's analogy that I hope is simple enough for you:

You're working for an employer who has given you a great job and treated you very well. The job gives you access to some sensitive (and shady)information that doesn't concern you, but that would irrepairably damage the company you work for, not to mention putting every one of your co-workers out of a job if revealed. You take it upon yourself to take down the ship so that people who are infinitely more powerful [and shady] than your boss--let's say the government in this example--can give you a big slap on the back and tell everyone what a great, honest person you are.

BTW, at the time, I loved it when the SMU program was going down in flames. They had taken art of cheating in college athletics to a new level. The problem I have is with the former snitch who is now Mr. Squeaky Clean, highly respected broadcaster--the personification of everything that is good and sacred about college athletics. :eat1:

 

[JMarr]

(and ask yourself, really, when would a BOR NOT be lawyered-up before making a human resources decisions on the highest paid employee of a university?)

When the Board of Regents and their yes-men have to scramble and improvise when word gets out that a judge is about to make a decision that you never anticipated in your wildest dreams--in this case, lifting the suspension until all the information comes to light, and even worse, allowing your target-man to create a national embarrassment for your university by representing it on a national TV stage.

In other words, when the mother of all PR fiascos is about to happen on Jan. 2nd if you don't take immediate action.

 

[JMarr]

Remember, this is the same gang who wrote up a contract for Bobby Knight laden with all kinds of coach-player behavioural stipulations. If anyone knows the dimensions of that playing surface it would be them.

Not really shmessy. Remember, this is the same gang who gave their blessing to hiring Knight in the first place, at a time when Knight couldn't have gotten a 2nd assistant job at Roger Williams.

Everything they put in the contract is all well and good, but Knight still violated the "good behavior" clause on at least two occasions. What's really interesting is the difference in the way the Knight incidents were handled verses Leach's F up. Another reason why I think Leach is holding a better hand than anyone around here thinks he is.

 

[unoriginal]

Let us assume Adam James is a 20-year-old punk, as many stories indicate, who was using the sunglasses-treatment of his mild concussion as an opportunity to cavort around on the sidelines and generally be a ****. The way to deal with this situation is the same as you would deal with any unruly player: you dismiss them from practice. You tell them you can't coach them currently, and if they are not being coached, other players who are being coached will probably earn their playing time. This is what BB did when he recently sent 4 late players home from practice; he did not put them in a room with a bunch of ticking clocks to teach them the value of being on time.

The way Leach handled the initial situation confused his role as a coach with that of some kind of lawgiver, and it confused Adam Jones' injury with his lack of coach-ability. The most important aspect of this or any other disciplinary matter is what it says to the other players on the team. Leach's way tells them injuries — specifically, concussions — can be used as punishment for an offense, or might even be considered an offense in themselves. BB's way tells players that practice and coaching are privileges effective players should attempt to utilize as much as they are able. If Leach had merely told Adam James to leave practice and further reduced his playing time, no doubt he'd still have to deal with an obnoxious parent. But Texas Tech would need other grounds to fire him, and Craig James would have to content himself to making snide or offhand remarks about Leach on air, like Tom Jackson does with BB.

If we are to take Adam James' actions in this matter (and those of his father) as evidence of everyday systematic malfeasance, I'd take Leach's method of handling this the same way. It implies to me he runs a system based on control instead of on participation, which is how the rest of college is run.