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 11:00 AM ^
This very well may NEVER truly be understood.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:06 AM ^
The majority of comments from players and ex-players in the article that was cited in another thread here were positive about Leach and negative about James.
Also, the "cage" was big enough to hold press conferences. AAMOF, it looks almost exactly like one of the rooms where athletic trainers and massage therapists work down here in the St Pete Forum. Anyone who would exaggerate like that has no credence in my eyes. To me, the exaggerations justify the comments that James was a malcontent and was bad for the team's unity and attitude.
It's obvious to me that the media are following tWWL and engaging in one-sided reporting; It looks like they are attempting to lead the players into inflammatory statements against Leach while ignoring anything positive for him.
The witch hunt continues.....
December 31st, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^
Adam James released this video, which he claims is of the electrical closet he was thrown in. Accordng to him this thing is attached to the press conference room and he was in this little closet, not the larger press conference room. Guess it comes down to which video you believe.
I'm very suspicious of any comments by current players, as they're still under the thumb of the AD and his regime. If they don't support him then he can be vindictive and cut playing time or possibly even remove them from the team.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:04 PM ^
Why would a player take his cell phone to the practice field? Smells of a setup to me.
As for anything on ESPN, don't they employ his father? What do you expect them to put up? Notice they haven't included anything from the other coaches or any negative comments on young Mr. James.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:13 PM ^
He was out with a concussion. He was attending practice but not participating.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:19 PM ^
I would think the light from his cell phone when he brought it close to his face would have hurt his eyes
December 31st, 2009 at 6:45 PM ^
Anybody else get a Blair Witch vibe from that video?
1) I'm also pretty hesitant to conclude that it is a cell phone video; my Blackberry's videos don't turn out that well.
2) Regardless, why would you have a cell phone with you at practice? Injury or no it isn't fair to the team to be texting, calling, or whatever while everybody else is working.
3) I clearly saw a couple of chairs in that room; if I'm getting locked in a room with chairs I'm sure as hell sitting down.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
Were there any current players quoted in the earlier posts? I recall only former players and coaches, but I could be wrong.
I don't dispute that James may have been a malcontent. But a malcontent shouldn't be punished as a result of a concussion. Graham Harrell wasn't there on December 17, so I think the word of current players has more relevance regarding what actually happened.
The size of the shed/garage doesn't really matter. The issue is whether he was sent there as punishment, and whether the players perceived it as punishment. If a player who complains about concussion-like symptoms is sent to a garage as punishment, and forced to remain there for two hours while people stand guard to make sure he doesn't sit down, that is inappropriate, no matter how spacious the garage is. I don't know exactly what happened on that day, but the comments of these players suggest that they clearly saw it as punishment.
Finally, if Leach didn't do anything wrong, why in God's name would Texas Tech want to fire the most successful coach in their history, who they just signed to a long-term contract? If the James thing is just a pretext, what is the real motive? I don't buy the "they were upset about the contentious contract negotiations" theory floated by Leach's attorney. If they were so angry about the negotiations, they never would have signed the contract in the first place -- they wouldn't have signed it and then changed their mind one year later.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:36 AM ^
It seems as though you didn't get it yesterday and still don't today - if he was being punished for a concussion, he would have just been sent home. This whole incident was brought on because the kid was a spoiled brat, not because Mike Leach hates kids with concussions.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:42 AM ^
You seem very sure that he was punished for being a "spoiled brat". What exactly did he do on the days in question that prompted him being sent to the garage?
December 31st, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^
You are right - Leach, in the past, has locked all of his concussed victims in a closet. You have changed my mind and now I hope Mike Leach is publicly stoned.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
The spoiled brat meme comes from a former player (Harrel?) that shared about having a roommate that was a teammate of James on the baseball team. It has everything to do with James' history of behavior on the football team and baseball team, nothing to do with that day specifically.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:03 PM ^
I get that. But being a spoiled brat in the past is not a reason to be sent to the garage on that day in particular. That's the issue. Was he punished for doing something bratty on that day, was he punished for some reason relating to his concussion, or was he punished because he was a brat in the past and Leach didn't have any particular reason on that day?
I think BoyBlue's assessment, below, is probably right on target.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
I am going to guess the James camp decided to go out and get quotes from those players that were Adam's friend. All these quotes tell me is that both sides quickly asked all of their allies to come out with positive statements. Still doesn't really tell us anything.
These quotes are suggesting that James had some friends on the team that didn't like what Leach did to him?!?!?! GASP!
December 31st, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
These quotes are suggesting that James had some friends on the team that didn't like what Leach did to him?!?!?! GASP!
But if his friends didn't like what Leach did to him, doesn't that imply he was being punished and not "treated"? If James was being punished, and if there was no reason for the punishment unrelated to the concussion (and Leach's attorney, despite his numerous media appearances, hasn't offered any), that's game over for me. It doesn't matter if the punishment was harsh or not.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
Even if he was being punished, there is a huge difference between being punished for having a concussion and being punished for being a divisive malcontent. Purely speculating but if he was being punished for having a concussion, I think Leach would have had him out running or in contact drills. The accounts have trainers and coaches checking in on James regularly- at no point is this kids health endangered by what Leach did.
Everything in their two histories suggests that this kid is a premadonna that was affecting other players attitudes and Leach is an unconventional coach that likes to make examples of kids that disrespect his authority.
Key question to sort out: How has Leach handled other players wth injuries (esp. concussions)- does he make them practice anyway or does he make them do what they can that won't reaggravate their injuries?
December 31st, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
Even if the James kid is a primadonna a coach is in the wrong for locking him in a shed and not allowing him to sit down. You can't lock kids in sheds for hours, regardless of the reason.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:22 PM ^
I'm amazing that this seemingly obvious point is even up for debate. You can certainly argue that TT overreacted by firing Leach, but to actually defend what he did to James is astonishing.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
that knew James suggest nothing James says has credibility. I would believe Leach and his 10 year spotless record, along with his coaches, far more than I would trust James. Since TT did not allow the facts to come out, some of this comes down to who you believe: a coach with no previous issues of this nature, with former players testifying to his character, and against James character, or a player and his family a couple of current players, and a school that saves $800,000 by firing him now, who did not allow a hearing to take place where the coach could exonerate himself.
Any tough coach, once gone, will find ex-players criticizing him. those quotes IMO mean nothing other than that there should have been a thorough investigation of this incident, not a rush to judgement and firing.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
I think we are all being a little naive if we don't believe that both sides aren't putting on an all out effort to get public sentiment on their side. I think it is too early to believe either side right now. We are just seeing what each side wants us to see.
Leach wants to sue the crap out of Texas Tech to try and salvage his reputation so he trotted out his camo wearing attorney to give us a tour of the closet/garage/shed in question. They appeared to be a little quicker on the draw as they released emails from some current/former players supporting him. TT wasn'y far behind, however, and now we are hearing from current players supporting James. I think we just need to give this story a little time before we can decide which side we believe in.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:29 PM ^
Initially, I sided with Leach. But with these quotes, it immediately becomes clear that James' side has some credibility, too.
You make it sound like he got the kid that sits next to him in English class, and his neighbor, to speak up for him. That's not true. He got teammates who actually start for the team. And, if they wanted to avoid controversy, they could have been vague, or kept quiet entirely. Instead, they were quite unequivocal. I don't think you can poo-poo that and sweep it under the rug.
What if Brandon Graham and Brandon Minor had sided with Justin Boren when he quit? Would you say "Boren, Graham, and Minor are all friends who are out to get RichRod. GASP!" or would you be a little bit concerned about what RichRod was doing?
December 31st, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
which is that Leach was not afforded due process nor was there any evidence of wrongdoing presented prior to his dismissal.
What he did or didn't do, what current/ former players think or agree/ disagree with is not relevant.
They fired him without researching what actually happened. He did not get his hearing that was scheduled for yesterday, because they fired him before the hearing.
All of that said, how many times has Leach done this in the past? Why is James the only player Leach targeted (in 10+ years of coaching, one would think there would be others)? Why does Tech save a ton of money by firing Leach now, instead of in a few days/ weeks (when an investigation could have taken place)? Why are current players only speaking, after Leach was fired?
Just think of this: what if you were fired from your career, based on 1 allegation, which was not investigated and caused your peers to think you are a creep?
December 31st, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
It's all about the Benji's: $800,000.00... TTU didn't want to pay for Leach's success and were looking for a reason to fire him with cause. Leach gave him that reason, as specious as it may be.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
That makes absolutely no sense. Texas Tech hired Leach to a five year, $12.7 million deal in February. They had no problem paying him millions of dollars to coach.
If they wanted to fire him, the $800,000 provision would motivate them to do so before 12/31, before the penalty kicked in. But the $800,000 isn't motive to fire him in and of itself.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:54 PM ^
They felt he really wasn't that good. The emails are out there on this from 2008. Also, they disliked his "Yankee" agents. Seriously.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^
Leach still gets his $800k. There's a 10 day notice clause.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^
I'm not missing the point, we just don't agree on what the point is.
I think the larger issue is whether Leach inappropriately punished a student suffering from a concussion. I agree that Texas Tech may have acted hastily in an effort to avoid the $800,000 penalty, and if it wasn't for that penalty they would have done a longer investigation. (On the other hand, they had only suspended Leach and planned on doing a full investigation. Leach forced their hand by running to court and seeking a temporary restraining order. Either Leach and his attorney intended that result, or are incompetent).
Regardless of whether Texas Tech followed proper procedures before the firing, from all available evidence it does seem to me that Leach acted inappropriately. And if Texas Tech didn't have strong reason to believe that Leach had acted inappropriately, I just don't understand what motive they would have had to fire the most successful coach in their history.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
Their motive for firing was $$$$. It's the same reason why they sandbagged renegotiating his contract to keep him in the first place. His relationship with the admin. has always been rocky; from his end and their end.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
I understand you're a rude prick who can't engage in a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without being an ass about it.
As I said a few posts above, the idea that they were motivated to fire him to save $800,000 makes absolutely no sense. They signed him to a $12.7 million deal less than a year ago. If they wanted to fire him, they were certainly motivated to do so prior to 12/31, when the $800,000 penalty kicked in. But that is not reason to fire him in and of itself.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:04 PM ^
Internet isn't the best medium of communication and that was a quote from Rush Hour. Sorry the humor didn't translate.
As referenced on another thread re: Chait's take on Leach, if Leach is fired with cause, the school only needs to pay him 400K for his remaining years, not the millions that he's due. There is a lot more money tied up in this than 800K, that's just the initial savings.
If TT's athletic dept. is under their university and not a separate entity, money could be a huge factor this year but wasn't last year before fundings and endowments got cut due to our crappy economy.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^
No worries. Sorry I internet-snapped. I must confess that, while negs shouldn't bother me, it does start to annoy me when I sense that some people in this thread are going through every post I make and negging it regardless of content (not you). So I was testy.
More on point, I still just don't see the economic motive. If some evidence were to come out that TT was suffering from severe economic issues and could no longer afford the contract that they agreed to 9 months ago, that might change things. But I haven't seen any such evidence.
So yes, if they wanted to fire him for some unrelated reason, they would have a motive to use this as a pretext so that they could fire him for "cause" and save some money. But that theory only works if there is some separate motive to fire him, which I haven't seen.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^
It may very well come out that Leach locked a kid with a concussion in a cage and this violates a clause in his contract, so he deserves to be fired. That's not the point, however, because we (and Texas Tech) do not know the facts, since Leach was not afforded due process since immediately after the initial allegations, he was suspended for the Bowl game.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
You don't get to decide "the point." People have been defending Leach for two days and have failed to give a single reasonable explanation for why a player with a concussion was forced to stand in a shed and "media room" instead of being sent home or put in the trainer's room. An acceptable answer is not "well, he was a dick." It sends a message to the rest of the team about how they should deal with concussions - suck it up and play, or enjoy the shed.
I'm not saying just trust the administration here, and you won't have to - a trial is certainly coming. But that doesn't mean what we should be MOST worried about is the "due process" rights (the type you're talking about don't exist in employment law anyway) of one prick coach instead of ridiculous concussion treatment.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^
That's the whole point of due process. You have decided he's a "prick," that's your choice. MANY players have testified to the opposite. Do an investigation, then decide who was right and wrong--or do you feel the words of a few M players should determine that Rich Rodriguez exceeded practice limits??
December 31st, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
Not sure where it is but another thread referenced a team doctor sending James back to practice. If that's true then the point isn't about Leach punishing a player with a concussion. It only becomes that point once testimony for trainers/medical staff verify that James did have a concussion and couldn't be outside in the sun due to headaches.
Again, how Leach handled past injuries/concussions is extremely relevant to this conversation because we're all assuming James had one because he said he did.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
Leach's lawyer said the team doctor "sent him back to the field" and not "cleared him to practice"
If you really want to read into that, and assuming the lawyer is competent, its telling that he doesn't say some version of "cleared to practice"
I also haven't heard anybody with knowledge of the situation come out and dispute that Jones had a concussion, not even Leach or his lawyer.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
They aren't the same thing and I shouldn't have implied they were. I was frustrated by another post that suggested Leach should've sent him to his dorm, etc.
edit: But being sent back to practice even if not participating would have continued the "sun hurts my eyes" problem.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:35 PM ^
I'm seeing a lot of references to "due process." Did Leach have some kind of clause in his contract requiring a full investigation before his employer could suspend him? If not, why all the angst? College coaches will often suspend a player who is arrested immediately following the incident (and before the player has gone through the legal system). That doesn't seem to upset anyone. Why would it be different for a coach?
It appears that the specific reason for the firing was the way Leach behaved following his suspension ("insubordination"). If true, then if he'd simply complied with his superiors, he'd have presumably been reinstated at some point (probably after the bowl). Again, that's not too different from how it works for a suspended player. If Cissoko screws up (and he may have already), he'll never be reinstated. No one seems to have a problem with that. Why is it a problem regarding Leach? I imagine that most of us would get fired if our bosses put us on probation and then we basically spat in their faces.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:53 PM ^
There is a large difference between actual police officers and the James family
December 31st, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^
Motive: 800,000 $1 bills, plus his remaining salary
(although I understand he gets some annual payment even with a "with cause" firing)
December 31st, 2009 at 2:39 PM ^
They'll spend a lot of that "saved" money on a new coach - and they'll have to make a splash with their next hire if they want to appease their fanbase, which is now in open revolt. There is a real risk that TT might see a significant drop in ticket/merchandise revenue next season as disgruntled fans may not turn out. I don't see a plausible economic rationale here.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^
another 1.6 million (400,000/year for the remaining 4 years on his contract) if he was fired for performance on the field.
Throw in a strained relationship between the coach and AD over some supposedly nasty contract negotiations and the picture should be getting a little clearer.
Other factors that have come out- James according to doctors was sunlight sensitive (ie put him in a dark place). TT requires players even injured ones to do something per ESPN Sportscenter. Sheds are right beside practice field per Sportscenter video. Another coach complained of James lack of effort and poor attitude at previous practice. Was it right what was done to him maybe not. IMO kid sounds like a cancer that needed to be isolated.
Facts will come out in court.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^
I think the story is easy to understand. James is viewed as a non-contributer with attitude problems by the coaching staff. This is obvious from the emails by former coaches and some players.
James shows up to practice with a diagnosis of a mild concussion. Leach, completely frustrated by James' prior efforts and latest injury, decides he doesn't want James at practice. He doesn't want the malcontent to be a distraction.
Leach then makes the kid go in the shed, and the press conference room/electrical closet during practice so he doesn't have to deal with him. There are reports of an assistant that makes sure that James doesn't leave or sit down.
TexTech finds out about the situation. Leach refuses to apologize to the James family or admit he might be wrong. Leach is suspended. Then Leach files lawsuit so he can coach in bowl game. Leach is then fired for not showing any sort of regret for locking a player in a shed and then media room/closet and then defiantly filing a lawsuit.
Personally I feel like the whole thing could have been avoided by sending James to his dorm or to the trainer's room. The coach doesn't want an injured player being a distraction to others just has to send him home. Then the next day you meet with the player and tell him why he was sent home and how he can fix the issues. If the player doesn't improve on his issues you boot him off the team.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^
Leach must not have thought he had to explain himself to a third string player,taking time away from practice with the team.
Leach would have been farther along if he had rubbed Adams shoulders,brought him some refreshments and read him a story.
This coach really didn't understand the power of ESPN or Adams father.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
Yeah, Leach was fired for offending ESPN, not for ridiculous treatment of a kid with a concussion and acting like a dick to the admin before and after sending him to the shed/closet.
Tremble before the terrible wrath of ESPN!!
December 31st, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
Craig James has an outlet for his opinions or thoughts free of charge.I would guess that Adam James is not the only player among thousands,that feel either real or imagined that they were or are being mistreated by a coach,Yet we do not hear of those misdeeds.
ESPN,if you caught it,went out for some positive feedback for Adam after a barrage of anti James emails and letters by his own team members flooded TT.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^
Because Craig James actually has some influence, he can get this story out in the public.
Unlike that walk on special teamer from USF that Jim Leavitt slapped, then bought off to keep quiet. Since he isn't connected, that story just dies.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
I gave you a +1 on that one,but that story died quicker than a canary in a mine full of gas.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:04 PM ^
We've made some comparisons between "allegations versus Mike Leach" and "allegations versus Rich Rodriguez" over the past couple of days.
Here's where the comparisons end, and where the stark contrasts begin --
~Rich Rodriguez didn't get combative when Justin Boren quit, and accused Michigan of having lost its "family values." Rodriguez stayed quiet, and took it. (Shame on our local press for having completely failed to report the real story. Still, Rodriguez let it go.)
~Rich Rodriguez didn't go off on Mike Rosenberg for his reporting; Rodriguez did react to Rosenberg's having sandbgged the the two freshmen, Stokes and Hawthorn, but that was purely protection of his young players, not of himself. cf., Mike Leach.
~Rich Rodriguez stayed silent, again, when Mark Snyder butchered the reporting of the Football Bust speeches, in which Regent White had launched herself into a rambling 5-minute talk on "Katrina" before Rodriguez uttered his single sentence on the topic as he looked across the dais directly at Regent White, in acknowledgment of her comments.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
Was Adam James being punished for having a concussion?
Or complaining about having a concussion?
Or complaining in a particular way about having a concussion, after having had numerous previous run-ins with coaches on other matters?
I give Leach and his lawyer a big FAIL for attempting to claim that anything they were doing with Adam James was "treatment." It wasn't; don't try to kid us on that one.
And I give Craig James a big FAIL for implying that Adam was put in danger as suffering some kind of post-concussion trauma.
I view this as simply having been a routine disciplinary fight between a very coddled player and his very-high-profile father on the one hand, and a very quirky and mercurial head coach on the other hand.
"Concussion" just took an ordinary fight and made it nuclear.