Responding to an Upset New Member
by LondonRaider on Jan 14, 2010 3:24 PM CST
Email
Print
Dear RIR,
First of all, some rules for the road going forward. We expect all members to conform to these.
Where to begin?
In Defense of the Members
We have members who are students, retirees, lawyers, doctors, academics, educators, engineers, business people – about every walk of life that you can imagine.
We even have a vocal contingent of contributors who never went to Tech, but have been attracted to Texas Tech football, Mike Leach and the controversy surrounding his firing. Everybody brings their own unique perspective to the table.
For the most part, the members of this forum have only one thing in common, which is their love for Texas Tech sports. Beyond that I doubt we could get five members here to share the same view on anything. That’s what makes this blog so great.
This diversity of viewpoints applies to whichever issue you might choose to look at:
Mike Leach’s Firing : We’ve got people here who think Leach was wronged. We’ve got other people here who think Leach brought it on himself. We’ve got others who think both sides are to blame. We’ve got people who want answers. We’ve got others who are just ready to move on.
Tuberville: We’ve got people who think Tubbs is the second coming. We’ve got people who aren’t buying his spread offense experience.
Quarterbacks: Potts. Sticks. Potts. Sticks.
Hopefully, you get the idea.
So before we move on, please show the members of this forum proper respect they deserve. We all choose to spend our time here, which means we could be doing something else (and probably ought to be).
Nobody’s forcing you to be here.
(Regular readers are familiar with my arguments, so I’ll apologize now for going over old ground.)
My Views
When I first heard about Leach’s firing, like most people, I couldn’t believe it. I read and heard what everyone else did. Leach mistreated a player with a concussion. Leach was insubordinate. Hance tried to save the day. Leach was suspended. Leach tried to sue the university. Leach was gone. Case closed.
Sounded like a pretty damning story. Except that it was apparent early on that things were not as clearcut as they first seemed.
Above of all, for me, I was most surprised to see how quickly Leach’s firing took place.
As the events have unfolded and more information has come to light, what was presented by the Administration as a black and white issue was becoming distinctly gray (or even brown depending on your perspective).
The ESPN Interview, and BOR Emails
I watched the full 36 minute ESPN video with Leach. Leach gave a clear account of his version of events. Those statements contradicted the Administration’s version and James' assertions.
I read Leach’s New York Times interview which also described the events differently from the administration’s depictions.
I read the emails released by the Dallas Morning News between Hance and then (former) Chairman of the Board of Regents, Jim Sowell. The emails did not paint a pretty picture. The way I read it, the BOR did not seem to be negotiating in good faith. I was also taken aback by how unprofessional the discussion seemed to be taking place. The negotiations seemed far more personal than they needed to be.
The seeds of doubt were sown. I wanted to find out whose account of the incident was correct. Was it the Administration’s? Was it Leach’s?
So I did what I try to do in my business life, which is to ask lots of questions, focus on the facts, and put together evidence which either supports or refutes my initial assumptions. As those facts have come to light, the case against Leach begins to look a lot less conclusive than as it was originally presented.
Concussions
The first thing I did was read up on the science of concussions, particularly mild concussions. (these are my stories, and the idea is that you link to the research within the stories. Feel free to find your own information.)
What struck me about that research was that when it comes to treating mild concussions (calling a concussion a mild concussion is not trivializing it, that’s what it is called), there is very little agreement among the medical and scientific community about how to manage mild concussions due mainly to lack of sufficient evidence (in fact there are at least 16 different guidelines). I solicited my brother in law’s opinion who is a maxillofacial surgeon, and whose job is to repair the faces and skulls of soldiers who were injured in Afghanistan - usually by improvised explosive devices. He concurred with the literature. He also told me the lack of data on mild concussions is not exactly news.
When I read the scientific literature and the NCAA guidelines on concussions and marry those discussions with James’ treatment, I believe James received the appropriate care. More to the point, he didn’t appear to be treated inappropriately.
Affidavits
The second thing I did was to focus on the affidavits. When you read the trainer’s statements, the trainer makes it very clear that he elected to place James into what he describes as the medicine/athletic training shed. He placed James in a dark place, because James claimed to be suffering from light sensitivity. When you suffer from light sensitivity as a symptom of a concussion, the recommended treatment is apparently to rest in a dark place. The facility in question is as large as a single-car garage where other athletes come to receive minor medical care.
The trainer also states very clearly that in the second instance, he elected to place the player in the media room, where other players have also been sent during practice. In both instances the player was monitored by a trainer. The trainer also said that he apologized to the player, which might be the case, but he also speaks about how he had to keep the player from misbehaving while the player was in the trainer’s care.
The doctor’s statements are ambiguous. On the one hand, the doctor says that the treatment did not place the player in any danger. On the other hand, he says the treatment was inappropriate.
The affidavits did not specifically point out any wrongdoing by Leach, other than indicating Leach using profanity toward James. In the world of college football, especially in Texas, that’s ‘dog bites man’ stuff.
My conclusion here is that a) there is very little agreement on the treatment of mild concussions among the medical and scientific community, b) James was treated in accordance to NCAA guidelines – which are themselves vague, c) even if you accept the physician’s statements as gospel superseding all other scientific discussion on the planet, his criticisms would necessarily apply to the trainer’s actions and not to Leach.
Finances
I’ve heard from a lot of people that this is a case about the money. Being a finance guy, I checked the numbers, and determined that the school’s football program was more than capable of absorbing Leach’s contract. Further, I found that Leach’s contract demands were in line with the market. Leach’s termination was not about the money either. Those findings made me wonder why Leach’s contract negotiations turned into such a big deal in the first place.
Board of Regents Statement
Next, the Board of Regents released a statement which categorically states the rationale for Leach’s dismissal. According to the Board of Regents, Leach is let go because of his alleged mistreatment of a concussed player and because of Leach’s subsequent insubordination. If the Board’s statement about Leach’s alleged mistreatment of a concussed player is not supported by the facts, how could one maintain that the BOR was credible in it characterizations of Leach’s alleged insubordination as well?
Employee Conduct
Leach is reputed have issues with the Administration, but didn’t Bobby Knight have issues as well? It is well known that Knight chased the school’s president out of a cafeteria and had to be restrained by Myers in a public setting. I am from Lubbock. I heard the eye witness accounts. (For the record, I am a huge Bobby Knight fan. I thought, however, that his actions were completely ridiculous. Who acts like that at his age?)
Nevertheless, despite Knight’s outlandish behavior, things with Knight were smoothed over, he was allowed to continue coaching and matters were handled in-house
However, in Leach’s case - where we are working with a very ambiguous set of facts at best - Leach was shown the door 11 days after allegations were first raised. Why? Why the different treatment? Why the haste?
Absence of Due Process
If the Administration in fact has such a good case, then providing Leach due process and duly proving its case is the best way to justify its position. Giving Leach due process would also have been the best way to dampen what surely was going to be a huge outcry given his popularity and success.
That didn’t happen here. And that’s why people are upset. The decision not to grant Leach due process by a handful of people is a huge lapse in judgement.
If one believes Leach has committed a wrong doing, fine. Prove it. Whatever your politics, we Americans and Red Raiders believe wholeheartedly in justice. We will and do accept the outcome of a fair process.
The recent actions at University of South Florida are a great case in point. The coach struck a player. A proper investigation was conducted. The coach was terminated. There are no Team Leavitt websites. No one is calling for the Board’s or the Administration’s head at South Florida.
You state that if this set of circumstances had arisen in your business or with one of your employees, you would have handled the matter even more aggressively than the Administration. Here, your premise is wrong. Texas Tech is not your company, or Hance’s for that matter. Texas Tech is a state institution. Dealing with employees is subject to a set of rules put in place to avoid capricious behavior by management. How an owner or CEO conducts him/herself in a private company and a how one conducts oneself in a public institution are not analogous.
The Hance Interview
Hance conducts an interview with Lubbock Avalanche Journal describing the time line of events.
Rather than clarifying events, Hance’s statements created an enormous amount of doubt in my mind, which I highlight in my post (I hope he and his lawyers are smart enough to refrain from making any further public statements going forward).
It is Hance’s description of the timeline which I find to be ludicrous. The administration takes two days’worth of statements. According to Hance, based on these statements , some of the Board members suggest Leach’s termination. According to Leach, Hance wanted Leach to pay a $100,000 fine and issue an apology. Based on what? That is not due process by any reasonable standard. That is ridiculous.
If an employer's opening gambit is to accuse an employee of wrongdoing without offering benefit of the doubt, how can the employee be expected to believe that his employer is acting in good faith?
The Administration and others have claimed that there are other issues that which factored into this discussion. Why haven’t those issues surfaced? Those issues are not stated in his termination notice. There is no past record of mistreatment of players. There’s nothing substantive. The Regent’s statement do not allude to any other issue. What credibility would the Administration have if it drags skeletons out of the closet at this stage anyway?
The Letter
I hate to focus on the letter (dated December 23rd, presented December 26th)so much, because it is such a sideshow. However, Hance and Myers both point to Leach’s failure to sign the letter as evidence of his insubordination.
This is a Hance quote, "Leach met with Myers and Bailey, who asked him to sign a letter apologizing for his treatment of James."
Here's another,"They gave him about 48 hours to sign the letter."
Like the concussion matter, the Administration’s depiction of events do not stand up to further scrutiny.
The letter Leach was asked to sign is not an apology letter. Hance misrepresented the letter in his statement.
The Letter's contents were completely inappropriate. No reasonable person would have signed it as drafted, and in the process incriminated oneself.
You note that Leach should have at least signed something to show that he is a compassionate person. Well, if Leach doesn’t feel he’s done anything wrong, and the facts support him, why should he sign anything? Why should anyone? This is America for God’s sake.
I urge you to read Leach’s third filing. He clearly states that he was asked to sign the letter by Myers and Bailey. According to Leach’s statement, he pointed out to Tech officials that he has a contract and that the contract supersedes all other agreements. As such, it is not necessary to sign any letter. He then states that Tech’s counsel, Myers and Bailey concur that Leach does not have to sign any such letter.
Two days later, according to Hance, Leach is suspended.
Suspended for what?
In Leach’s statement, Myers explains that Leach is suspended for not signing the letter (which the Administration now construes to be an act of insubordination) and for allegations of player mistreatment.
The next day, Leach files for a temporary restraining order. Leach argues that he was seeking to overturn his suspension to allow him to continue coaching and to afford time for due process.
Tech fires Leach.
Hance then goes on to say that because Leach ‘sued Texas Tech’ he was fired. Leach claims he was fired for trying to seek legal remedy for an action which violated his contract. Leach is now arguing that firing him for seeking legal remedy was unlawful.
Leach’s lawsuit and Texas Tech’s filings are focused, not on the player’s allegation of player mistreatment (an investigation which still seems to be pending), but on breach of Leach’s contract and whether or not Leach has the right to now sue the school.
Coach Leach was our coach for 10 years. He is the most successful coach in our history. He was greatly admired by his players. He deserved far more respect. And if he really committed the egregious acts as he is accused, then the school should have acted responsibly and afforded him the due process he or any other person deserves.
That’s where the Administration screwed up.
Management Failure
What’s the big picture?
Why are we even here?
To give you an idea of the magnitude (translate, stupidity) of this decision, since 1980, over the past 30 years, there are only two instances in FBS (Division I) college football where a university
a) replaced a sitting coach with a record equal to or greater than Leach’s record at Texas Tech;
b) brought in a new-hire (i.e. did not promote an assistant), and
c) who were able to improve on their predecessor’s success.
Those two examples are Georgia’s hiring of Mark Richt and Ohio State’s hiring of Jim Tressell.
That’s it.
That sample is taken from over 350 coaching tenures from schools currently in the major BCS conferences over the past 30 years.
All the other examples failed, and did so pretty badly. (I’m writing an article on this history, so you’ll have to wait. Its sobering.) What about our circumstance makes you believe that our experiences are going be different?
Whatever Tuberville or any other coach brings to the table, that’s the historical sitatuation that our Administration has placed us in. Those are facts.
When I look at the disruption to the program, the public ridicule our University has endured, replacing a path of success for a path of historically proven failure, it makes me pause (to put it politely).
Criticism of Hance
Managing Leach’s contract negotiation should have been a walk in the park. There is a market. Prices are established. Leach’s accomplishments and value to the university are measurable. How difficult can this be?
All Hance had to do was afford Leach due process. Hance runs a public institution. There are rules governing employee conduct. Leach has a contract which governs his conduct. Why didn’t Hance follow these rules when it came to handling Leach?
How could someone with Hance’s vast experience botch such simple matters?
If Hance can’t handle something as simple as a single employee’s contract, how does he manage other issues? Am I now supposed to take it as a given that he is just super at everything else?
I am also incensed about his clumsy disregard of the interests of the students, players and alumni. Did he pause for a moment to consider anyone else’s views?
Looking for Answers
Like almost all alumni, I entrust the business of running the administration to the BOR and the Administration. I think they do a great service for the school. The only time I follow the goings on of the school is through the Alumni newsletter or if there is some kind of scandal. I presume that if the BOR thinks Hance or whoever is the best candidate as chancellor for Texas Tech, then so be it.
In my day-job, I'm an investor. I co-founded and run a fund that invests privately in companies outside of the US. So I try to bring that perspective to this matter.
When one of the companies underperforms, I look to the management to see where the problems are. If management is the problem, we change the management. For me to keep my investors happy, I can’t afford to endure sacred cows and bad decisions.
As I do in my own profession, based on a habit I developed as an avid sports fan my whole life, I look at other schools to figure out if there are better ways to run a school and to compare the qualifications of the people running them. Imitation is the best form of flattery and all of that.
As much as it pains me to say, U.T. and A&M are model institutions which have done a lot of things right. I looked at the University of Houston which is also vying for Tier 1 status. When I looked at those schools, I was struck by the fact that they are run by professionals who have been in the business of running academic institutions for a long time.
Why should we keep the same guys who got us into this mess in the first place? Given all that has gone on, maybe we would be better off with a Chancellor who has a more specific set of experiences, such as those of our competitors.
Then again, maybe not.
One of my friends in Lubbock argues that the Tech job is a unique one and you can't compare it with the other schools. He argues that we need a guy like Hance to fight our corner in Austin and raise money from big donors. That sounds like a good argument over lunch, but I’m not sure if that argument withstands serious scrutiny. How bad are things down in Austin? I can’t comment on the fund raising – other than I’m glad we’re doing it, because I haven’t seen the numbers for Tech. I haven’t seen the numbers for comparable schools.
Still, I don’t think any of these questions or comparisons are unreasonable given the fiasco which has taken place over the past weeks.
Here’s my bottom line.
If Leach truly did injure a player, and the school had proven its case unequivocally, then I am not writing a letter to you today, and instead I’m applauding my University for its handling of the matter.
Unfortunately, that’s not what happened.
The Administration’s decision to deny Leach due process is the cause of the public uproar. Leach’s alleged misconduct has not been proven. Not by a long shot.
Failure to provide due process to Leach is the root cause of this public embarrassment.
At the end of the day, this isn’t story about Leach, as beloved as he is. This is a story about arrogance and the abuse of power. If something like this can happen to someone of Leach’s stature, then it can happen to anybody. That’s why people are so pissed off. They want accountability.
I’ll close with a post from one of our members whose son was one of the Tech’s key starters over the past two years (its the second time I've used it in an article). The member’s son took the long road to get to Tech, and his son left it on the field every game. They are what Texas Tech football is all about.
They say timing is everything, Craig James timed this perfectly to upset the apple cart, If my son was asked to go to the shed, he probably would refuse, but my son wouldn’t show up in sunglasses. If the Dr. said stay in a dark place that’s where you would find him. But then again my son isn’t a rock star, he wouldn’t play a game in tights and white shoes. I am positive that he has played and practiced dinged up, but he perceivered. When he was probable, against K-State, he practiced and was available for the game, the coaching staff decided to not let him play although he was ready to play. The coaching staff at Tech has the players best interest in mind, and the trainers ultimately have control of who is able to play. I have seen them take a players helmet and not allow him to participate and the player was chomping at the bit to get back in there. Those guys are true gamers, I don’t think Adam is a gamer, it showed in the spring and this season. My feelings toward Coach Leach will not waiver just because a "little league dad" thinks his boy was treated unfairly. Coach Leach has his ways, some are questionable, but he produces, and at this level you better produce, or you will be looking for a new job. Craig needs to get his own team full of Adams and see how far he gets. He has scorched the earth in his wake of disgruntlement, he could have been a bigger man and handled this like a man, but then again this is the same guy that took money and gifts while at SMU knowing full well of the legalities and the DEATH PENALTY handed down to SMU while he skated away scott free. Chickens#@#, that’s my take, just like the SMU days. This all could have waited til after the season, but he chose to crap all over my son’s final game At Texas Tech, I feel for you and your son Craig but don’t expect an apology from me either, and if I see you I will tell you so. That’s the way my DAD raised me and he never once talked to any of my coaches about how I was treated. He told me to fade my own heat and you’ll be a better man. Mike Leach is a good man, it shows in the graduation rate and in his coaching record, and when I talk to Coach Leach he talks to me like a man because he is a man. When he makes a mistake he will hone up to it, not go off whimpering to the media, NCAA, or the Administration. He isn’t perfect, but he can Coach my son anytime, anywhere. Sometimes you need to turn the other cheek, it says so in the greatest book ever written.”
With respect to the personal comments in your letter, there's a lot more I ought to say. But I’m taking our member’s advice and turning the other cheek.
Go Tech.
75 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Bravo
One again, our outstanding poster with the level head says what a good number of us were merely trying ot say
“The Administration’s decision to deny Leach due process is the cause of the public uproar. Leach’s alleged misconduct has not been proven. Not by a long shot.
Failure to provide due process to Leach is the root cause of this public embarrassment.
At the end of the day, this isn’t story about Leach, as beloved as he is. This is a story about arrogance and the abuse of power. If something like this can happen to someone of Leach’s stature, then it can happen to anybody. That’s why people are so pissed off. They want accountability"
Thanks London Raider.
"There's going to be ups and downs but you have to enjoy the battle." Mike Leach
Well done Sir
LondonRaider you have out done yourself again. Nice response, well thought out and accurate.
"do routine things routinely"
Strive for Honor, Evermore.
Hopefully, the truth will emerge from this nightmare fiasco. And when/if it does, I have a strong feeling that your analysis will be spot on correct.
Thank you LondonRaider.
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." Woody Hayes
I need you on retainer
To write my eulogy….hopefully not too soon.
" I crammed 4 years of Tech into 5"- me
by oldschoolraider on Jan 14, 2010 4:33 PM CST via mobile reply actions
So Very Thoughtful
LondonRaider well done. You have made your school proud with your work, both here and career. Your thoughts detailed the cause of the “Why it is so hard to move on” post. I look forward to your analysis of the history of replacing coaches. A decline has been my fear from the beggining.
Good job, LondonRaider.
Due process is fundamental. People can sense when they encounter something unfair. There was nothing fair about the way Mike Leach was treated.
And in the context of 10 years of service
You should give a coach with high graduation rates, no losing seasons, no
history of mistreatment, the benefit of the doubt. End runs to the BOR
and the chancellor by a meddling parent (despite the ESPN affiliation)
are a travesty. We all recognize this as railroading and a total lack of
due process. Was it a double standard for Bobby Knight?
I predict no response from RIR
When you want to get into a name-calling fight, and the other side instead responds professionally and factually, there’s really not much else to do than to leave quietly. I think you laid it out perfectly (as you did in your original article.)
This from an outsider who loved to watch Texas Tech play football. Something tells me I won’t be getting a lot of Texas Tech games on TV any more. That’s sad. Anyway, good luck to Coach Tuberville and the rest of the Red Raiders.
High five
Give 'Em Hell Tech!!!!!
by Plano Jeff on Jan 14, 2010 10:17 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I applaud your restraint, LR
I was rather late to this party in that I never saw the posts of RIR until last night. Upon a few minutes reflection, it seemed to me to be nothing but a page from Politics For Dummies. If a critic is hurting you by pointing out that your story doesn’t comport with the facts, you get a crony to run a hatchet job on the critic, attacking and vilifying him personally. And you throw in some unsubstantiated B.S. to muddy the water. Unfortunately, that is S.O.P. for politics in our country today. Considering the politicians and wannabes involved, I’m surprised we didn’t see it sooner.
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
UKR - Great as always. You added one new perspective for me
UKR, when I read your piece, there really wasn’t anything new. It just was an excellent summary of all that’s transpired – until I got to the part where I reread the letter Coach Leach was “required” to sign. When I reread that letter for probably the sixth time since all this started in the context of your excellent piece, one numbered paragraph stood out:
3. You must recognize that the players you are working with are student athletes and that you have an obligation to treat them with respect and further to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with your position as an instructor of students.
I am a professional educator (college prof). As such, had I been asked to sign such, I might have slugged someone.
I don’t know Coach Leach, but in listening to his interviews and examining the available metrics, he clearly has established that he is not only an excellent coach, but a fantastic educator. To have lead TTU graduation rates from the bottom of the big twelve to best public institution in the country has to be a source of enormous (and well deserved) personal satisfaction and pride. To have the administration challenge him that he:
must recognize that the players you are working with are student athletes and that you have an obligation to treat them with respect
had to be the ultimate slap in the face. I’ll bet the overwhelming majority of kids on the team have NEVER been treated with more respect than by Coach Leach in their lives. Might have been tough love and not resulted in the students liking it much, but I guarantee you that no educator, teacher, counselor or other could have achieved the success he did in this area without tremendous respect for those students. Without mutual respect, the results he obtained would have been unobtainable.
I suspect that when he read that paragraph in Hance’s office the discussion was done for him. If my employer challenged my respect for my students like that I would have done more than $1100 damage to the door on the way out!
by NH(former)Raider on Jan 14, 2010 6:43 PM CST reply actions
Completely Agree
I wouldn’t have signed up if everything I read was parotting the same exact opinion. I love the diverse opinion on this board. And the Tech sports talk is second to none.
by Chharland on Jan 14, 2010 6:47 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Leach deserved a lot more respect...
than what these morons gave him. Now I’m starting to understand why Leach was so against the grain with them on everything. I also understand now why he didn’t want to office with them in the bell tower. Plain and simple they are senseless and unethical in so many ways. We probably only know a small sampling of their dishonesty.
Great job London!
"You've got to find your inner pirate" - Mike Leach
Strive for honor evermore....long live the Matadors!
I love this blogsite…especially to read LondonRaider’s concise, intelligent opinions that are well-researched and so very interesting. He puts everything in perspective, carefully relating and analyzing the events as they happened. There was definitely no due process here by the administration, and they will look like the fools that they are before this is all settled and done! In the meantime……go Red Raiders!!!
put a bow on it and ship it...nice work
how impressive your comments are, LondonRaider…I am new to this blog as I just signed on last week. After the fur started flying I went looking for answers…real answers…not sound bites on ESPiN…I found it here on DTN and can’t wait to get home from work every night to sign on…your post really does summarize this travesty and allows me some understanding of what actually happened…while my simple understanding of the situation may not change a thing, at least I can move on with my life and exit this fog that I have been in since before New Years. With all the things that there are to worry about these days it has been nice over the past decade that one of the things that I never had to worry about was the well being of our beloved football team…what a shame that it had to change…DTN has been my therapy…thanks
I'm Still Pissed
So your Mike Leach
Your accomplishments over the past ten years speak for themselves: Wins, bowls, recruiting, graduation rate and positive publicity for the University. For the last 10 years, you have given this University everything you’ve got – it may not have been what was expected- but it was all ya got.
You get called into the office, and you are informed that you have been accused of endangering the health of an injured athlete, as reported to the Chairman of BOR from a helicopter dad that has consistently told you and your staff that you don’t know what you are doing. You know you have done nothing wrong, and the investigation will certainly clear your name.
The statements from the trainer and physician agree that the actions of discipline taken did not endanger the athlete.
You get called to the office for a follow-up.
Your expectations are as follows:
“Hey Mike, we performed our investigation, and based on the interviews, even though what you did probably didn’t help his condition, it certainly in no way endangered or aggravated the condition. We called the helicopter dad and told him we had performed the investigation, everyone’s statements were consistent in that AJ was being disciplined for his attitude and lack of effort and he was never in any situation that would have endangered him. We are going to stand behind our coach and his staff, we have made note of your concerns, but we there was no wrong doing and we consider the case closed.”
But that is not what happens. You walk in and are told that you mistreated a kid that had a concussion….. and …. based on a conference call with the BOR, some members want to terminate you. You are expected to sign a letter of apology to the helicopter dad for endangering his kid and pay a $100,000 fine.
Anybody in this situation – Your integrity has been challenged. Your reputation is being damaged, and the one person that had complete control over the situation, the person that you expected to find the truth, report the truth, and support you, has just put a knife in your back and twisted it.
If all you do is blow-up, and cuss this person out, you deserve a reward for restraint.
Hance covered his ass
With a few top donors (T Boone Sowell and the like) and to hell with what us pissants think. Do not get complacent and forget that this does not pass the sniff test. We deserve answers, and yes we can handle the truth.
" I crammed 4 years of Tech into 5"- me
by oldschoolraider on Jan 14, 2010 9:01 PM CST via mobile reply actions
I really honestly in my deepest of deep hearts think this was nothing more than Tech finding the reason they were hoping for to fire him with cause drop in their lap. The people who really count (donors, and no, not just Sowell) didn’t want Leach anymore for whatever reasons.
They did what they had to do to keep the money flowing. It actually happened to Tuberville at Auburn. It happened to Fulmer at Tenn. It happens at a lot of places.
My point exactly...
A handful of people took due process away. T Boone is just the poster child for this group…I’m pissed, but not naive.
" I crammed 4 years of Tech into 5"- me
by oldschoolraider on Jan 14, 2010 10:00 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Tech92, the fact is they could have done it differently and accomplished the same goal. All they had to do was leave Leach in place until after the bowl game (put him “on probation” for the game, but let him coach it), and then can him when the “investigation was complete.” Heck, he and they could have mutually agreed to part ways, and then Leach would be coaching in Tennessee right now and we might still have Tubbs, but there wouldn’t be 60,000 people in a Tech facebook group, Tech wouldn’t be the but of jokes across the nation, and Craig James’ political career would be intact.
by Shallowater on Jan 14, 2010 10:09 PM CST up reply actions
O great....
now I realize that you didn’t even read this piece (see below), and yet you feel the need to come into the comment section and put in your two cents. Next time do us a favor: if you’re not going to read the article, don’t bother to join in the conversation.
by Shallowater on Jan 14, 2010 10:12 PM CST up reply actions
It does happen frequently...
but not like this. a PR disaster with serious litigation exposure in the $8 figures. It was a fumble of biblical proportions.
you’ve been over this a long time – we all know that. many of us, however, are vindictive bastages who demand accountability, truth, and justice for Mike Leach. I got on the radio here in Houston yesterday and defended Mike after a caller said that, “You can’t treat injured players that way.” People are so misinformed about the whole ordeal. You want to argue that this was just the conduit that enabled the firing of Leach, fine, but it’s not sufficient for me. It’s a BS excuse stemming from an overbearing parent that the Tech coaches couldn’t muzzle effectively.
LondonRaider v RiR
Ha! RiR, you are so full of it. London Raider blew you away. You MUST either be T Boone Sowell or a friend of his. Thanks for putting forth your highly embellished, highly subjective, selective memory propoganda piece. But, LondonRaider actually uses facts in his argument.
LondonRaider wins in a landslide. And, RiR, a TRO does ask the court to return the parties to ante status quo. RiR, you fail. Not nearly as smart as your adversary.
You should read it
It is worth your time. I found that it summarized my feelings very well. But if you’ve read his previous pieces it will mostly be a refresher, consolidating and focusing his thoughts.
another excellent post
by an excellent poster. You pretty much sum up the collective id of DTN with your words london. kudos. :)
Excellent read, LondonRaider
I think you addressed all the “rebuttals” that RIR made, using solid facts and information. I am sure you have taken much time to research and substantiate your position, which, by the way, appears to be the same as about 99% of the DTN group. I don’t think anyone here would want Mike Leach back under these same circumstances because similar, if not worse, results would follow. What we do expect is that true justice will somehow prevail. Any judge that would refuse this going to trial would have to be crazy and not desiring the truth to be made public. No doubt, the results, if it does go to court (as we are still awaiting a ruling) will certainly be in Mike Leach’s favor. My only regret is that my university (and Lubbock) will take a monstrous hit because of this. As a matter of fact, it already has taken a big hit. We all want closure and the only way is for this to be unraveled in the courtroom. Texas Tech will recover, though it will definitely be a rough ride. Mike Leach will regain his reputation, while those responsible will lose theirs. There will be a huge shakeup in the leadership ladder within the confines of Texas Tech, as well as a revised pattern for BOR involvement. All should only help to strengthen and cleanse the total administration makeup, enabling Tech to continue on the difficult road to obtaining Tier I status. GO TECH! I LOVE LUBBOCK! WRECK ’EM!
TTpilk
The Truth Hurts
Thank you LR, insightful, thoughtful, truthful. I don’t need to say more.
This letter...
thank you for putting this all in perspective. Truth will prevail. this letter is a true testament of the honor and respect that the true Techsans have for their beloved school. what the TTU Administration has done is dishonarable and disrespectuful not only to Texas Tech University, but also the City of Lubbock, the State of Texas, and the United States.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – The Constitution
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” – The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment XIV, Section 1
Mike Leach’s basic rights have been violated and the perpetrators should be punished.
-that is all
by teamleach2 on Jan 15, 2010 9:01 AM CST reply actions
Before I begin...
An excellent piece, as always LR.
I also love Mike Leach.
But let’s not get hyperbolic here; Constitutional rights? This is a case of the alleged breached contract. This is not tiananmen square. Nothing is at stake here besides money and reputations.
14th Amendment is not in the Bill of Rights.
Have to agree with SP
Due process as discussed here is not a constitutional issue. Sorry TL2.
But we shouldn’t define due process to just a narrow contractual issue either. There are other compelling and quite practical reasons to extend due process in this case:
1) Risk management
A well-managed and thorough due process would have protected the school in two key ways. First, in the event that legal action arises, the school is able to present a strong case making it more likely that the school emerges victorious from a lawsuit.
Furthermore, a thorough due process could also disuade even the most litigious of sorts from going to court knowing that the case against him/her is too robust to overcome.
That’s called risk mitigation, and that’s pretty smart.
2) Managing Public perception
Offering due process also extends to protecting the school’s reputation. The school is a public institution so the Administration has an obligation to protect the school’s brand and image. That’s a big part of the Administration’s job. The Administration has numerous constituents to whom it is answerable (who in this case were overwhelmingly ignored).
Do those things, and Tech is more likely to emerge as a principled and well-governed institution in these sorts of battles.
Of course none of that happened here. Tech is in court. Public perception is at rock bottom. The Administration and the BOR look terrible.
by LondonRaider on Jan 15, 2010 7:27 PM CST up reply actions
RIR, the inexperienced poster.
It is not as “grey” as you think, LR. You need to get your facts straight. Sowell was not on the Board when he wrote those emails and he had NO SAY in the contract negotiations (do you need me to provide links to show proof?). He was offering advise to his ol’ pal, Hance, because he was asked to chime in AFTER things got dirty with Leach demanding more money during the negotiation process in late 2008. Sowell has experience in contract negotiations. Sowell also LEFT the TT board in 2001 and has not been involved in decisions SINCE. At the end of the day, his emails to Hance did not have any say in the negotiations nor were they personal against Leach, at all. I suspect you have no high-stakes business experience at all or you would understand that those emails are just contract negotiations at their finest (or, perhaps to the untrained eye, their dirtiest). They are also oft interpreted (by you and others) out of context. They are from one friend to another, who likely didn’t expect them to be aired nationally vis-a-vis DMN. While I suspect the language would have been sugar-coated a bit had they anticipated these emails surfacing for all to see, I don’t doubt for a minute that the gist of the emails would still be the same — regardless.
Don’t read too much into things. You (and thousands of others) are making this issue more complicated than it needs to be. All of the answers are in front of your face and nothing of substance is being hidden from the public. You are just trying to make things connect and go together that don’t belong. You seem like a reasonably bright person, so take a little more time to do your research and try to think like a businessman. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but if you change your perspective a bit, some of the confusion may clear up. If not, I’d be happy to write a more detailed post.
While it does appear that RIR has serious beef with Leach, he offers (some) good rebuttals to your biased blogs. The contributors on this site are CLEARLY biased toward Leach, but I personally found it comforting to see the other side, though not as eloquent and experienced at posting as you, since I am of the opinion that Leach is dirty.
Lastly, you repeatedly use your support for your conclusions with “Leach said…” but not once do you support anything “Hance said…” or “Myers said….” You are slanting your bias toward Leach being the pinnacle of honestly and Hance, et al. being liars or questionable, at best. Just like the TT administration, Leach has his own agenda and counting on him to be honest (even in pleadings) is naive. I also urge you to reconsider your position on “due process.” The TT administration did not owe it to Leach or anyone to provide due process. Regardless of their status as a state institution or not.
You sure you read those affidavits? Do you really find it appropriate for Leach to order the trainer to put James in the building and “lock [James’] fucking pussy ass in a place so dark that the only way he knows he has a dick is to reach down and touch it” ?? You don’t think that shows culpability? Or are we not going to consider that evidence since it wasn’t what “Leach said…” ?
Leach did not deserve respect. 10 years, 20 years, 100 years. Doesn’t matter. He turned on TT. I am so sick at how much “love” he is getting. He doesn’t deserve the pedestal.
Negotiating for a better contract makes you dirty?
Most of the coaches and faculty at Tech are just gonna have to be fired…
by raider realist on Jan 15, 2010 12:29 PM CST up reply actions
Re:
While it does appear that RIR has serious beef with Leach, he offers (some) good rebuttals to your biased blogs.
You haven’t identified any of them, though. Which good rebuttals are you referring to? Help us “change our perspective” so that “some of the confusion may clear up.” I want this more detailed post.
The contributors on this site are CLEARLY biased toward Leach, but I personally found it comforting to see the other side, though not as eloquent and experienced at posting as you, since I am of the opinion that Leach is dirty.
So you are CLEARLY biased against Leach? Are you certain that ALL the writers at this site are biased? Are you sure you aren’t just accusing people of bias when really what you want to say is that they merely disagree with you?
Lastly, you repeatedly use your support for your conclusions with "Leach said…" but not once do you support anything "Hance said…" or "Myers said…." You are slanting your bias toward Leach being the pinnacle of honestly and Hance, et al. being liars or questionable, at best. Just like the TT administration, Leach has his own agenda and counting on him to be honest (even in pleadings) is naive.
This is nonsense. It takes a 10 second review of LR’s post to see that he has plenty from the school’s perspetive. Note the sections titled Affidavit and Board of Regents. Are those Leach’s representatives speaking, or the school’s?
I also urge you to reconsider your position on "due process." The TT administration did not owe it to Leach or anyone to provide due process. Regardless of their status as a state institution or not.
This needs not be a moral issue, but have you read Mike Leach’s contract? Whatever duties TT owes or owed Mike Leach arose out of an employment contract with him, and said contract stipulated some process that was due Leach if he were fired for cause. To wit:
“‘Cause’ is hereby defined as: Coach’s violation of any material provision of this Agreement… provided, however, that if such violation is capable of being cured, University shall allow Coach ten (10) business days to cure such violation…”
The parties stipulated the duties each had to the other in a contract. With all your “high-stakes business experience” I’m sure you understand that contracts bind the parties involved and create duties in each to follow the contract or remediate the opposing party for damages suffered in the result of breach. You must know that. If you had read the petition, you would also know that it specifically addresses the clause repeated above. We can have a dispute about whether that’s what the contract means, or whether there was any violation of that clause, but in no event is it the case that “the TT administration did not owe it to Leach or anyone to provide due process” under the contract.
Do you really find it appropriate for Leach to order the trainer to put James in the building and "lock [James’] fucking pussy ass in a place so dark that the only way he knows he has a dick is to reach down and touch it" ?? You don’t think that shows culpability? Or are we not going to consider that evidence since it wasn’t what "Leach said…" ?
LR links to the affidavits you cite. You’re accusing him of not reading something he has expressed knowledge of and written about extensively, and that he has exposed for readers to examine. Both affidavits are here and out in the open. They represent something “Leach said…” You jump out from behind the internet bushes to pronounce GOTCHA over statements that form the basis of LR’s complaint with the administration’s handling of this. The affidavits ARE what confirms, in the minds of some of us, how poorly this was handled.
Leach did not deserve respect. 10 years, 20 years, 100 years. Doesn’t matter. He turned on TT. I am so sick at how much "love" he is getting. He doesn’t deserve the pedestal.
You don’t think we should respect the former coach of a team we love. Ok. What are you going to do about it if we do respect him? Complain? We can argue about what is or isn’t owed Mike Leach under his contract, but why are you trying to compel us to hate someone most of us have never met? All he did was win a lot of games, give us an opportunity to talk about it here, and…? Are you really "sick"ened by how much people like the winningest coach in school history? Do you dislike Texas Tech? What is your rooting interest in getting other people to retract respect for Mike Leach?
If we’re wrong about him, provide us some information or insight we hadn’t considered. The majority of us are aware of what the affidavits say. What else ya got?
With all your "high-stakes business experience" I’m sure you understand that contracts bind the parties involved and create duties in each to follow the contract or remediate the opposing party for damages suffered in the result of breach.
In my experience, it is extremely difficult to get all those i’s dotted and t’s crossed…often because to do so is way to costly in terms of time or costs…and that was in machinery purchase, where there is actual hardware that can be much more clearly defined and inspected…in services contracts, it is much more subjective.
Sometimes a river boat can out run a pirate ship.
Dellanon
Dellanon,
I’ll clarify my comments on the emails. (I’ve got to be quick though. It’s Friday night where I am, and my wife is going to kill me if I spend anymore time on this tonight. Sorry if I miss something.)
The emails are not actually part of my argument. I cite the emails as one of the three things (and other articles that sowed doubt in my mind). That’s all. My comments about the emails are only meant to communicate my initial reactions. I then go on to say that those doubts are what prompted me to start digging on the concussions, etc. I was just trying to give an insight into my thought process. Sorry if that wasn’t more clear.
The case I’ve discussed actually doesn’t factor in the emails. You’re right, there is not enough information that you can derive from the emails, so I don’t (and didn’t) go down that route. Actually, if I remember correctly, I thought Sowell’s recommendation on the buyout clause so we don’t get ourselves into a Charlie Weiss sort of situation was a really good point.
Not too many dots to connect in my mind. The BOR and administration cite player mistreatment and insubordination as their rationale to fire Leach, so that’s where I focus my attention.
Not sure I agree that Leach is dirty – see graduation rates, player emails, zero violations, etc. (I’ve met John Calipari. Leach is no Calipari).
You don’t agree that Leach deserves due process. That’s fine. But by not extending due process to Leach, the Admin has unnecessarily exposed the University to legal risk. Thinking as a business person, that’s a management failure in my view. Overreacting to a risk is just as bad as under reacting to one. Management has to maintain its composure whatever the crisis.
Having played high school football and basketball in Texas, I didn’t blink at Leach’s comments to James. My coaches managed to get to church each Sunday. I managed to survive.
(Correcting ‘then Chairman’ to ‘former Chairman.’ My oversight. There was no intent to convey another impression)
Thanks again for the comments
by LondonRaider on Jan 15, 2010 5:35 PM CST up reply actions
Wrong on Sowell's involvement, Dellanon
Take a closer look at the emails. You are just regurgitating what Sowell told the Lubbock press.
Sowell copied Leach’s IMG agents on at least one of the emails.
Sowell was not simply offering advice. He was a player in the actual negotiations. True, he was not on the BoR at the time. I take this to mean that T Boone Sowell was a benefactor, perhaps the primary benefactor, to donate to the kitty to pay Leach’s new contract.
Anyone in the business world knows that you do not enter the direct line of communication in a negotiation unless you are a major party in the transaction.
SOWELL WAS NOT MERELY OFFERING ADVICE. THAT IS SPIN CONTROL OF SOWELL’S INVOLVEMENT IN AN ATTEMPT TO DIMINISH THE RELEVANCE OF HIS EMAILS TO HANCE.
Sowell’s emails to Hance remain a smoking gun!
More on Sowell
If it can be proven that T Boone Sowell donated directly, or indirectly through Tech, to fund Leach’s contract, then I believe that the court may view him as a legal representative of Tech. Thus, even though he was not on the BoR at the time, his emails are a big smoking gun indicting the institution of entering the contract in bad faith.
Dellanon has some significant points regarding bias
The body of argument in favor of Mike Leach, as posted on this blog, are fraught with bias…that is kind of expected…just as was RIR’s…and perhaps my own. LOL I did make effort to be objective…it is difficult no matter who you are.
Sometimes a river boat can out run a pirate ship.
Oh come on.
Don’t be silly. IF that contributed to my opinion about Leach, it wouldn’t be the only contributing factor.
so you don't care to expand on your answer at all?
How are we supposed to take your seriously. You think Leach is dirty, what does this mean and whats your evidence.
by raider realist on Jan 15, 2010 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
if you think Sowell's relationship with Tech ended in 2001, you are naive
LR also gives plenty of instances as to what KH said – he links to his interview with the AJ.
Sorry Dellanon, but due process is something that should be afforded to a man who brought national attention to your school, reinvigorated a fan base, and graduated more players than any other similar institution.
You think that language is dirty that Mike may or may not have said? Try listening to a little Bob Knight. Why is there such a double standard?
I agree !
Neither man’s language would be acceptable to me if my son was playing for those coaches. It is not acceptable to use on any one, ever.
Sometimes a river boat can out run a pirate ship.
Did you call for BK to be fired for mistreatment of a player?
by raider realist on Jan 16, 2010 11:20 AM CST up reply actions
A few clarifications
Realist:
If you are truly a realist, then you are certainly aware that it doesn’t matter WHAT I say (evidence or not), you will never choose to take me seriously because your mind has been made up. No? If I have misjudged you, then I will consider taking the time to write a more detailed response, providing more clarity, but I believe it is likely a waste of my time.
RPowel:
“Sorry,” but I do not think their relationship ended in 2001 and I never suggested such a thing. Feel free to re-read my comment. Sowell’s ability to manipulate and control any business dealings with TT ended in 2001. Before you even start THINKING what I suspect you are thinking: I concede that his opinions probably still held a great deal of weight in the mind of Hance, et al. due to his status as (what I presume to be) a hefty donor (which by the way, those of you who continue to cast stones would do well to consider that without his donations, it’s possible that TT would not have been able to AFFORD Leach at any given point during his tenure). That said, I have NO doubt that despite what he might have liked to think, Sowell had no REAL control over this situation at ALL (although I suspect right about now, with all the **** flying, he’s grateful that he had no say). His statements in those emails were opinions. Period. Concession: very strong, out-spoken, aggressive, possibly questionable OPINIONS with respect to pending contract negotiations that he had no final say in. Despite what MANY people would like to think, the emails are a side issue that have very little to do with the release of Mike Leach.
Further, I did not suggest nor imply that the Leach’s language is why I think HE (the man, the person, the former coach) is dirty. My feelings are a little bit deeper than a few nasty words or greedy attempts at negotiating a better employment contract. It’s complex, RPowel. However, feel free to continue to misconstrue my statements.
Skin Patrol:
Lovely handle. I have not identified RIRs “good rebuttals” for the same reason in my response above to “Realist.” It is lengthy and time-consuming to get sucked into discussion boards in the middle of a heated debate. I suspect this response will already take considerable time alone without beefing it up with the necessary “proof” to win you over. Besides, I doubt you would be willing to agree with me, even if I did point them out. So what’s the point of wasting my time? Or yours? Really? I mean, do I actually have a CHANCE of converting you? Or anyone, for that matter? My only goal in speaking up is to aid in voicing an opinion that exists, but isn’t getting much attention in the press and to possibly open a few eyes to another perspective. Changing opinions would be ideal, but it’s not realistic with such a divisive topic (perhaps we would be better off discussing the merits of abortion).
Yes, I am clearly biased against Leach. That should be obvious. I think he is a snake. I do not profess to think for one second that the administration has been a bucket of angels, but I do believe that IN ADDITION to saving their asses, they are trying to do what they believe is best for the school and the community. From the minute the **** hit the fan on this whole “fiasco,” I believe Leach was out for Leach. Snake.
The use of superlatives is really annoying. No, SP, you “got me!!” I am NOT certain that “ALL the writers at this site” are biased toward Leach. Just most of them. Do you really expect me to get excited about engaging you in a meaningful debate on this topic when you and your friends on here elect to nit-pick at a given statement I make, take it out of context and/or contort it? Really? Really?
Yes, LondonRaider provides statements and dialogue from the school’s perspective, but if you take an extra 20 seconds, you will notice that his writings and his direction is clear. He quotes the school, but he gives them no love and he doesn’t use their statements as evidence AGAINST Leach. He only uses the evidence he wishes to use FOR Leach. LR also completely glossed over the fact that the affidavits discuss the horrible things Leach said and the way he handled and manipulated the situation. It’s amusing to me and I thought it worth pointing out, since unlike LR, you and me, I’m sure there are countless other people who don’t bother clicking on the links to confirm the validity of LR’s statements and they just take them at face value, meanwhile, not realizing that LR is glossing over some details that (I personally find to be) are rather important little nuggets of information. LR finds doubt with nearly (if not) everything the administration says, but all of Leach’s statements are filled with sugar and honey. Nobody finds this peculiar but me, apparently.
Yes, I read the contract and I noticed the use of the words “IF SUCH VIOLATION IS CAPABLE OF BEING CURED.” That is very vague language, SP, and it’s vague on purpose. Leach should have never signed the contract with that language in there. Not so bright.
Plus, it appears we are talking about a couple of different interpretations of “due process.”
1. Yes, the University owed and continues to owe it to Leach to honor the obligations of the contract (if you wish to refer to this as “due process,” so be it); however,
2. No, the University did not and DOES NOT owe it to Leach to provide him due process in the sense that they are not a court nor are they a governmental entity that is depriving him of his property or liberty in the interpretive sense that was intended by our founders. Further, once the Administration already determined that Leach breached their agreement and once they decide they have a legitimate reason to let him go — he’s GONE. No due process about it. It’s idealistic drivel to moan about due process in THIS respect.
Actually, the affidavit I referenced, referred to something that Pincock said Leach said. While it was someone quoting Leach, it was not a direct statement from Leach. That is what I meant in my previous statement.
After the way he has behaved, I do not believe Leach deserves respect; however, you are entitled to respect whomever you choose. That said, I am genuinely grateful that we appear to differ on this particular point. If I had a modicum of respect for him before now, I certainly could never respect such slime now that I have read and heard what I have. Am I going to “complain” about it? Grow up, SP, and hit me with something a little bit better than that. You seem to love someone you have never met; I am equally entitled to have no respect for same. And honestly, I don’t care if you elect to love, hate, respect or disrespect Leach. You are a big boy. Do as you wish. Spend your time focusing on the past and Leach’s accomplishments instead of the present and the future and Leach’s pisspoor management and handling of the team near the end of his tenure or the new, amazing coach that has been hired to replace him or the wonderful things in store for TTs future. No. Let’s focus on other things that are far more exciting and dramatic in our own warped minds…
Why must you assume that I am anti-TT or that I am trying to get others to disrespect Leach (which I’m not)? Is it also safe to assume that George Bush coordinated 9/11 and Elvis is alive and well in your world? Why do most of the Leach supporters elect to completely ignore the evidence that is staring them in the face?
Dellanon, I'll take you and everyone else with evidence seriously.
Thanks in advance for your details.
by raider realist on Jan 15, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions
Okey dokey!
The use of superlatives is really annoying. No, SP, you "got me!!" I am NOT certain that "ALL the writers at this site" are biased toward Leach. Just most of them. Do you really expect me to get excited about engaging you in a meaningful debate on this topic when you and your friends on here elect to nit-pick at a given statement I make, take it out of context and/or contort it? Really? Really?
Pet peeve of mine is people who say things like “Really?” or “Seriously?” or “You can’t be serious.” It’s lazy. People who say shit like that in real life are typically lonely, for good reason. In any event, where in my post did I ever say I expected you to do… anything? I don’t care if you do or don’t want to engage me in a meaningful debate. If you walked into traffic today, I wouldn’t much care. I don’t know who you are. No need to ask my sincerity on something I’ve never professed interest. Do I really expect you to engage me in a meaningful debate? My answer is: Of course I don’t. Typing “Really?” twice is just about all I need to know that you aren’t the kind of person that I take seriously.
As for nit-picking, you get as good as you give so far as I’m concerned. You’re pumped up that Sowell left the BOR in 2001. I doubt that aids your argument (whatever that argument is) in any meaningful way, except that it gives you a tiny nit-picking victory. LR’s position isn’t changed by the fact that Sowell isn’t on the BOR.
Yes, LondonRaider provides statements and dialogue from the school’s perspective, but if you take an extra 20 seconds, you will notice that his writings and his direction is clear. He quotes the school, but he gives them no love and he doesn’t use their statements as evidence AGAINST Leach.
What a monster LR is, some people call that having an opinion. You’re admittedly biased and I’m not going to hold that against you. Why is it you think that LR needs to quote things from the school’s perspective if he thinks, based on his understanding of all the evidence, that teh school is wrong? If the school’s sworn testimony is precisely what proves wrongdoing, why wouldn’t you use that as evidence of wrongdoing? If the school’s statements don’t present any wrongdoing on Leach’s part… how could LR use them as evidence of Leach’s wrongdoing?
LR also completely glossed over the fact that the affidavits discuss the horrible things Leach said and the way he handled and manipulated the situation.
This is probably the rub. You seem to think that because the post does not mention Leach’s naughty language that we were unaware of it. To clarify: We all know what Leach said. What reasonable minds are disagreeinga bout is that what Mike Leach did was “horrible”. You and I have the same information and we disagree about whether Leach was “horrible”.
It’s amusing to me and I thought it worth pointing out, since unlike LR, you and me, I’m sure there are countless other people who don’t bother clicking on the links to confirm the validity of LR’s statements and they just take them at face value, meanwhile, not realizing that LR is glossing over some details that (I personally find to be) are rather important little nuggets of information. LR finds doubt with nearly (if not) everything the administration says, but all of Leach’s statements are filled with sugar and honey. Nobody finds this peculiar but me, apparently.
You’re new to the site but the information you’re exposing to the countless hoardes of mindless Tech fans who apparently can only think with the aid of LR. We’ve discussed the naughty language used by Leach here. The affidavits have been the subject of intense scrutiny on this site. The people here know the content of the affidavits, even if countless others do not.
LR finds doubt with nearly (if not) everything the administration says, but all of Leach’s statements are filled with sugar and honey. Nobody finds this peculiar but me, apparently.
Doesn’t that raise some pretty profound questions about the guy in the mirror?
Leach should have never signed the contract with that language in there. Not so bright.
Yea what a moron he was signing a document that entitled him to millions of dollars. Who would do such a thing!
No due process about it. It’s idealistic drivel to moan about due process in THIS respect.
I largely agree and have said the same elsewhere. I don’t think this is a constitutional issue. It strikes me as a novel legal argument on his part, and I don’t know enough about the Texas takings clause. But we mostly agree that this is not about traditional “due process” as that term is used in law. He is owed some process under the contract, though, for cause firing. Your position seems to be that because a clause is vague a court can’t give it effect, which is contrary to the Texas law.
Spend your time focusing on the past and Leach’s accomplishments instead of the present and the future and Leach’s pisspoor management and handling of the team near the end of his tenure or the new, amazing coach that has been hired to replace him or the wonderful things in store for TTs future. No. Let’s focus on other things that are far more exciting and dramatic in our own warped minds…
Umm, take your own advice? I’ve got hundreds, maybe thousands of comments on this site and a tiny fraction of them involve this incident. You have what, 4 posts? And every single one of them is about Mike Leach being a slimeball. If you really don’t care about this, think this issue is beneath your time, why did you register on this site just to discuss it with us?
Why must you assume that I am anti-TT or that I am trying to get others to disrespect Leach (which I’m not)? Is it also safe to assume that George Bush coordinated 9/11 and Elvis is alive and well in your world? Why do most of the Leach supporters elect to completely ignore the evidence that is staring them in the face?
This tells me that you’re probably a strange person. I’m confused how to respond. I assume that you are anti-TT because you are really, really interested in making sure we all hate a TT icon. That’s odd. I don’t know what the fuck this has to do with George Bush or Elvis.
Maybe we’ve all got the same evidence and we just fundamentally disagree about whether the conduct involved by party A or B was “horrible”? You seem to think you’re the only one who has access to the evidence because you’ve reached a contrary conclusion. Maybe you’re just wrong? Is that possible?
No kidding.
It is lengthy and time-consuming to get sucked into discussion boards in the middle of a heated debate.
by LondonRaider on Jan 15, 2010 3:45 PM CST up reply actions
Ok one last point
Dellanon,
I am biased. Here’s my bias.
I’m a Tech guy. Not a Leach guy (although I’m a big fan).
If the affidavits and evidence were conclusive and evidence of insubordination was clear, then good for Tech. If they were, this and my other post would have been a pro-Tech article.
Hope that’s clear.
(ps re-read my comment on Leach’s cursing. Didn’t mean to be flippant. I should have clarified that just as you see the BOR emails one way and I see it the other, ditto on the coach’s cursing).
I’m officially dead to my wife.
by LondonRaider on Jan 15, 2010 4:06 PM CST up reply actions
I’m officially dead to my wife.
London, I enjoy and appreciaty your time and efforts on this blog…she is much, much more important, treasure her.
Sometimes a river boat can out run a pirate ship.
For someone who doesn't have time to engage....
WOW. Due process is something that is meant to be afforded to all, no if’s and or buts.
" I crammed 4 years of Tech into 5"- me
by oldschoolraider on Jan 15, 2010 4:34 PM CST up reply actions
Dellanon you are way too emeotional about the reaction from a fan base
“me thinks you protest too much”. Wasting your time indeed – you are very wedded to your idea aren’t you?
Thanks for a dissenting voice.
"do routine things routinely"
by centexraider on Jan 16, 2010 11:40 AM CST up reply actions
To LondonRaider
Too bad you aren’t single… I think I want to marry you. Your calm, well-thought-out, well-researched, and well-written posts are just what I’ve been looking for. You say exactly what I’ve been thinking except for a few things you left out.
The first is that Athletic trainers (like MDs) have a different set of criteria to follow and not a simple chain-of-command, as Pincock alleged. If a coach tells them to do something that is not in the best medical interest of the athlete, they must deny the request and confront and/or report the coach. Otherwise they would be culpable if they put an injured player at risk and could lose their certifications or face suspension. Those men (trainer & Dr. Phy) know their jobs and careers are on the line.
Speaking of the good Dr, “not appropriate” is a far cry from illegal or abusive/mistreatment.
That being said, Leach did not PUT AJ anywhere. He told someone to do it and they did. Words are not actions. Why aren’t the people who committed the action being held accountable?
Finally, most people assume AJ got his concussion at practice. This is not the case. I don’t know exactly when or where he did get it (many have speculated and I tend to believe the rumors based on AJ’s lack of character) but no Tech personnel, coaches, etc. had anything to do with it.
Thank you, LR, for keeping things civil and focused. And tell your wife this won’t last forever.
how have i missed these rumors?
I have my own ideas what they might be…
by kevinkinsler on Jan 15, 2010 7:58 PM CST up reply actions
I wouldn't want to marry London, unless she was a great cook !
Sometimes a river boat can out run a pirate ship.
Thank You, LondonRaider
I am an Alumnus (Class of ‘74) and avid supporter of Texas Tech University. Over the years, I have endured all of the jabs concerning our great university (ie. West Texas High, etc.) because I knew there was ignorance out there concerning the truth that Tech was a first-class university. There was little name recognition for Tech because it was overshadowed by larger schools with more money and a larger Alumni base. Then, along came Coach Leach, who managed to up the ante and push Tech into the limelight and catapult the university into the national sporting news with a positive image. Not only did Coach Leach push the envelope on the football field, he emphasized academics and helped move Tech to the forefront in the graduation rate for the athletes under his supervision.
While it is true that football or any other sport is not the end-all or be-all for any school, it still provides name recognition and publicity. In this case it was positive recognition and provided for a growing enrollment, expansion of sports facilities, and added revenue to the university as a whole. This recognition sparked not only the students, but the Alumni as well. For him (Coach Leach) to not be afforded due process by the university is a travesty beyond proportions.
“Strive for honor, ever more” has always stuck with me since my days at Tech. I have tried to live by these words all of my life and will forever by thankful to Tech for instilling this particular value in me. Like so many others, I bleed scarlet and black, but am ashamed of the way this whole thing has played out. If you don’t want a coach or faculty member anymore, be honest with them and let them go and don’t renew their contract, plain and simple. Don’t string them along and look for a reason to fire them and drag their name through the mud. Be honest and honorable and move on with dignity. I love my Texas Tech University but not what has transpired. I fear that all of this will push Tech back to the days of “West Texas High”, and I am not happy with that. While I intend to always support my school, I will not support the injustices that have transpired these last few weeks. The Tech I remember would not have created this nightmare with denying someone/anyone their right to prove their innocence. No matter whose side anyone is on, this is a black eye for Tech that will not soon be forgotten…at least not by me. And that is the biggest shame of all.
Again, LondonRaider, thank you for presenting the past few weeks in an unbiased, logical way. I joined this group just so that I could say thank you for being honest and open in your remarks. I also joined because you have offered the best analysis of this horrendous situation. (Sorry if this “thank you” dragged on so long and thank you for letting me post. Go Tech! Strive for Honor Ever More…….)
Response--
Skin Patrol (and I am strange?)
You asked me numerous questions in response to my post. Although you did not directly request that I engage you in debate, the invitation was indirect. Deny it, I don’t care.
In any event, if that is the best you can do in response to this lonely soul, then my point was made. Thanks for making it easy for me.
You are wrong. LondonRaider’s point IS weakened by the fact that his facts and his research are faulty and inaccurate. He did not go to great lengths to fact-check the details of the emails because, I suspect, he already made up his mind and was ready to use the emails against the TT Administration and against Sowell. Or maybe he was just too overwhelmed with document review, because this is a big sh*tfest. Either way.
LR is entitled to his opinion and I believe that he is intelligent, else he would not have compiled so much information and discussed it so succinctly. However, despite claims otherwise, he is biased and (from where I stand) it appears that NO amount of information or “proof” will change that, even though he “claims” that they could/or would. If someone just pulls out the proof. Really really.
Really. :)
While difficult to do, I will contain my vitriol; however, I find it appalling that ANYONE would not think Leach’s behavior was horrible and unacceptable once they learn the details of this story. This is disturbing, not to mention, depressing.
This issue is not beneath my time. Obviously, as I am spending quite a bit of time having a lovely chat with you. I draw the line at how MUCH time I am willing to spend on this, though. As LondonRaider has demonstrated, these forums are a huge black hole that suck you in… and then you have to deal with flies in the ointment like me who don’t comment and respond to tell you how amazing and wonderful you are.
You also do not appear to realize the national coverage this site gets and how many lurking eyeballs read these postings. While I am confident you don’t care, I may be new to the site, but I am intimately aware of how discussion boards work, as I have actively participated on other boards longer than I care to admit. I realize the value and impression these boards have on people beyond just the active participants.
That said, I do not speak just to the Tech fans who participate on this site. I am voicing my opinions to a broader audience.
By the way, congratulations on your hundreds, maybe thousands of postings. Give me your address and I’ll send you some cookies.
Here is a summation of my opinion: Love the school. Lose the icon. He’s gone (deservedly so). Move on. If that makes me anti-TT, fine. I will not argue with you about something so trivial.
DFWTrojan
You are really reaching. I’m not going to deny that Sowell’s opinion mattered to the Administration. Like I said before, I think his deep pockets were all that they really cared about. And I suspect he met with Leach as a favor to try and calm the tension. You want to make this into some big smoking gun, but it’s really not that big of a deal. Maybe Elvis is alive in your world too. Sowell’s comments weren’t that bizarre considering the circumstances.
Old School
I don’t think you understand. Yes, due process is for all… in a court of law. Not in civil contracts or an employee agreement.
Rips
The trainer was doing what his supervisor told him to do. If he wanted to keep his job, he’d do what he’s told and I would too. The primary person accountable is the one who made the order. Secondary person accountable is the one who executed the order: the trainer. Haven’t you seen “A Few Good Men”? Yes, it’s a movie, but it’s a perfect example. Leach should not be off the hook because he didn’t “do it.” Give me a break.
LondonRaider
Thank you for clarifying your position on the emails…
You admit you’re a big Leach fan, yet you don’t believe that makes you biased toward him? C’mon..
Am not sure I caught the article you wrote regarding Leach’s cursing. I will review the forum with more detail later this week. Discussion boards wear me out, so I don’t know why I have even come this far with it….
I respect the time you have put into this and the details and lengths you have gone to, LR, but I completely disagree with your position and your conclusions here.
It’s fair that you don’t think his comments are a big deal. But throw me a bone: surely you can see how others would find them entirely out of line. IMO, Leach was a very well paid Professional. He was not a high school coach or even a typical college coach; he was something bigger and better (as you all have made clear). He also is an adult ..unlike the kids he coaches (who are far from, in comparison). Leach should have ACTED like an adult and should have acted like a professional and treated his subordinates and his superiors with respect, regardless of his opinions of them. He had too much on the line to be such a self-involved ass.
Despite what some people may think about "genius" or "brilliant minds," if you cannot play nice with your colleagues (or your underlings, when you have the unfortunate luck to get caught), few will work with you and your future success may be in question. I see your point about exposure to legal risk by not offering Leach due process and while it would have been nice to give Leach a full investigation, complete with due process and all, we would do well to remember that the "full investigation" was complete once Leach declined to do what he was asked to do by his superiors (sign the statement and agree to a code of professional conduct), which was likely intended as an effort to protect the reputation of the school and possibly prevent future litigation from mistreated students (James or others) or even people like this trainer who was ordered to do something he felt was unethical. This may seem like an exaggeration, but there is NO telling what kind of risk the school would have been up against if they didn’t at LEAST reign Leach in—-something he simply would NOT allow. So they had no choice but to let him go. The administration was up against a lose-lose situation here. Fire Leach and piss off every single alum who follows TT ball or keep him and risk the reputation of the school, risk future litigation meanwhile, setting a coaching standard that is unacceptable.
While difficult to do, I will contain my vitriol; however, I find it appalling that ANYONE would not think Leach’s behavior was horrible and unacceptable once they learn the details of this story. This is disturbing, not to mention, depressing.
Why isn’t this the “agree to disagree” moment? You still insist that we’re not seeing all the evidence, when it is apparent that all we’re disagreeing about is whether the evidence indicates horrible behavior on Leach’s part. I know what he said, I know what he did, I don’t think it is horrible. You do. That is our disagreement. It is not about whether enough research has been done, or whether the administration is getting enough time in LR’s posts. It is really about this simple issue: You think Leach is a bad guy, and we don’t.
I appreciate you making that clear. That settles this discussion, as far as I’m concerned. Suffice to say I massively disagree with your conclusion, and also still don’t think you’ve characterized LR’s posts accurately. For example:
LondonRaider’s point IS weakened by the fact that his facts and his research are faulty and inaccurate.
So far as I can tell the only fact he’s misstated was that Sowell was a member of the BOR when he’s actually a former member; this has since been fixed. The other errors you presume are errors of omission that don’t exist. You accuse him of not including the offending language by Mike Leach… but everyone knows the offending language. The source of the offending language is cited in the post. His post would probably not be as effective if he quoted the entire affidavit in full.
You’re dissenting viewpoint is always appreciated, but why can’t you just say: “I think Mike Leach is horrible” without accusing the author of the above post of misstating facts? From your perspective the best way to ensure a dissenting voice is to make people who disagree with you state the argument from your perspective. This site gives enormous voice to readers. You can make a fanpost about this outlining your position in detail, and including all the pieces of the puzzle that you think LR left out. If your position is compelling enough, you will accomplish precisely what it is you are seeking to do.
But understand I think it is far more likely the case that the reason you disagree with many of us is because you think what Mike Leach did was evil, and most of us don’t. You weep for Adam James. Ok. That’s a perfectly normal position, my grandmother, were she alive, would probably find what Mike Leach did inappropriate. I’m not her, I’m not you. We might have complete agreement as to all the facts (and you haven’t presented any that I was unaware of) but disagree as to what conclusions to draw from the same. Is that possible, do you think?
by Skin Patrol on Jan 17, 2010 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
If someone, anyone, has the missing piece of this puzzle,
please complete the picture for us now! So far we have a few people telling us that the evidence is “right in front of your face” , or that we should “just fill in the dots”. If you show us that ML was a “monster”, or a “sadistic bully”, or that there was cheating or hookers or blow… if you have video, or testimonial or documents or anything at all that will prove this, most of this outrage goes away.
I second the suggestion by Skin Patrol that Dellanon present this missing evidence in a fan post. (But only after you have caught up with all the previous postings on the subject). Otherwise, when a whole lot of us try to “connect the dots”, the picture we come up with is the one that you seem to be so offended by.
by raider realist on Jan 17, 2010 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The grain of truth
Right “D”
“This may seem like an exaggeration, but there is NO telling what kind of risk the school would have been up against if they didn’t at LEAST reign Leach in—-something he simply would NOT allow. So they had no choice but to let him go. The administration was up against a lose-lose situation here. Fire Leach and piss off every single alum who follows TT ball or keep him and risk the reputation of the school, risk future litigation meanwhile, setting a coaching standard that is unacceptable.”
It is an exaggeration.
It was a lose lose situation. But it didn’t need to devolve into a public affairs fiasco. What you aren’t saying is the other "adult" the collective administration – leadership – failed to be easy to get along with as well. Why don’t you aim some of your intellect at their actions?
BTW it’s just a blog.
"do routine things routinely"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
