D.C. Wolverine

December 30th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^

The way these emails make it sound, Mike Leach was the one who decided to take a chance on Adam James in the first place. I really loved that ESPN coverage of this, and their interview with Craig James. It really says a lot that the majority of the current and former players are behind Leach. Texas Tech made a huge mistake by doing this

gobluesasquatch

December 30th, 2009 at 10:57 PM ^

It is quite possible that what the chancellor of Tech is saying is correct about Leach's insubordination. But when a school wants to fire you, it's lights out time. You don't stand a chance. But lets consider a few things here. I loved how the original tone of Mark May and Lou Holthz was this afternoon - May basically said that it appeared that Tech was looking for a reason to fire him after last years mess of a contract negotiation in which they nearly fired him then. Holthz then slurred his way around a point of the talking head on that team knowing everything on the internet and why is this the first time there have been allegations of Leach being a jerk and mistreating players? But during halftime of the Holiday bowl ... and ESPN running all the info in favor of the James', Holthz and May's opinions were 180 degree different. sure, they were both technically right, you need to communicate and remember who signs your checks, but does anyone actually believe that this wasn't about firing Leach to save money? The disturbing trend is that a lazy, pathetic team and their athletes are now seeing they can get away with dismissing their coach by claiming they were abused. And the feeble minded, self-esteem, your a unique snowflake education elites (oh, if you knew the nonsense taught in education circles you'd vomit) can't tell a bunch of 18-22 year olds to stop whining and remember they are on full scholarship while the majority of students are running up huge amounts of debt. We saw it Mangino (where were all the complaints when they were in the Orange Bowl), and now with Leach. We've seen it attempted with Rodriguez. Of course, in the Mangino story, even former players sided with current players. My problem with that was, why didn't they complain when they were winning? Oh, because they were winning games. In this case, it looks like former players back Leach. And in 10 years at TTU, this is the first allegation of abuse? BS He's had problem this year motivating guys to play harder and made that clear. A few years ago he called out his teams effort. The next year they were one win away from playing for a national title. Some athletes respond, some go all children of South Park on their coach. Some school is going to get a hell of a coach. And TTU will get Sonny Dykes and become irrelevant in the state behind UT, TAMU, TCU, and Houston. Way to go Tech.

Big_G

December 30th, 2009 at 11:43 PM ^

I agree that if Mike Leach is found not guilty of these allegations we probably will know two things: first he'll get a large amount of money from TT and second some team out there is going to get a helluva coach. Hopefully its somewhere else and not in the Big Ten.

Tacopants

December 31st, 2009 at 3:33 AM ^

1. Lou Holtz said he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about, and for once, we agreed. 2. I wouldn't characterize Student Athletes as getting a free pass while others rack up huge amounts of debt. Playing football at a D-1 FBS level is arguably a full time job, with the incidental pressure of attending class and staying in school. If you suffered a concussion and your boss decided to stick you into an electrical closet and forced you to stand, not sit, for hours in order to intimidate you and your fellow co-workers from ever trying to claim you were injured, you don't think that's grounds for dismissal? 3. Your whole "there were no complaints so it couldn't have ever happened" argument is just flat out wrong. Many people are afraid to speak up against authority figures when they suffer abuse, mainly because they think nobody will believe them. (using an example....) What was your reaction when the first reports of abuse by Catholic priests came up? Those kids must be lying because nobody had ever talked about it? Those 6-8 year olds weren't complaining at the time? The fear that administrators and people like you won't believe them is more than enough to deter most people from speaking up while in school. Athletes on scholarship have a lot to lose, and generally have to fight an uphill battle to prove allegations. Maybe I'm wrong, and the whole situation was engineered by the James family. Or maybe this is only coming out because James actually has a platform to air the abuse claims where people will actually be able to notice. We might never know for sure what really happened, but to casually dismiss abuse and intimidation claims as bitching from "lazy, pathetic" athletes is just going to play into the hands of the Manginos of the world.

mejunglechop

December 31st, 2009 at 3:48 AM ^

While I have healthy doubts about the James family's story, I support everything you said 100%. The argument "nothing came out when the coach was winning so complaints when they're losing should be ignored" argument is tantamount to might = right. And we will probably never know the full story.

SysMark

December 31st, 2009 at 12:06 AM ^

If nothing else you have to love that this was the school that hired Bobby Knight after he was fired over the infamous player-choking incident at Indiana, and that was caught on tape. Whether or not this is justified it can be argued that if he were not the son of a former NFL payer and ESPN announcer this would have never seen the light of day.

burntorangeblue

December 31st, 2009 at 2:53 AM ^

They have an article on this whole situation. Apparently the original article said that Craig James communicated directly with Leach, lobbying for more playing time for his son. It appears he went to far as to offer a quid pro quo of pumping up TT on air on ESPN. The Times took out this juicy little tidbit, though. The redacted block quote can be found at burntorangenation, and other places on the the interwebs, I'm sure. Good stuff.

Rasmus

December 31st, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^

James appears to have split the team between his friends and everyone else. No way this has a good effect. Interesting how those trashing James' attitude and work ethic do so in detail, in writing, for all to see, especially Graham Harrell (whose e-mail is noticeably absent from ESPN's article on this). While those players lined up by ESPN on the other side mainly seem to be complaining about the specific incident(s) in question. Harrell is especially sharp here:
... the most detrimental part of Adam was his off field attitude and actions. ... Adam used any opportunity he had to tell other players how he was being treated unfairly, how the coaches did not give him a fair chance and how we did not have to do everything the coaches told us because they had no option but to play some of us. ... Adam pretty consistently talked bad about the coaches ... When he talked to young players or players that were usually on the scout he would explain how the coaches were not fair to certain players and only played favorites. When he talked to players that did get some playing time he would talk about how we didn’t really have to do what the coaches asked of us because the coaches had to play us anyway. And it almost always tied back to how he was not getting a fair chance to play just because the coaches were unfair.
Keep in mind that James is a Sophomore (given that he is age 21, I assume that means he was a red-shirt), so this behavior Harrell is talking about is that of a first- or second-year player. That cell-phone video taken inside an electrical closet that James is circulating could get him (Adam) into serious trouble. I find it improbable that Leach's lawyer has got the locations wrong. I've taught undergrads for more years than I'd like to admit. They lie to their parents when they get caught doing things they shouldn't be doing. In my case, as an academic, I'm thinking of cases of cheating and plagiarism. When pressed, most kids will admit it and thus get a second chance from me. But some of the most immature think they can simply lie their way out of it. The parents always come to their defense and have to be shown elaborate proof of the wrongdoing before they'll believe their child could possibly be lying to them. I guess what I'm saying is keep in mind that there is a 21-year-old at the center of this. Texas Tech had better be damn sure of the facts if they are using this as grounds for firing Leach. I cut Craig James some slack as the parent in this. But the University has no excuse.

Rasmus

December 31st, 2009 at 11:02 AM ^

(given that he is age 21, I assume that means he was a red-shirt)
It seems that while he was recruited in the 2006 class (his senior year in high school was 2005-06), he did not go on a football scholarship until January 2007. See Scout. He was a walk-on for his first semester. So he is a "grey-shirt" and counts in the 2007 class. Nonetheless, Harrell's comments are based on two full years of exposure to James, not one as you might think when you see he's listed as a true Sophomore. He's actually in his third year at Texas Tech.

Tacopants

December 31st, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^

Adam James may have been a d-bag, and if the claimed behavior is accurate, maybe he should have gotten his scholarship yanked. I'd be interested in seeing how all of those people view Michael Crabtree... but that's a different subject. However, Matt Hinton (docsat) has a good take on the video situation. If it's real and shot when it's claimed to be shot, then Leach and his lawyer didn't tell the entire truth during the media interviews. If it's faked, well, then there's no way we can take James seriously anymore.