Texas Tech had to fire Mike Leach regardless of whether it can be proven that he actually he actually did something wrong in his treatment Adam James, son of former NFL player and ESPN college football analyst Craig James. of
According to ESPN:
“A source close to James’ family told ESPN’s Joe Schad that James sustained a concussion on Dec. 16, was examined the following day and told not to practice because of the injury and an elevated heart rate. The source said Leach called a trainer and directed him to move James “to the darkest place, to clean out the equipment and to make sure that he could not sit or lean. He was confined for three hours.”
If even remotely true, that’s all Tech needed to know. To keep Leach would be a disaster moving forward with an alleged fact scenario conjuring images of torture regardless of motivational motives. James was a college football player, not an al-Qaeda operative being interrogated. What about future recruiting? The new standard punch-line question for parents from schools competing against Tech for recruits would be to ask if they really wanted their injured son locked in a closet unable to sit or stand. There was also a much bigger-picture legal concern than some pissed off students and alumni who you would expect to come to Leach’s defense.
If Texas Tech did not fire Leach, they would be trying his case over and over both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion every single time a parent did not like the way their son/athlete was treated after an injury.
It would not be limited to football. In every sport at Tech, when a student suffered questionable treatment by a coach when claiming injury, parents could point at Tech’s retention of Leach and claim they condoned the conduct. The only way to cure this was to cut off the head ending it right here.
Leach will sue. His reputation and future as a coach is on the line. Tech knows this and is expecting it. It will not go to trial. Leach will make noise about wanting vindication and taking it to verdict but in the end he does not want the facts played out in court any more than Tech. They will make an offer, there will be a confidentiality agreement and everyone will move on. Leach will coach again. Schools with football programs have short memories when winners come knocking.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
December 30th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
On the other hand, firing Leach is a disaster going forward. It's a PR nightmare for the school in general right now, not to mention for future athletic fundraising and recruiting. Firing Leach pissed off a lot more people than keeping him around would've done. Guaranteed.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Two things: As a former collegiate athlete I am glad this is getting some press. How many people have to be screwed up before they take injuries seriously? I am not saying anything on these specific facts as I do not know. However, it will make trainers think. Like sending a player home with a broken femur or countless other problems that I have seen happen. Secondly, I was co-president of a student organization and so was on Athletics Committee ran by University to decide matters of athletics. It is obvious when an administration hates a coach and that seems to be a case here. He was going to get tossed as soon as something happened anyways.
Your logic is off in thinking that one group will not forget if he stays)people) but other people will forget if he goes (colleges). That is a stupid PR fallacy and self-serving for the purpose of this article.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
When you actually write something, then maybe you will have some credibility in deciphering my intentions Erik. Until then your credibility is nada..
December 30th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Let me correct this for you: "Firing Leach pissed off a lot more people in Lubbuck than keeping him around would've done. Guaranteed." In the rest of the country, his good 'ol boy schtick had worn thin, and we couldn't understand how he'd kept his job even before the James incident. "fat little girlfriends"? Please. The coach at a major college needs to be a grown-up and a leader, not a goon.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I think the last thing Tech was concerned about was the percentages of allies and enemies. They were thinking in a much bigger picture than Mike Leach and Tech Football-as they should have been
December 30th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
This is more than moaning and whining, the alleged tatics(if true) are akin to torture..
December 30th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
As a Texas Tech Graduate who was very close with the football program, its staff, players, and coaches, I have witnessed James' and Leach's behaviors and I have to say that James' statement couldn't be further from the truth.
James disregarded practice etiquett, was lazy and unusually entitled and the coaches constantly had a hard time disciplining him. Mike Leach is very well known to be a football coach unlike any other in the sense that he hardly looses his temper, rarely raises his voice, and does not utilize gross punishments in any sort of sense.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:08 am
Mitch – where do you think the money comes from? Lubbock and the cities where former Tech grads currently live. So, yes, it does matter who they just pissed off. A Big 12 football program without alumni support will suffer. Tech’s popularity over the past ten years has revolved a lot around football, and that can’t be ignored.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:15 am
So you'll turn a blind eye to a bully who puts a kid with a concussion in a dark, windowless shed because he doesn't like his attitude? Because if you don't support the coach then the football program will suffer? Then something is very, very wrong in west Texas.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:17 am
First name is Eli, I do not feel any obligation to prove myself as a PR professional but I am not for the record. If you want me to fake it I can though. Also, I do not need any experience other than winning an argument when I was 8, to prove your argument is false. Now if you are writing only a simple matter of opinion (however illogical) stop reading now.
Quote: "If Texas Tech did not fire Leach, they would be trying his case over and over both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion every single time a parent did not like the way their son/athlete was treated after an injury."
You are making the assumption that this group will remember. OK so it would be safe to say every group would remember, if that is not the case what is the motivation to remember? How has the Minnesota Vikings or any other number of institutions been stigmitized or the whole NFL been stigmitized?
Quote: " Leach will coach again. Schools with football programs have short memories when winners come knocking."
December 31st, 2009 at 4:21 am
Sorry, Erik Radke plays baseball..lol
Here is my beef with your post.
If you want to tell me your opinion and what your about your creds are not at issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, when you presume to tell me what I am about and what my motivations are then you had better be more qualified than I am to opine or you have no credibility.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:33 am
Yes actually, you become sensitive to light after a concussion. I do not pretend to know the situation and it could be that he acted in a poor judgement. In real life, if you are at a high preforming organization and you are not complying to the culture, you get fired. I am not saying that he did or did not do anything right but what should his response been. Should he have kicked him off the team? Please do not mistake my framing of the question as a support for abusing players.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:35 am
I did not mean to come off that way but please tell me why you think one group remembers and one forgets.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I give one more perspective here. Anyone who thinks there are more supporters of Tech football than Tech parents and parents in general who care about how the health and well being of their child is handled by those entrusted with that responsibility is delusional in the extreme. That is not the brand Tech wants for their sports program.
I and I alone am the only person who gets to put my child in a dark room forced to stand for hours. End of story!
December 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
What done is done. I'm an TTU alumni and was unhappy at the firing, but lets move on and find a great coach and win on Saturday. But I just have a couple questions of general questions.
1) At 22, are they no not an adult? I'm 25 now, but even if my parents told me at 22 to stand in a closet and not sit, I wouldn't do it.
2) What are allowable forms of discipline for student athletes?
3) What can standing really do to a person? I don't buy there was any danger for the player, concussion or not.
Wreck'em Tech!
January 1st, 2010 at 4:00 am
I've been a teacher for over 30 years, and a college teacher for the past 10+ years, and you just don't "punish" a student–regardless of age–like this. Leach was the responsible adult, and the one with the power here. If James had refused to accept the punishment he would have felt that Leach might have reduced his playing time or dismissed him from the team. It doesn't matter if he is 18, 20 or 50–Leach as coach had the power, the student did not.
As college teachers our forms of "discipline" are very limited. In classes, students are paying tuition–if they choose to do the work, fine–if not, so be it. No external discipline is really involved–its up to the student to do their work. In my opinion, Leach had the ultimate form of discipline to exert over James–playing time. Sending him to a shed was simply a stupid move, the last resort of a bully whose other tricks weren't working.
And as far as standing goes, that wasn't the point of the punishment–Leach's point was to humiliate the player, by removing him from the team, and isolating him. All he really did was humiliate himself in the end.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I was an interrogator in the Army for 4 years and I tortured people.
A couple of necessary caveats: the torture was waterboarding, and the tortured were US troops. It was done as a training exercise in a POW simulation scenario.
In any case, that kid in that closet (although I've seen the Youtube video and it was pretty big for a "closet") was hardly torture.
If Leach had waterboarded him, then I might be inclined to call it torture.
"Go walk around in the garage" is more accurate. I'm not sure I call that a fireable offense.
For the record, I have no allegiance to Tech or any other college. I'mjust going by the preponderance of evidence I've been exposed to.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
I think most including me understand it was not "toruture" I was making a point of perception not a point of fact…