Let's End the Charade. Leach's Firing is not about Concussions.

As far as they are concerned the students, thereby the alumni are cows to be milked and slaughtered for monetary gain, either for the University (themselves) or for athletics (themselves). To think otherwise is to endow the “cattle” with intelligence.

which they aren’t about to pull out for this case. It’s not like he was porking his secretary or anything.

I think objectively and unemotionally, I agree with a lot of this. But this won’t be real popular ; )

Sucks to have to admit it but most of what you stated makes perfect sense. It’s too bad Leach couldn’t just work this relationship a little better. I still don’t agree with the admin. firing him because even though he is difficult he was winner. I think he would have parted ways with Tech eventually in a matter of time with things the way they were.

TallMike – I have been contemplating trying to find a way to place this perspective on the DTN blog for a few days. There are a LOT of folks who will find this view difficult to swallow. I very much appreciate you stepping up – in a big way.

There is no doubt that Leach is a football genius is beloved by Tech football fans and does have a unique character and personality. However, all those good traits don’t necessarily support a fully-formed, easy-to-manage employee … those traits are generally associated with a free-form, entrepreneurial, imaginative-type who wants to play by the rules “as they see them”.

Anyone who believes that the admin had a bug in their britches about Leach, simply because he was not “cut from the same cloth” of the West Texas pattern, should take a few steps back to see the big picture. The admin is loaded with a lot of folks who have invested a lot of themselves and their careers in Texas Tech, and were intimately engaged in the daily management (or failure to manage) of a very high-profile, well-liked, but eccentric and difficult employee.

I am sure the decision to remove him was NOT taken lightly or without considering the implications, but it would sure seem to me that Leach really opened the door for his own firing by … well, just being himself, unyielding in his view that his way was the ONLY way. It’s always laudable when someone has the “courage of their own convictions”. But, it does not do anyone any good to be unable to see another side, an alternative, or a compromise that can enable all sides to “win” in a situation where it appears that perhaps your own actions contributed to a tough situation (like the one introduced by the James Family), even if it was not your intention to do so.

It started with mistreating the players…putting him in a shed/garage/trainer-gardener storage, ice house, OL spa.He was fired because he was a difficult employee, devisive in all contract situations, with an annual trip (even if he had to pay for it out of his own pocket ) to a school looking for an HC inorder to use it as leverage as perceived marketability as an HC in demand…a fundamental lie, one that the admin had to handle annually as a hostile negotiation. He was fired because he refused to find a middle ground, even if it was to his benefit at the end of the day. So he would strike out to win a battle only to find himself losing the war.

The above, while likely true, are not legal grounds for termination. Leach did NOT have a recorded history of mistreating players, to my knowledge. And, Leach likely CAN show a record of modest insubordination which had never led to termination in the past. From my knowledge, if you have a history of letting an employee behave in a certain way for 10 years, you can’t suddenly revert back to an austere interpretration of his contract, especially if it subverts due process. The court will look back at the pattern of behavior under the contract to understand how the parties worked together, especially for a contract as ambiguous as Leach’s. There was an established and accepted pattern of behavior in the working relationship between Leach and the corrupt admin. It further appears that Leach has a great case to prove that Tech entered his new contract with unfaithful intent.

You act like Mike Leach managed a Whataburger for you and he got a big head after his store lead the region in sales. Contract negotiations in football don’t parallel much else in life. The fact that the administration was trying their best to make those negotiations as difficult as possible, makes the "difficult employee" argument even harder to make.

You also state "all contract situation". How many contracts do you think this guy signed at Tech? Do you have some information about his first contract negotiations that we don’t have. Please cite the source. We’re sticklers about that around here.

As for his "annual trip" to look for a new job, I would love for you to cite some sources. You will not be able to find one for every year or even every few years. The few you will find will be from a time when he was one of the lowest paid, yet most successful, coaches in the conference.

Did you read the "apology" that Leach did not sign? I’m not sure I would have given this administration a loaded gun like that. You seem upset that he didn’t give them an easy out so he could be fired without the risk of lawsuit.

Few will knock you for remaining a fan. I just ask that you don’t play to widespread ignorance when as you try to rationalize it.

I’m reaching the point of just putting this entire thing behind me, but you’ve raised some interesting questions that I’ll respond to.

He was fired because he was a difficult employee, devisive in all contract situations, with an annual trip (even if he had to pay for it out of his own pocket ) to a school looking for an HC inorder to use it as leverage as perceived marketability as an HC in demand…a fundamental lie, one that the admin had to handle annually as a hostile negotiation. He was fired because he refused to find a middle ground, even if it was to his benefit at the end of the day. So he would strike out to win a battle only to find himself losing the war.

I don’t think much of this is wrong, but I think it is a drastic oversimplification to cite Leach’s wandering eye and inability to find middle ground and then conclude “he was a difficult employee” worth firing. An employee’s difficulty is not the sole consideration in the employment relationship. Where the person’s job is to produce wins at a clip considerably higher than other coaches in this school’s history, a certain amount of difficulty should be tolerated. The gist of those who think the school erred is that they made a bad decision because the cost of having Leach (which you’ve pointed out is substantial) is greatly outweighed by the cost of firing him. Here, many of us thought that the school was better off with Leach, warts and all, than we are without him.

It does little to dissuade that position to simply say that Leach had identifiable faults. We can, and indeed did, price in his wandering into our employment contract with him. Ostensibly the problems you identified, such as his inability to find middle ground, were likewise priced into the contract. If Mike Leach were a perfect employee, we probably would have had to pay him more. That’s just the nature of negotiation. We set a price on how valuable Mike Leach was to the program, warts and all.

Once they determined to use James as a reason…did they know he would refuse to sign an apology ?? Then they had cause, which Mike Leach gave them, so for his principle, he gave up the income that he had worked so hard to gain, the security of each of his assistant coaches, and the work that he and they had expended to get the program at the level it has gained. But he does have his prinicple…what is that principle anyway ?

Again, I think this is a dramatic oversimplification. Leach’s refusal to sign a letter may or may not have provided cause for the administration to fire him; that’s a legal matter, one I’ve not heard is clearly in favor of the administration by any lawyer. The general consensus I’m gathering from that community is that this thing is going to settlement. Leach will probably be entitled to no less than the 800k he would have had last Thursday, under the contract (on a summary judgment motion, probably, which tells me his worst day in court, at least by his lawyer’s lights, will be no amount less than 800k + attorney’s fees, unless they are precluded under the contract, which I’m not sure they are). Whether Mike Leach gave up anything is a matter to be decided, if it comes to that, by a jury or judge or both, but not by us. It might be the case that Mike Leach is far, far better off for refusing to sign the letter than he would have been had he signed the letter, not as a matter of “principle” but as a matter of economic well-being. We will see.

But principle is involved; I fault no person for refusing to sign an admission of illusory wrong-doings. I am fairly certain that Mike Leach did not handle the situation as politically as he possibly could, but I’ve no idea whether that would’ve even mattered. If the admin had made the decision to get rid of Leach, as you state they did, then why would his political posturing have mattered at all? Once the employer has determined that the employee will be fired, the employee’s duties are substantially altered. If the admin was just looking for an excuse, why be political? Doesn’t signing a letter of admission of mistreating a players provide precisely the kind of evidence of “for cause” firing that Leach might be, legally, afraid of? I would urge you, strongly, to consult a lawyer anytime your employer demands that you sign an admission of misconduct, particularly if it relates to contractual provisions with either hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars worth of consequences.

Mike Leach further shows his ‘loyalty’ by telling stories that conflict with the trainer’s, and team doctor’s affidavites…at least that is the way it looks…and the way it will look in court. Now, the affidavites themselves might be questioned. They are both dated 1Jan2010, were they tendered under duress? Is there a subtle, hidden threat of job security behind them ? We will never know, but they can be offered in court as valid and tested in that arena as a ‘my word against yours’ offering for a civil court to decide.

1) Once Mike Leach was fired, I’m not sure he owes his former employer a showing of “loyalty.” Indeed, Kent Hance owes Leach no loyalty, nor do we for that matter (except for appreciation for his efforts, if that is even warranted). The administration and Mike Leach are both in full-blown legal posturing mode, so the expectation of loyalty by either side for the other is bogus.

2) I disagree with your characterization of the affidavits as contradicting Mike Leach’s interview. I defer to London Raider on the issue, as I think his analysis has been spot on. I have watched the 36 minute interview. I read the affidavits. I do not find anything substantively different between the accounts presented by Leach, the trainer, or the team’s doctor.

3) The affidavits may help the administration in their shock value, but Leach’s lawyers, if they are competent at all, will have a lot of fun with the difference in tone between the statements signed on January 1st and those presented to media sources by the doctor and trainer prior to Leach’s firing. It appears that a lot of people, Lincoln Riley, Michael Phy, and the trainer to count a few, simply bet on the wrong horse at the beginning of this dispute. They all would have been better off, and the administration too, had everyone taken a more muted tone. A fact-finder will be very interested to find out what someone said, when they said it, for the purposes of deducing why they said it. The timing of the statements is suspicious, to say the least. Bias will be very easy to demonstrate.

When I heard ML was given a letter at the hearing, I knew the admin was ready to fire him and they knew he would possibly give them cause, again. He thought he could get away with sueing his employer’s admonishment tendered because he refused to sign an apology without further admonishment ?? That is insane, even reckless !! It speaks of a vindictive response, a narrow view of the world outside of his own judgement, inability to compromise or even look at a middle ground when everything is at stake.

The law takes a different position; there is nothing “insane” or “reckless” or “vindictive” about exercising one’s legal rights and remedies. In any event, there is no need to “look at a middle ground when everything is at stake” if it is the case that “the admin is ready to fire him.” At that point, there is nothing at stake; the employer has made a decision, and there is little the employee can do to stop them, absent the exercise of legal rights (such as a temporary restraining order/injunction which, on a side note, is pretty easy to win and I’m really surprised the admin chickened out on this; more than a few lawyers I know have commented on this, saying it was pretty chickenshit of them to avoid the TRO hearing).

Everyone understands that when a coach is fired, there is a lawsuit. The idea that Leach is insane for initiating a lawsuit confuses me. It is just as likely that Leach was a few steps ahead of the administration in initiating the injunction against the school, even if you think that led to his firing (which is, anyways, completely inconsistent with what you’ve said regarding why Leach was “really” fired).

Mike Leach is a very fine football coach and program leader, he assembled a good cast of coaches, and helped grow a good football program, but he was an horrible employee and that did him in at TTU and his further pursuit of the direction he has displayed will be considered by any worthwhile program that wants to hire a good coach.

The idea that a coahc could be very fine, a program leader, a great assembler of a cast of coaches, an solid at growing a good football program, but was still a “horrible employee” is what many of us find unsettling. That his inability to play politics, which is hardly considered a virtue by many of us, is enough to discount all the things he was good at (and that we paid him to be good at) is what needs explaining.

We could end up paying him millions, in which case his “marketability” will increase. I hope the school does not have to pay him millions, but it looks like a merited lawsuit.

And, yes—with a duh!, if you have made up your mind to take the opening given by the James affair to fire your coach, you do it before he is eligible for any completion bonus.

That creates serious legal issues. If it is the case that the administration used the James event to create a phony “for cause” firing against Mike Leach, than he’s going to have a simple time recovering 800k. You better keep quiet about what the administration intended, because if they are as calculating as you say they are, a lot of students are going to pay Mike Leach through tuition.

The whole deal is an ugly mess, it shows that the TTU admin is not going to deal with a difficult coach…

Except, apparently, for 10 years. The TTU administration are the goats here. Life will go on with Leach, but it isn’t clear that our program will ever succeed with this administration. We look like a bunch of bumbling opportunistic hicks in so far as we are represented by our administration. Mike Leach doesn’t look any better for his participation in this, but what good is that to us? He’s just another former head coach of the team. If his career is ruined, it’s just evidence to future potential hires what can happen if they join the Texas Tech family.

The saddest part is that everyone loses. Craig James career has lost luster. Adam James is likely done at TTU and in CFB generally. Texas Tech is much worse off for having lost a good coach and likely having to pay a non-trivial sum in a lawsuit. Mike Leach looks ever more strange and difficult to future employers. And the wrong that was allegedly righted, was never a wrong; Adam James was not put in danger by anyone. Except, I’d add, by the administration, who apparently reinforced to young James the worst lesson in life, that dad is a phone call away when you don’t get what you don’t deserve.

I disagree strongly that the TTU admin showed anything we wanted them to show the world. We look bad, just as everyone else does. That sucks. There should be accountability for this.

About the law suit being other than a form of insubordination.

I took the words spoken by Hance to make my thoughts…back in Dimmit if you sue your boss he is going to fire you…words to that effect.

Thank you for your perspective.

I think the treatment, while not physically abusive, could be seen in courts as violating his clause about treating players in general. I don’t have MLs contract handy, but I know there is something in there that addresses how he treats the athletes.

One other point…yes, he was a high performing employee. But I think the bosses of that employee, as well as he performed, grew weary of dealing with him over a 10-year span. I’ve worked places where similar things happened to sales guys. They sold the crap out of the service, but acted like the company owed them a favor for employing them. That works for a while, but at some point you have to make a decision you feel is for the collective good of the entire organization. Happens all the time.

rarely do words carry this much weight around here

Best wishes to him for whatever may come after this year…
He epitomizes what I admire most about my favorite Texas Tech football players – 100% effort and 100% heart…

That had the James family had ultimate concern for their son, he would not have even played football. They know the hazards, they know the risks, both from the physical and from a coach who might chose to push a player to do more than he thinks he can while they know all along that he is capable of so much more. That is their burden. For one, I absolutely will not harbor negative feelings towards Adam James.

And yes, the James family postering is really suspicious, and kind of sticky sicky.

We all admire all the players who come out and play football while working to be good students and good citizens…whether they achieve at a high level on the field or not.

A)are you really admitting to aggie friends
b)surely you are deft enough to remind them that we own their ass and they should just shut the piehole

That Bob Knight’s actions were acceptable and Mike Leach’s were not is the thought that leads to my conclusion that Mike Leach was on the verge of being fired anyway and that the James deal was the ‘opportunity.’ I can change my thinking as soon as I see something rational that explains that.

I find myself tonight wondering how much they really wanted him gone…the DMN emails hint that the admin was weary of working with him and wanted Briles…at least Sowell wrote about that from his perspective (I guess it is not automatic that we was speaking for the others in those exchanges—I would need to read them again to see if I could get a sense of that one way or the other). The reason I am wondering if they really wanted him gone is that they seem to be unprepared to have a coaching search prepared. They were certainly prepared at the hearing with a letter of dismissal in case they needed it…so one might think they would be prepared to interview a great list of prospective coaches. I am not seeing that…

as the post says this is not about concussed players. This is about slackers and little league dads. It is my understand that Leach had a standing policy that EVERYONE comes to practice in appropriate “gear”. When Sweet Baby James came in shades, hat on backwards, etc, he was bannished to the shed for ,ironically ,insubordination. My guess is that over the past other players doing similar stupid things received similar consequences.

that if other players had been sent to the shed he was not aware of it.

Big difference.