Leach Firing - Current Players' Reactions
Judging by the posts on the message board yesterday, the majority of posters seemed to believe that Leach got a raw deal, that he wasn't "punishing" James for having a concussion (or for refusing to practice with a concussion), and that he was simply placing him in a comfortable, cool place to make sure that James' concussion symptoms weren't aggravated. Many of these posters relied on emails sent by Leach's fellow coaches and selected former players, which denigrated James personally.
Some new quotes coming out from current players, who presumably witnessed what happened, undermine this story. It seems pretty clear that, whatever attitude problems James might have had in the past, some players believed that, yes, he was being punished, not treated, and that he was being punished for having a concussion.
Senior Center Shawn Byrnes: "There is no question [Leach] understood offense and understood football. But he didn't understand how to deal with people. Everyone is excited about this, to be honest. Adam [James] took a stand. We have no idea why he was in a shed. How could you punish a kid for having a concussion? What could that possibly accomplish?"
http://topics.ocregister.com/quote/0dkacyT19K3w3
Defensive lineman Chris Perry [Go blue!]: "I have no complaints about this decision. [Leach] put Adam [James] in a shed like an animal. Like an animal in a cage. That was bull . . . . You call other players. I think it was a good decision. We have our pep back now. We practice hard this week. We had less stress this week. You know why? Because he's gone."
Cornerback Taylor Charbonnet: "The players make this team, not one coach. As Adam's friend, I didn't like it at all what [Leach] did. He was my brother and I didn't agree with it. I don't know why [Leach] did that. But I know we are fully behind [interim] coach Ruffin [McNeill]. We love him and support him."
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls09/news/story?id=4781981
In this day and age, a college coach sending a message to his football players that they will be punished if they whine about a concussion is inexcusable. Add to that Leach's refusal to apologize or work with Tech officials on the issue, and then suing the university when he was suspended, and his firing seems justifiable to me.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
Hiring a lawyer and filing an injunction against your own school is career wise, the equivalent to suicide by cop.
Once again, I will equate this to your job. If you were put on administrative leave for 2 weeks because of allegations that at least had the ring of truth in them, would your first move be to hire lawyers and take your employer to court the very next day?
December 31st, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
Depends on the reason. If the boss's daughter and I made out yet she claimed sexual assault, you bet your ass I would take them to court.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^
Here is how I see it -
You can spin it any way you want, whether:
A) Don't listen to ESPN because they employ the kid's father and are biased
B) No human being should be stuffed in an electrical closet and Leach should have been fired
C) The former players coming to the aid of Leach suggests he got a raw deal
BUT in the end, there was one piece that really struck gold for me:
Did anyone else see the video footage of the TT kids getting off the bus yesterday, when EVERY single player was smiling and looked genuinely happy? Assuming ESPN didn't take that footage before the allegations (which could have happened I guess), that's got to tell you - this is a team glad to see their coach gone.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
This is no problem to me, even if James was forced to stay in the area that he recorded on the cell phone he brought to practice. It's a small room that he had to stay in, cry me a raging river of sorrow. You can cut the estrogen with a knife around here.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
That's such a straw man argument. The issue isn't that the punishment was so horrendous. The question is, what was the reason for the punishment.
This is all about concussions. If the punishment is concussion-related, its unacceptable. If it's not concussion-related, no one would give a shit and Leach got a raw deal. No matter how minor the punishment, coaches shouldn't do anything that would motivate a player to try hide or play through a concussion.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^
Do you work at the center for concussion awareness?
December 31st, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
No, I read the newspaper and see hundreds of stories talking about how former football players have are suffering from debilitating mental injuries and have had their quality of life destroyed because of concussions they suffered while playing. And how the NFL and college football are recognizing this as a serious issue, and are trying to come up with ways to deal with it that may involve severely transforming the game we love. It's kind of a hot topic right now. And it's entirely the reason Mike Leach was fired.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^
There is obviously some serious issues with head injuries and something needs to happen.
I respectfully disagree with you saying that this was "entirely the reason Mike Leach was fired." That school has been waiting for the first chance to pull the trigger.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:53 PM ^
I was more responding to the James family release of the new "closet" tape. Regarding your op, you seem to put a lot more weight on the new pro-James comments than on the comments from yesterday. They seemed to seal the deal for you, is that because they're current players? (EDIT: I see that I missed you saying that in one of your posts, Sorry, large thread.) I've been lurking on the TT board that was linked to yesterday, and the opinion of two of those players was pretty low. There was more concern over the statements coming from the CB, I guess he's more highly regarded, but at the same time is also a close personal friend of James'. I have gut feelings about this situation, but I know I don't know all of the facts yet. It seems that the James family saw the recent concussion discussions and Mangino's situation as an opportunity, and exploited it, starting from the moment James showed up to practice when he was told to stay away.
Like you said though, if it's a straight up concussion debate, there should be zero tolerance. I'm just jacking off on a message board at this point, but I find the character of Adam James to be questionable unless I learn different.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^
I wouldn't say "sealed the deal" because I always may change my mind as new info comes out, but yeah, the comments of these current players have strongly influenced my opinion.
I have no problem acknowledging that James might be an entitled prick, based on the comments of former players and coaches (though these comments were likely cherry-picked from Leach's compatriots). I just don't think that's the most relevant issue.
For me, it comes down to one question, with two sub-parts: (i) Was James punished (ii) for reasons relating to his concussion?
During his numerous media appearances, Leach's attorney implied (without saying it explicitly), that James wasn't being punished, he was just placed somewhere appropriate for his condition. The comments from the current players, who were actually there, seem to blow this out of the water -- at least those who have spoken out believe that James was definitely being punished.
The issue then becomes whether he was punished for something relating to his concussion, or something else. Leach's attorney hasn't even admitted that James was being punished, much less has he claimed that there was a non-concussion related reason for the punishment. All they've said is that James was a malcontent in the past, which wouldn't justify punishment on this particular day. So unless and until further evidence comes out, or the Leach camp offers a plausible explanation of what happened, it looks to me that he acted inappropriately.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
So I assume that he has done this in the past then. Since it isn't about James as an individual and all about the punishment of players who complain about injuries, I would assume players in the past have had concussions and not practiced because of them. He must have locked them in the closet for not practicing, right?
December 31st, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
If someone didn't do the EXACT SAME THING in the past, then they are innocent of the charges against them.
OJ Simpson: "Of course I didn't murder those people -- did I ever murder anyone in the past?"
Mike Price: "I certainly never banged two strippers while screaming 'Roll Tide.' Why, these are the only two strippers who ever claimed I banged them, so that proves my innocence!"
Woody Hayes: "Punch a player on the field? Me? So what if you have videotape - do you have videotape of me doing it IN THE PAST?"
Bill Clinton: "So far as I know, only one intern has claimed to have blown me. So that can't possibly be true."
Plaxico Burress: "If I had shot myself in the right leg, as you claim, wouldn't I also have bullet holes in my LEFT leg from previous incidents?"
Glen Winston: . . . . ok, maybe that's a bad example.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:03 PM ^
Your attempt at being funny failed miserably.
Your argument is that Leach dislikes kids whining about injuries. My question is did he just decide this year that he didn't like kids milking injuries? Because one would think if this was only about the punishment of milking a mild concussion and not about the douchiness of the kid, then he would hate every one of his past players who milked injuries and humiliated them all accordingly.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:12 PM ^
I never said the douchiness of the kid didn't play into it. I'm sure if Graham Harrell was suffering from a concussion there would be a different result. Maybe he reacted as he did because he dislikes James and thought that James was milking the injury. That's an explanation, but not an excuse. You don't punish a kid for anything having to do with a concussion, no matter how annoying he's been in the past.
And my attempt at being funny succeeded greatly, thank you very much. Come on, you didn't even like the Glen Winston joke?
December 31st, 2009 at 3:47 PM ^
I am saying the concussion had nothing to do with it. It had everything to do with a player/coach disagreement.
The James kid went to practice with sunglasses on and was sent to a shed where there is no sun. He was so disgusted and embarrassed about his treatment that he went back the next day so the exact same thing could happen again. Miraculously, this time he had his cell phone on him so he could record the place where he was forced to go or no one would have known how humiliated he felt the first time. Whew! How lucky is it that he happened to have his camera phone with him the second time?!?!?!
December 31st, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^
So your theory is that it had nothing to do with the concussion, it had to do with James going to a practice with sunglasses on. Do you not see the logical disconnect?
James said that he was wearing the sunglasses because he was sensitive to light as a result of the concussion he just suffered. He was apparently punished for wearing sunglasses. Hence, the concussion had something to do with it.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:13 PM ^
No, my theory is that James didn't care about the concussion or punishment until after he was able to get the punishment on tape with his cell phone. Then, magically, him and his family were extremely offended. My theory is that James knew he was a dick the day before and was hoping to go back the second day, do the same thing he did before, and get punished the same way. Why go back if you knew you were going to file a complaint? Because one time locked in a shed is acceptable punishment but 2 times is over the line? As I said before, it isn't about the concussion and it is all about James v Leach.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:28 PM ^
So let's accept your theory that James went back the second day to get evidence of mistreatment that he could use against Leach. How does that excuse Leach's behavior on day 1? Basically, you're challenging the motives of the complainant, but not providing much of a defense for Leach's conduct.
December 31st, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
Because then it looks as though James and his entire family don't really care about the punishment or the concussion, only about getting Leach fired. Your whole point the past 2 days is that he punished him because of his concussion - when it looks like the kid cared more about having a "gotcha" moment with coach Leach rather than shielding his eyes from the harmful sunlight that hurt his eyes so much that he went outside to practice 2 days in a row, it doesn't bode well for the kid.
December 31st, 2009 at 5:22 PM ^
I have no idea what your point is. Forget about what James cared about. Why do you think he was sent to the shed, if not for punishment for wearing sunglasses? You still haven't answered that question.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:02 PM ^
He was sent to the shed for breaking team rules. Team rule is that you can't wear sunglasses on the sideline. I guess if you want to split hairs, the sunglasses were related to a concussion, but I am going to guess there are other ways to keep the sun out of your eyes that are not against team rules. How about a hat? If they aren't against the rules, why didn't he wear a hat? Or how about standing there with your hand over your eyebrow. These are quite effective when I am trying to keep sun out of my eyes. Unless just walking outside without sunglasses hurts his eyes, at which point I am pretty positive it was more than just a mild concussion. If he was in too much pain from the sun, he shouldn't have been attending an outdoor practice. I am pretty sure Leach has had players in the past with much more serious than a mild concussion and I never heard of them refusing to take off sunglasses or anything else that might be against team rules. Why is that?
December 31st, 2009 at 2:14 PM ^
I look forward to hopefully hearing more from the rest of the current team. If they are similar to the 3 comments we're discussing, I will definitely have to re-assess my opinion of Leach.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:00 PM ^
This is no problem to me, even if James was forced to stay in the area that he recorded on the cell phone he brought to practice. It's a small room that he had to stay in, cry me a raging river of sorrow. You can cut the estrogen with a knife around here.
I love how the anonymity of the internet turns everyone into a 6'4", 225-pound super-tough guy who grew up crawling through shards of glass five miles uphill to 4:00 a.m. football practice (the first of four per day).
Whether or not Adam James is the biggest crybaby in the world, whether his father is a jerk, whether or not Adam was sent to a closet, media room, or storage shed, the fact appears to be that Mike Leach had a concussed player and, rather than do the sensible thing and send him to the training room (or hospital), forced him to participate in some bizarre punishment. That is not the kind of behavior a coach should be engaging in. I sure wouldn't want my son to have to go through that.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:18 PM ^
In Leach's defense (see, I'm not biased!) he suffered the concussion the previous day, went to see the doctor, was diagnosed, and then was sent to return to the practice field (to observe, not to play). That's when he was sent to the shed. Your email seems to imply that he never received treatment, but rather suffered an injury on the field and then was sent to the shed when he complained of symptoms. That's not at all what happened.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:30 PM ^
I love how the anonymity of the internet allows people to behave in a much more smug and sanctimonious fashion than they would in person. I'm sure you would feel perfectly comfortable correcting RR's speech if you were having a conversation with him. I'm actually 6'2" and flirting with 230 lbs, but you already knew that. Obviously you find it hard to believe that anyone actually exhibits any toughness in real life. I can assure you that many people are much tougher that you, despite what you might think. I don't see what broken glass and 5-mile runs have to do with hanging out in a room, making home movies. I fear that you son is going to end up a lot like Adam James, is he in little league baseball by any chance? I think I may have already met you.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
practicing 4 times a day may be a violation and we don't want Freep to catch wind of that.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
I was just on the phone with AT&T about my cell phone service. We talked for over an hour and not one mention of Leach. Seems not everyone got the memo.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:54 PM ^
ESPN asked craig james to speak on the firing of leach. yeah, that isn't biased at all.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
I assume he was asked to speak in his capacity as the parent who complained, rather than in his capacity as a journalist. I don't see how that's biased at all (assuming, of course, that they also gave Leach or his lawyer an opportunity to speak, which I assume they did)
December 31st, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^
I don't trust any obligations over that bond. It always seems to trump all when you see it in the workplace. The Bowdens and the coach and qb from the same team from this year(I think A&M) are 2 off the top of my head that failed.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
I don't understand your point. Of course being a father is a conflict of interest . . . that's why Craig James will not be covering the Texas Tech game, and is not being asked to comment on the story in his capacity as an ESPN reporter.
But it's not a conflict if he's asked to comment in his capacity as the parent who raised the complaint, just as any other parent whose complaint led to a coach's firing would presumably be asked to comment.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
I'm surprised there isn't more talk of Leach's "fat little girlfriends" comment RE the cause for his firing. Universities, I assume even in Texas, are primarily academic institutions. When the most prominent public figure at a university makes a public statement that directly denigrates multiple members of the student body and is rightly seen as enormously disrespectful by many others, I find it easy to see why that figure's job would be on thin ice. And rightly so.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
lmao..... you don't have a problem w/ the lion gobblin' up the domestic animal in your avatar, but you'll come to the defense of someone's right not to be call a fat little girlfriend???
December 31st, 2009 at 3:38 PM ^
He's whispering sweet nothings before nasty time starts.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:57 PM ^
There's a difference between being politically correct and not being a fucking asshole when representing your employer in public (especially when your being a fucking asshole is directed at your employer's clients).
And as aawolve points out, it's a fuck lion. And fuck lions transcend everyday societal norms. Poor horse.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
so he could get away from TT and start over somewhere else. Maybe the situation just offered itself up and he said 'ok, I'll stay quiet and get fired with my bonus and buyout" Nice thinking coach, what job is next.....hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm. OH OH, Michigan state.