Jonathan Chait on Leach
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1033696
Here is Jonathan Chait on the Leach situation. He based his opinion that Leach should be fired on the idea that James was put in a "closet" as opposed to the more garage-y place that we now know he had to stand in...I think the article is worth posting less for it's take on the Leach situation than for the point it makes about football in general: Namely that football is in a sort of limbo right now where the science that is coming out about football-related head injuries is quite damning and the game hasn't found a way to prevent those injuries, yet football is still played...It strikes me that Leach is being punished for mishandling a concusion (which I agree that he did) but that he is/was paid to get kids ready to play a game in which a number of them will get concusions b/c of the nature of the game.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
Regardless of how you feel about Leach, this article is absolutely correct about the problem of concussions in football. The sport still seems to be dragging its feet on the problem.
A couple small steps:
1. Require all helmets to feature external padding (like that worn by a couple of players in the 1990s).
2. Only allow tackling in which players are wrapped up, as in rugby.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:09 PM ^
I don't know that anyone really knows what to do. I've seen it suggested that the game would be safer if players wore Red-Grange-era helmets/padding b/c then they wouldn't go launching themselves into other players. I'm not sure about the science of that but it's at least creative.
December 30th, 2009 at 7:40 PM ^
I can't remember where I heard that, but someone else came up with a similar theory. Great minds think alike?
December 31st, 2009 at 5:11 PM ^
In a WSJ article earlier this year in which former Michigan players Dhani Jones and Jake Long were interviewed. They discussed removing the facemask or the helmet altogether to avoid using the head as a weapon. This is also similar to a point made 40 years ago by former Michigan coach and AD Fritz Crisler. There did seem to be some science behind the reality that helmets increase the intensity of impacts as players through their bodies around more.
On the flip side, without helmets, you'd probably have a few more fatalities a year. Is that a trade people would be willing to make, a less physical game that might be a bit slower, and a few fatalities, but without many of the long-term effects.
Another alternative could be to reduce or eliminate the rules of unlimited substitution. Players would have to be all around athletes, not just specialists. It would drastically reduce the size of many players, and actually create a much different looking game.
However, drastic changes probably won't change until popularity at the highest level drops significantly.
December 31st, 2009 at 5:11 PM ^
In a WSJ article earlier this year in which former Michigan players Dhani Jones and Jake Long were interviewed. They discussed removing the facemask or the helmet altogether to avoid using the head as a weapon. This is also similar to a point made 40 years ago by former Michigan coach and AD Fritz Crisler. There did seem to be some science behind the reality that helmets increase the intensity of impacts as players through their bodies around more.
On the flip side, without helmets, you'd probably have a few more fatalities a year. Is that a trade people would be willing to make, a less physical game that might be a bit slower, and a few fatalities, but without many of the long-term effects.
Another alternative could be to reduce or eliminate the rules of unlimited substitution. Players would have to be all around athletes, not just specialists. It would drastically reduce the size of many players, and actually create a much different looking game.
However, drastic changes probably won't change until popularity at the highest level drops significantly.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^
And go to flag football, I don't think things will change.
It comes down to the design of the helmet. Perhaps by 2020 there will be some sort of astornaut looking helmet that will prevent all concussions
December 30th, 2009 at 4:44 PM ^
World War I wasn't fought because an Archduke was shot. It was fought because a bunch of countries really hated each other. It just happened to start with an Archduke getting shot.
IMHO, Leach was fired for being in a long-running feud with Texas Tech's AD. The AD saw a complaint that provided him with a colorable reason to fire Leach "for cause," thereby getting rid of a guy he didn't like and saving the school $800k.
If Tech's administration liked Leach, he would be preparing for the Alamo Bowl right now, with a request from the AD to "be careful with stuff like that."
December 30th, 2009 at 5:19 PM ^
With a for cause firing, they only need to pay him $400k per year left on his contract instead of the $2.5kk or so(thats million) per year.
So cause = lots of cash, IFF they are looking for a reason to fire him.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:33 PM ^
I was just talking about the next 24 hours, but you're right.
However, I reeeeeeeally doubt the school will win this one. Firing the guy less than a day before an $800k bonus screams of bad faith, as does the "cause" they're citing here. The two sides will probably settle for some number in the middle.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:43 PM ^
I doubt finances came into play here.
Leach's replacement is going to cost a lot of money to hire, too. And if TT fans are still upset by the time next season starts (a very plausible concern), they probably won't buy as many tickets, costing TT a lot of revenue. Not to mention that TT is certain to have to fight this in court. If they fired him to save money, they would have had to have been incredibly short-sighted.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:14 PM ^
But so was signing a guy they didn't want to keep to a 5-year extension last year.
I don't know whethe their motive was financial, or just for PR cover for firing the guy... but if they WANTED to keep Leach, anyone in the AD's office could have drawn up 137 ways to avoid firing him.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:04 PM ^
Someone floated the idea that a weight limit could be imposed so that players couldn't be more than say 250 lbs.
This would lead to less punishing hits between lineman, and cut down on the possibility of a concussion (based on Gladwell's column).
December 30th, 2009 at 5:27 PM ^
... since he is the national writer and former Daily editor who pronounced the August Free Press hit-piece on Rich Rodriguez as "journalistic malpractice."
But here's the essential core of Chait on Mike Leach:
********
"Most of the media attention around Leach has focused on his cruel punishment of a player, Adam James. Leach confined James to a closet for an extended period - certainly not an acceptable way to treat a kid, or anybody. But the more disturbing fact is what caused Leach to levy this punishment: James had refused to practice after suffering a concussion. To force a player who's suffered a concussion onto the field is a monstrous offense against his long-term health."
********
I have to agree with Chait if that is true. If Adam James was truly put into a "closet" for refusing to be "forced...onto the field," then it is monstrous.
But I caution; the same was said about Rich Rodriguez. That it would have been "monstrous" to wilfully disregard NCAA 'CARA' rules by hundreds or thousands of hours, and to have "forced" players to go beyond limits and then ask them to lie about it all, or to sign phony CARA forms. The allegation itself defies belief, if not understanding.
It does not appear that James was confined to a "closet." I have seen no clear proof that James was punished because he refused to be "forced onto the field to practice." Yes, there seems to have been a dispute, and/or a misunderstanding, and/or some frank dislike, between Coach Leach and the James family. There are a great many questions that need to be answered.
I just don't think Jon Chait has made his own case. Not yet, at least.
December 30th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^
It was a room, where James was accompanied by a trainer and a grad student. So, while still arguably inappropriate, far less than what was first reported. I think a suspension was warranted, but firing ridiculous--I agree with the above poster who says there must be other problems that we haven;t heard about, or a damaged relationship with the AD.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:28 PM ^
Is it possible for you to make a post without referencing the Free Press, even when it is in no way relevant to the discussion?
Just asking.
December 31st, 2009 at 9:59 PM ^
Quick answer: The Free Press was indeed relevant, in an aside, just as I noted. I didn't start this thread, which explicitly brought Jon Chait into the conversation. My reason(s) for a brief comment relative to Jon Chait are set forth pretty adequately.
Now, a longer answer: You and I seem to have issues. Or, more correctly, an issue. The Free Press.
And let's be clear; I have nothing but antipathy for the Free Press and its sports writers. I think that Rosenberg and Snyder are slugs. The majority of MGoBloggers, of course, agree with me, but that's way too easy. I'm not writing for that audience. I want a greater audience; the broadcasters, and other writers who undoubtedly glean information from time to time from this website. (Be assured that in this day and age, there are writers and broadcasters, not to mention Free Press writers -- Shawn Windsor? Happy New Year! -- who read MGoBlog.) The Free Press, assuredly, lives in fear of other competition, particularly of the digital variety. MGoBlog constitutes a big part of that competition. This is an important part of the overall picture. I expect that without MGoBlog, Paul Anger might never have felt threatened enough to have launched his counter-attack to protect his boys Rosenberg and Snyder.
But that's just me. All I do, is try to point out the many deficiencies, biases, and errors in Free Press coverage. As specifically, and in as much detail, as possible. The MGoBlog audience is easy in that regard. (Just be careful if you advocate for people who want to "sit" in the main bowl of Michigan Stadium.) The MGoBlog audience mostly HATES the Free Press, for good reason. I try not to rely on mere "hate." I want to give them detailed, supportable reasons for their hate. Get used to it. You're likely to see a lot more of my criticism of the Free Press. So far, it has taken me from
about -300 MGoPoints (when I advocated for the alumni/donors who preferred sitting and not standing the entire games) to much closer to your own +1400 MGoPoints. And be assured, I don't do it for MGoPoints. It is because I want to really hurt the Freep.
And that's the short, and the long, answers to your question.
So, what's your reason for defending(? - maybe you're not defending?) the Free Press?
Just asking.