OT - TTU fires Leach
December 30th, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^
here is a link from espn!
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls09/news/story?id=4781981
December 30th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
I don't like to link people away from this site. I think all the info anybody should need can be found here. (Hey Irish how do I correctly portray sarcasm?)
December 30th, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
So Texas Tech will see Leach's lawsuit and raise him a "you're fired, gtfo." Ouch. So either the electrical closet story was true or Leach did something else awful.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^
Or it gave them a reason to save some money.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
I'm wondering if TT was angered that Leach sued, as opposed to letting the administration move at their own pace. It is possible he really angered the AD and the President when he filed that suit and challenged them. Leach seems to think he's a Bear Bryant, Bo or Bowden and can challenge the AD. Maybe it finally caught up with him.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^
The amount TTU would have owed him if he was the coach on December 31. Interesting, because this was brought up by his lawyer last night on Sportscenter.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:48 PM ^
That's really not that much money, especially when you're talking about a coach that put TT football on the map and helped boost attendance considerably. Besides, they'll probably end up having to buy him out.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:00 PM ^
for the next 4 years
December 30th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
severance buyout still work if the school fires him with "cause"??? as the article says that the letter that was handed to leaches lawyer said that TT was a firing him cause... this might be a loop hole not to have to pay him that $400,000.00
December 30th, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
both wire services I checked said that he was due the $400K either way.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-tech-university-football-coach-mike-leac…
December 30th, 2009 at 2:34 PM ^
Even if they don't have to buy him out (they most likely will do so in the legal settlement), it would be a really foolish rationale for firing him. TT has now just alienated its fanbase and there are calls all over the place to boycott TT games next season. There is a non-trivial chance they'll lose more money in unsold tickets next year than they could gain from firing him now. (And that could be a problem going forward, since they aren't likely to find a replacement coach of Leach's caliber.)
December 30th, 2009 at 2:34 PM ^
Mark Mangino got 3 Million and he actually abused his players...$400K a year would barley cover his Hardee Thick Burger bill.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:48 PM ^
The $800k is a reason that, if they wanted to fire him, they should do so before the end of the year. It's not a reason to fire him in and of itself, though.
They just signed him to his contract in February, so obviously they had no problem with paying his salary. Something must have happened that made them change their mind from "this is a coach we want for five years" to "get the fuck out NOW."
It seems like there's more to the story. I can't believe the Mike James situation alone would cause the university to want to can a coach that they were thrilled to re-sign just months ago.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
I guess you could say his career is in a dark place now.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
His coaching and game planning skills are just lights out.
I guess now he's probably going to have a hard time getting his foot in the door somewhere.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:30 PM ^
him being a position coach or coordinator in the next couple years. I wonder if TT will try to get out of the money they owe him for firing him?
December 30th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
TTech's statement that he is fired "for cause" guarantees they will refuse to pay him the 800k he would have been due on Friday (coincidence?) and his recently signed contract extention.
The happiest man out there right now is Leach's agent/attorney. Bring on the lawsuits!
December 30th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
That is all.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:17 PM ^
How so?
December 30th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
According to The MGoEthics, "General NCAA news" is an appropriate topic of discussion on this site. This also happens to be a major NCAA football story that has a direct impact on one of our biggest rivals.
Aside from cluttering the board and making it more difficult to see what the actual topic is, unnecessary OT tags really bother me in an OCD type of way, and I'm not the only one, (Brian's reasoning is probably the former).
I can see why some might have negged me, but I wasn't trying to be a dick or going all grammar nazi on anyone. I just dropped a note trying to remind people that college football news is on topic.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:39 PM ^
But I still think that although it is major NCAA football news, it has no direct relation to M football or athletics in general. Thus, it seems appropriate as OT to me.
I didn't realize that TTU is one of our biggest rivals though.
Edit: I looked up the OT thread from Brian, and I stand corrected.
http://mgoblog.com/content/whats-topic-whats-topic
December 30th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
The lynch mob over at TTU is forming fast.
Edit: Also wasn't Craig James at SMU about the era of the bribes and everything that lead to the NCAA shutting SMU down hard? If so that makes it 2 for 2 for generations of James family taking part in the killing of programs. I wonder if we can get another James kid to go to tOSU.
Second Edit (my bad): A video of the shed has surfaced. I have to say, I'd call that a shed. If my kid played in a D-I program and had a concussion I'd expect something at least on par with the nurses office at my elementary school.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:58 PM ^
for the video. To me, if they put him in those rooms and had him relaxing, under supervision of trainers and by prescription of his docotor, that TT is really jumping the gun on Mike Leach. I'd have to believe that they have athletic offices or something that they could use for situations like this, but if they don't I can't say that it was as terrible as being locked in a electrical closet and shed.
Now if they do have rooms like they should and he was stuck in these rooms, then Mike Leach might have some explaining to do.
In the end, I believe Mike Leach will get a pretty big payday from TT because from the outside it looks like they are trying to fire him without cause.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
As I surf around the TTU message boards, people are saying that James had a concussion and was ordered to stay home by the doctor. James showed up at practice with shades on, Leach had him confined in the unlit shed. The next day James pulled the same stunt and Leach had him confined again. If this is the case I can understand tossing the kid into the shed and letting him be bored for three hours. You don't want to spend time in the shed? Then don't show up when the doctor told you to stay home. Stay home and hang out with the XBox or whatever.
Some people are saying James wanted to transfer to SMU because he was third string on the TTU depth chart and an unhappy little punk.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
Should have just sent him home and told him to come back when he is cleared to do anything.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:27 PM ^
Well if the doctor already told him to stay home, then by showing up the kid had disobeyed the orders of an authority figure on the team. So Leach has to do something. I agree though the first time the kid did it I would have sent the kid home.
As others have been saying, Leach might want to be fired. TTU didn't seem serious about building the program or paying Leach a top tier salary. If Leach could manage to bait the administration into firing him then he could land on his feet and take a sweeter job elsewhere.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:49 PM ^
wasn't as big (or as nice) as that shed.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^
TT will go back to the mediocrity they came from, and TT could end up paying the money anyway. Leach will get paid millions by some other school, he'll be just fine.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
Interesting contrast between the Texas Tech/Mike Leach and the Florida/Urban Meyer situations. Basically, by filing a lawsuit, Leach left Texas Tech with a decision about which is more important: the football program or institutional integrity? This is the polar opposite view from the Florida adminstration, which allowed Urban Meyer to make a fool of himself & his family.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:24 PM ^
Have you seen where the kid was sent? Being fired for that is a joke. It has nothing to do with "institutional integrity". I think they've just had a problem with Leach for a while and this is a way to get him off their hands.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
I can't believe the lightening speed at which this happened. TTU haven't even determined what happened to young Mr. James yet and they've already thrown the HC out the door. As usual, the attorneys are going to see a lot of action. I smell a (big) settlement. HyyyArrrrr!
December 30th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
They should hire the coach they had before Leach....one of the best names, ever.
Spike Dykes
He had a pretty good run too. He had several winning seasons in a row before he retired and gave way to Leach. Sure, Leach put his own ID on the program, but Dykes laid the program groundwork before him.
Bring Spike Dykes Back!!
December 30th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
They'll probably make a run at his son: Sonny Dykes. Not as cool of a name, but pretty close.
He's done a good enough job at Arizona, and Tech will want someone familiar with the program. He also won't change the system too much from what Tech had under Leach.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:50 PM ^
His other son, Harry Dykes, coaches the women's basketball team.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:08 PM ^
That comment was offensively evil but absolutely hilarious.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:04 PM ^
Although it does sound like something that Fred Phelps likes to write down in his weekend To Do lists. I have no doubt that if Spikes Dykes died tomorrow and came back the next day in the form of an 18 y.o. high school football player, he would be committed to play at Michigan yesterday.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:46 PM ^
his tiny notecard playbook has just one word on it now:
sue
December 30th, 2009 at 2:03 PM ^
Man, I can't wait to see the lawsuits that ensue from this. Both Texas Tech and the James family best be getting their lawyers lined up.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^
would the James family be worried about anything other than their son? If they thought he was being treated unfairly, I would hope that they would bring it up to the TT coaches/administration.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:41 PM ^
Uh... because if Adam James was lying or exaggerating and that (1) lead to TTU firing leach and/or (2) it causes Leach difficulty in finding another job then I can think of a couple (or more) torts that might be involved.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:35 PM ^
Slander/libel; tortious interference (with a contract), intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress....and the thing is, the hardest part usually for emotional distress suits- proving actual damages- will actually be easy for Leach in this case: his lost contract. If I'm his lawyer, I bring one hell of a lawsuit- all of the aforementioned counts against the James family, and breach of contract, wrongful termination, I.I.E.D. and N.E.I.D. against TTU as well, maybe naming individuals within the A.D. and school administration individually as well. Also, since all parties are residents of Texas, this case may end up in the local circuit court in Lubbock, which would probably be a good thing for Leach. The only snafu could be if Leach's attorney sues Craig James individually, and his primary domicile is outside of the state of Texas. In that case, it would be a Federal case because of diversity jurisdiction. It could also maybe end up in Federal court because he would be suing a state institution, but I am honestly not sure. I also wonder if Texas has a tort immunity act for government entities, which would mean a higher standard of proof, I think, against the school as an entity and the administrators as they carry out their duties.
/end dorky law talkin'
//I just got way, way too excited about this.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^
N.I.E.D.
I would also add intentional interference with economic advantage, if Leach's jurisdiction distinguishes the cause of action from interference with contractual relationships.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:31 PM ^
Exactly what I was thinking. Craig James lives in Texas, so no diversity issue there. I would line up all of those claims, against all of them (with the possible exception of TTU because of the potential for removal) and also name the A.D., as well.
"/end dorky law talkin'
//I just got way, way too excited about this."
Never! The occasional sports related legal case sure beats the humdrum of our every day work!
December 30th, 2009 at 6:23 PM ^
True...and I didn't know this "interference with economic advantage" cause of action existed. I may have to look it up. Sounds interesting (seriously).
December 30th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
Mike Boren isn't an ESPN analyst, or RR would have been fired.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
I was just thinking about this whole thing, and it really makes no sense. Leach is a smart guy. Went to law school has a high IQ all that good stuff, so why do this. I mean, doing this to any player is dumb if you think you won't get caught, but this kids dad is a member of the most powerful sports media network in the world. Who would put Craig James kid through this and not expect to get in trouble? That just makes me think that maybe the allegations aren't true or just are exaggerated.
Then again, sometimes smart people do stupid things.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
Read what Texas Tech players have to say about this and watch the video of where he was kept.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:52 PM ^
but I have not read the TTech player's comments (link?). My take on this is: James was diagnosed with a concussion and should have just stayed home, but probably could not because Leach had a rule requiring him to show up. Leach should have just sent him home. While the facilities in which he was confined are not as bad as they were originally described; he was nonetheless confined to a garage or shed and a windowless room used for visiting coach's interviews. It seems pretty clear he was not sent there for therapy, but he was confined to those facilities as punishment for not practicing because of a concussion. To me, punishing a player for not practicing because of a concussion is a firing offense.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/122909/spo_540556091.shtml
From what I've read James came to practice wearing sunglasses on the advice of a doctor and so Leach sent him to the shed where he wouldn't be exposed to sunlight.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
Kid's been a problem all year, lack of effort etc. He comes to practice wearing shades complaining of sensitivity to the sun due to his concussion. Players aren't allowed to wear shades. Coach puts him in a dark quiet place with trainers because that's what you do with people who have lingering symptoms from a mild concussion. You don't have them outside in the sun watching a loud football practice. He puts him in these not uncomfortable looking places for roughly 100 minutes. This happens twice.
As far as I can tell, that's it.
Where in this do you get the impression he's making an example out of a kid who's refusing to play through concussion symptoms? At worst, he's dealing flippantly with a kid who he's had problems with throughout the year.