# Texas Tech suspends Coach Mike Leach indefinitely **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 29, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906 "2009-12-29T14:57:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/121 "2009-12-31T23:26:43Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > It MAY have occurred the way you suggest, but there are quite a few other, equally probable, alternatives. To me, it reeks of a snotty, self-entitled kid who, perhaps, was standing on the sidelines, distracting other players, goofing off, and, after being called out, was eventually punished by being put in “solitary”. In what way does this differ or preclude anything **DSYoungEsq** said? It seems pretty likely that James was a bit of a punk. Whether he was more of a punk than 15 other guys on the team is a mystery, and frankly when you consider some of the things Leach has said in pressers this season it seems likely that there were more than a few. Hell, considering this is TTU and Leach has a bit of Prima Donna in him they probably are signing lots of those types of kids. The question isn’t if James deserved punishment or not. The question isn’t if a coach is allowed to punish a player who is a punk. There’s really only 3 questions that matter, and whether Jones was innocent or guilty isn’t material. 1. Was Leach specifically trying to humiliate James and if he was is that necessarily an improper thing for a coach to do? This is open for debate and I understand both arguments. 2. Was Leach specifically trying to discourage players from reporting injuries or encourage them to play through them regardless of potential risk? Regardless of if James’ concussion was bogus or not isn’t really important, the message could be sent to the rest of the other players either way. 3. Was Leach fired for his treatment of James or was he fired for insubordination and a consistently escalating pattern of bad PR. I think the answer to question 3 is pretty easy to answer, it’s likely a combination of the two ideas but I think it’s clearly about much more than just James. Question 2 is really the most important issue. Was the punishment about James and his attitude or was it about an injury? I think it’s very likely that it’s more about James than anything else and that Leach very likely played favorites. But, if there was any room for ambiguity on that subject and if the message was sent that injuries, especially concussions, are something to be ashamed of or concealed then Leach deserves to be reprimanded. Question 1 will get a lot of press and knee jerk media types will beat it into the ground but in the grand scheme of things its a red herring. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/122 "2010-01-01T00:18:11Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Amazing how hard it is for people to accept at face value what they are told is happening. I guess that’s a product of our modern society somehow. Sad, really. > > I propose the following counter-theory, in my opinion equally likely (actually much MORE likely to be true) to be true based upon what we have had presented. It’s cool you’ve got an opinion you felt like typing out in length–doesn’t give it an ounce more credibility than any other opinion here, period. I genuinely think Texas Tech’s Administration was, and has been, looking for a pretext to fire Mike Leach, full stop. I believe it based on past evidence, based on emails that came out during their negotiations last year, and based on the whole body of the relationship between Texas Tech and Mike Leach. Finally, it perfectly mirrors other situations in college sports. Myles Brand wanted Bobby Knight gone, so he essentially put Bobby Knight on ‘double secret probation’ and then the first time something happened, no matter how minor, Knight was fired. I think the “letter” they gave to Leach was nothing more than a noose they were handing to him and that they planned to later use to hang him. [For the record, I think Bobby Knight should have been fired about 15 years before he was, but the general fact is he was fired because a new university President made it public knowledge he was essentially looking for any excuse he could find to do so.] > [@](#): > > Coach Leach thinks Adam James is a prima donna. Not happy about his work rate, among other things. Said James suffers a mild concussion, and returns to practice with a doctor’s note. Coach thinks James is goldbricking, playing the concussion up in order to avoid having to work. Coach decides to show James that trying that comes with a cost. So he proceeds to put him in a dark place (everyone knows that dark environments are good for people who have had concussions, right?) and make him stand, because during practice he’d have to stand, right? And just to emphasize the point, the kid is watched, and upbraided for leaning on something when checked, at which point the coolers are dragged out of the room. Two days later, thinking that the point has not yet sunk in, and that James is still gold-bricking, he repeats the treatment, but this time chooses a darker, smaller room to stick him in, but is forced to move him when it turns out that the noise level is uncomfortable for someone (I’m too much the skeptic to believe it was out of concern for James that he was moved; probably the watchdog complained of the noise). So they move him to the next best location, drag out all the furniture just to emphasize the point again. By gosh, that’ll larn that boy! All of this is certainly a possibility. I’ll note that there’s no evidence one way or another, though. I don’t default to thinking it appropriate a university suspends a football coach based on no evidence, while giving the coach no means in which to appeal the suspension. > [@](#): > > But the key here is, as I stated WAY early in this discussion, why the coach decided on THIS day, after receiving THIS doctor’s note, to treat this player THIS way. It reeks of punishment for daring to suggest that he should be limited from practice as a result of a concussion. If so, it shows very poor judgment on the part of the coach. And it certainly would have me as a player (James or anyone else on the team who saw what happened) wonder what would happen if _I_ ever brought to Coach Leach a note limiting me at practice for a mild concussion. Which is, as has been noted by some here, and was apparently stated to Leach in a meeting with him, **not a good thing.** My personal opinion is that Adam James _was_ being punished but probably for something other than simply “being injured.” I imagine he was probably acting inappropriately post-injury, and this “pissed Leach off” so he decided to punish him. Note that as before, I don’t know that this happened, I think it also totally possible Leach didn’t punish James at all. I still know we have no evidence about why he did what he did. > [@](#): > > Now, I would tend to agree that everything that has happened after the allegations were made reads like a classic battle of egos/powers. Coach was asked about what he did, was unrepentant, was asked to apologize to the player and his family, refused, was asked at the same time to commit to certain corrective measures designed to prevent a further occurrence, and refused that also. For this refusal to comply with the directives of his superiors he was suspended from his duties (hey, you know what? If MY boss tells me to do something and I don’t do it, guess what happens to ME, you know?? Why the surprise? Why the sympathy?). He refused to take that suspension, and instead fought back both through the press and through legal action. His employer, having had enough, decided to terminate his employment contract. Again, in my mind, not a real shock under the circumstances. Next time you’re getting paid $2.4m/year and your employment contract is something that a team of lawyers and agents negotiate with your employer over a many-months long period I’ll consider the comparison to what would happen to you in this situation to be relevant. What I find shocking is that a school suspended a football coach from a game with only a brief and cursory investigation. That’s relatively unprecedented, I’ve seen schools take action that quickly when the misbehavior is caught on live camera or happens at a venue with “the public” as a witness. For something that happened “out of the public eye”, I’ve never seen a university act so quickly. I do think in the short term Leach was fired for not signing the apology letter and for disputing the suspension. However, to me that seems like “icing on the cake”, I think Texas Tech’s administration probably expected him to sign the letters and then expected they’d be able to use them to fire him at a later date. I will say this, though, under the terms of Leach’s employment contract the university had no authority to suspend Leach. The only punishments valid under his employment contract for misbehavior are: termination, fining, public or private reprimand, compensation adjustment, and term of contract adjustment. As Leach’s lawyers said in filing for the restraining order: > [@](#): > > Defendant has not terminated, reprimanded, or fined Mike Leach, nor has it adjusted the term of Mike Leach’s contract. He has simply been suspended without any process or contractual basis. I know that the conferences and possibly the NCAA have the authority to suspend anyone, but I don’t think Texas Tech has that authority “by default.” I expect that is why they fired him in the manner in which they did. Things had gotten to a point where Texas Tech was going to get a slap in the face and they were not going to allow Leach to get the upper hand on his employers and coach the Alamo Bowl in defiance of them. I do think that firing Leach because of the fact him and the administration obviously could not work together whatsoever is entirely valid. However such a firing would fall under the definition of a “without cause” firing under the terms of his contract. I have no problem with a school saying, “well, right or wrong we’re his boss and he’s refusing to listen to us, so he needs to go”; but when that person has an employment contract and “not listening to the boss” isn’t a valid “for cause” reason to fire him, you should probably just fire him without cause, pay the $2.4m and move on with your life. > [@](#): > > And as for the condition about influencing doctors opinions, do you think the University just came up with that idea out of whole cloth? “Hey, I know! Let’s throw something in there about not pressuring doctors! Yeah, that’s good!!!” I mean, really. :rolleyes: Obviously they either believe he’s done it in the past (not a real shock), or would be tempted to do it in the future (perhaps in part because of his having gotten something out of the doctor in writing). Are there many other situations in which you would use the existence of an allegation as _evidence_ that the allegation must be true. Because if so, I’m going to allege that you beat your wife, and ask you “where did I get that idea?” > [@](#): > > Now, you will notice I’ve not said whether or not anything at all should have happened to Coach Leach. Perhaps he’s as innocent of the accusations as anyone could be. Maybe there’s some hint of truth to them, but it didn’t really go down the way the player alleges it did. Maybe a lot of things. But there are only two people who know exactly what all happened, and only one of them knows why he made the player do what he did. Still, the University did investigate, and did request some remedial measures. And in the absence of some solid evidence that they did that for some reason other than their knowledge of the probable facts, I think I’ll avoid jumping to the conclusion that Coach Leach did no wrong. I don’t think anyone jumped to the conclusion that Leach “did no wrong.” I’ve yet to see a good reason for you jumping to the conclusion that, “well, if the university acted, he must be guilty.” I tend to like seeing some actual evidence, but maybe that’s just a character flaw on my part. My opinion from the very beginning has been simply that they were looking for a pretext to get rid of him. That the decision to suspend him was made too quickly, without any publicly released evidence. I actually don’t think Mike Leach deserves to be suspended or fired even if 100% of the allegations from Aadam James are true, primarily because coaches all over college athletics have done much worse and are still coaching. I do think it is _fair_ to be held to a certain general standard that your peers are held to; even if that standard isn’t the same as that for a “real person” in a “real” job. But this is professional sports (Leach is a professional football coach, even if he does coach amateurs), and pretty much it’s standard operating procedure that people in professional sports get away with stuff at their jobs that would have any normal person fired. > [@](#): > > Oh, and folks, rampant speculation on Alumni websites is NOT evidence. :dubious: :rolleyes: Guess we’re on the same page, not sure I’ve seen anyone on this forum cite rampant speculation as evidence, though. I’ve seen people report on said speculation, but that’s just gossip and you’ll see that all over the sports news world. Gossip is interesting, that’s why it gets spread, and doesn’t hurt things as long as no one is arguing it is evidence in and of itself. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/123 "2010-01-01T00:28:02Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > 1. Was Leach specifically trying to humiliate James and if he was is that necessarily an improper thing for a coach to do? This is open for debate and I understand both arguments. I think it entirely possible that Leach punished James because James was hanging around on the sidelines post-injury and being a distraction. Probably goofing off or et cetera. However, it is also possible that Leach genuinely thought that was the best thing to do. It is also possible that Leach punished James because of their long standing dislike for one another and because Leach thought James was “faking” his concussion. It’s hard to say more unless we know the answer to the order in which things went down. I think there is still more information to come out about all this. As for whether or not it is improper for a coach to humiliate a player–absolutely not. Many coaches use humiliation, many coaches do not. There are different coaching philosophies and advocates of all different types of coaching. Humiliation is used enough in coaching that it is not something that would be considered “improper.” Other coaches who have different methods might consider it bad coaching, but not improper behavior. > [@](#): > > 1. Was Leach specifically trying to discourage players from reporting injuries or encourage them to play through them regardless of potential risk? Regardless of if James’ concussion was bogus or not isn’t really important, the message could be sent to the rest of the other players either way. If Leach was, then that is improper. Not sure what the penalty should be, but I’ll add that isn’t even alleged at the moment. I do wonder why Leach would care about a guy that hardly gets any playing time and who would (and was) be cleared to play in the next game in any case. > [@](#): > > 1. Was Leach fired for his treatment of James or was he fired for insubordination and a consistently escalating pattern of bad PR. I think Leach was fired because he pushed Gerald Myers one too many times. However, that doesn’t constitute “for cause”, and in my opinion it represents an athletic department that is poorly ran that things ever came to that situation. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/124 "2010-01-01T00:50:36Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > I respect your opinion, but your entire interpretation hinges on the above statement, and is pure speculation (not that I’m saying that my interpretation is any less based on speculation, but that your argument is also based on “facts” which are not in evidence). > > It MAY have occurred the way you suggest, but there are quite a few other, equally probable, alternatives. To me, it reeks of a snotty, self-entitled kid who, perhaps, was standing on the sidelines, distracting other players, goofing off, and, after being called out, was eventually punished by being put in “solitary”. You miss my point. I have not argued anything, other than to assert that the facts as known, looked at neutrally, raise this question. Those leaping to accuse are as without definite factual support as are those who are leaping to defend. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/125 "2010-01-01T01:00:13Z")
Mr. Hyde, I’m done discussing this with you. Your persistent insistance upon misrepresenting what I am saying is getting annoying. I have not asserted the Coach Leach should or should not have been fired or suspended. If you read carefully, I’ve been entirely neutral on that assertion. **As YOU should be, since you have no facts to judge by.** What I have tried to do is counter your persistent, consistent attempt to assert that Saint Leach is the victim of a blatant attempt by the university to oust him, an assertion for which you have not one shred of solid evidence, only your interpretation of past dealings between the parties. I have simply offered a reasonable alternative explanation for the situation, an explanation which appears to be consistent with what little information on the subject we do have. Note that my explanation is in no way inconsistent with anything either the coach or his attorney have said. And I have not used the demand that he not pressure doctors as “evidence” of the fact that he did; rather I have offered an interpretation that is reasonable in light of the demand. Obviously, other interpretations can be offered, though I think it quite reasonable to accept the one I offered. And you still have not disclosed your reason for your dogged, pit-bull-like defense of this coach. I’d be very interested in hearing why you are so aggressively defensive against the accusations being levelled? Actually, no, I wouldn’t, because as I’ve indicated, this discussion between us is done. Misrepresent what someone else says so you can attempt to counter the misstatement; I’m no longer interested in the game. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/126 "2010-01-01T01:29:41Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You miss my point. I have not argued anything, other than to assert that the facts as known, looked at neutrally, raise this question. Those leaping to accuse are as without definite factual support as are those who are leaping to defend. My point exactly. You have no more facts than I do. We’re both speculating, and as far as I can tell, there is exactly as much reason to suspect that Leach has been railroaded as there is to suspect that he actually violated the “Cause” clause (heh). That’s unfortunate, as it points to poor reporting, and obfuscation on most all involved parties. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/127 "2010-01-01T03:05:28Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Mr. Hyde, I’m done discussing this with you. Your persistent insistance upon misrepresenting what I am saying is getting annoying. > > I have not asserted the Coach Leach should or should not have been fired or suspended. If you read carefully, I’ve been entirely neutral on that assertion. I’ve not once asserted that you think Leach should or should not have been fired or suspended. You should probably _read carefully_ my posts and you will see that I’ve never made any such claim concerning you. I have called you out for statements like this: > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > To me, this intimates they felt he was putting pressure on the doctors to release players to participation. Which might have been true in this case. Which might also make any written assertion Leach obtained from the doctor involved questionable. And an earlier one in a similar vein. I’ll simply reassert that when you have an administration that _openly admitted_ they want Mike Leach _gone_, I am of the opinion that they may have just been looking to make Leach sign something they could later use against him. Given the extremely brief investigation I genuinely doubt Texas Tech had any real “feelings” on the matter other than “time to nail Leach’s balls to the wall.” > [@](#): > > **As YOU should be, since you have no facts to judge by.** I know what he was alleged to have done, and I don’t think, even if those allegations are true, it warrants a firing. What do you mean I have “no facts?” I have the same set of facts that everyone else has on this (except for the involved parties), and _as I have already said_, unless more comes out the Adam James thing doesn’t justify a firing, period. (Note I’m disagreeing with you here–I think it obvious that it is a “fact” that Adam James alleged something, and it is a “fact” as to how the university responded, I’m sorry if you’re the type of person that feels the need to get upset because someone has a different opinion about a totally subjective matter than you do.) > [@](#): > > What I have tried to do is counter your persistent, consistent attempt to assert that Saint Leach is the victim of a blatant attempt by the university to oust him, an assertion for which you have not one shred of solid evidence, only your interpretation of past dealings between the parties. I have simply offered a reasonable alternative explanation for the situation, an explanation which appears to be consistent with what little information on the subject we do have. Note that my explanation is in no way inconsistent with anything either the coach or his attorney have said. And here you are misrepresenting what I have said. Point to a post of mine where I have said that Mike Leach is innocent, or a saint. While it is entirely possible I forgot to include the qualifier “opinion” in an earlier post (though I don’t know that I did), my position has always been that **I think** the administration was trying to railroad him. I repeatedly have said that is my opinion on the matter, I’ve also said it is entirely possible all the allegations about Leach are true (I’ve also said that doesn’t warrant a firing.) Sorry if you don’t like someone having a different opinion than you. > [@](#): > > And I have not used the demand that he not pressure doctors as “evidence” of the fact that he did; rather I have offered an interpretation that is reasonable in light of the demand. Obviously, other interpretations can be offered, though I think it quite reasonable to accept the one I offered. I’ve never said that the university didn’t feel Leach was pressuring doctors. I have only said there is no reason to accept your “interpretation” that their producing that letter is a good indicator of the university’s motivations. People act duplicitously all the time, and I see no reason why that is a less reasonable assumption given the particulars of this case. > [@](#): > > And you still have not disclosed your reason for your dogged, pit-bull-like defense of this coach. I’d be very interested in hearing why you are so aggressively defensive against the accusations being levelled? Primarily because it looks like a screw job, which I don’t like. I’ve always maintained an open mind and have repeatedly said it is entirely possible that this whole thing was on the level, that Mike Leach did punish a player solely for getting injured and et cetera. I just don’t think that’s what happened–I certainly don’t discount the possibility of it, though. If you read my posts you’ll see I never have. > [@](#): > > Actually, no, I wouldn’t, because as I’ve indicated, this discussion between us is done. Misrepresent what someone else says so you can attempt to counter the misstatement; I’m no longer interested in the game. You can take your ball and go home, I’ve never seen someone behave like such a child because someone had the audacity to disagree with them. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/128 "2010-01-02T04:36:44Z")
From the Wall Street Journal: > [@](#): > > Two days after Texas Tech’s stunning decision to fire head football coach Mike Leach, three current and former members of the school’s board of regents said the firing was largely the result of ill will left over from a heated contract negotiation early last year. Looks like that essentially closes the case. Whatever happened between Leach and James was, mostly irrelevant it seems. It makes it fairly obvious the wounds were still deep from the end of 2008/beginning of 2009 contract negotiations and it created a powder-keg situation in which this was a foregone conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2010, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/129 "2010-01-02T05:59:06Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > From the Wall Street Journal: > > Looks like that essentially closes the case. Whatever happened between Leach and James was, mostly irrelevant it seems. It makes it fairly obvious the wounds were still deep from the end of 2008/beginning of 2009 contract negotiations and it created a powder-keg situation in which this was a foregone conclusion. That’s liable to be a very expensive bit of ill will. Leach’s case for the full value of his contract is stronger now, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/130 "2010-01-02T06:43:04Z")
For anyone who isn’t aware, Board of Regents is essentially like a university equivalent of a Board of Directors. Different universities appoint them in different ways, typically for a public university that is part of the state university system (like TTU is), the state governor’s office selects the BoR. (I’m not sure of the specifics for TTU.) The BoR in turn is responsible for firing and hiring the Chancellor (the guy who runs the University, aka the University CEO–Kent Hance.) It’s almost **always** the case that these guys are intimately involved in college football contract negotiations. Typically the people who get on these sort of committees are the biggest of the big donors who are also somewhat politically active and want to have a say in how their school is run. So aside from the fact that they are the “final authority” of power in the university they are also typically really involved alumni or people closely connected to the school who really _want_ to be involved in that kind of thing. (The Dallas Morning News emails shows how involved the BoR was in the contract negotiations.) What it sums up to is, these aren’t random ass hats who aren’t connected to the situation. Gerald Myers (the AD) was Mike Leach’s boss. Kent Hance (Chancellor) was Gerald Myers boss. The Board of Regents is Kent Hance’s boss; you better damn well believe if you fire a college football coach, at the FBS level, who has a multi-million dollar a year contract and broad fan support the BoR signs off on it. No Chancellor/AD that wants to keep their job would make such a big decision without consulting the BoR. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2010, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/131 "2010-01-02T06:51:04Z")
So WTF did they hire him if there was such bad feeling and they were looking for a chance to fire him at the first excuse, and as a result eventually paying him millions of dollars for work he won’t ever do? I mean, they could have let the contract lapse, and he could have walked for free. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2010, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/132 "2010-01-02T07:01:30Z")
They probably didn’t feel the same way about him when they hired him 10 years ago. He’d been very successful as coach and they would have looked very bad if they had made no effort to keep him. Clearly he had the better bargaining position if they disliked him this much and still gave him a raise and a contract extension. But he very openly looked at other jobs last year and it sounds like a lot of resentment came to the surface as a result. I never followed the team closely but I do remember being surprise at how blatant Leach was being a year ago. Usually coaches lie about these kinds of things and say they are happy where they are. He didn’t do that, and the TTU administration must have felt he was rubbing their noses in it. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/133 "2010-01-03T13:36:30Z")
Trainer and team doctor say no medical reason for him being in the shed. [http://texastech.scout.com/2/934344.html](http://texastech.scout.com/2/934344.html) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/134 "2010-01-03T15:41:51Z")
Leach is a wild card and I think the university thought he would present more trouble in the future. His statements since the game are proof. He says it was all about money, after he got the contract he wanted. He justifies humiliating a player who has a concussion. The team doctors disagreed. Other coaches said he told them to stick him in a dark room and make him stay there. Other players thought Leach was acting badly. Leach was going to be trouble and bring bad publicity to the college. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/135 "2010-01-03T15:44:27Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > He justifies humiliating a player who has a concussion. I haven’t been following this too terribly closely, but didn’t he put James in the room the day after he suffered the concussion? ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/136 "2010-01-03T22:15:13Z")
Texas Tech won their bowl game under interim coach Ruffin McNeill. I hope they consider giving him a season to prove himself as head coach. Now that Leach is gone, some of the players are coming forward. > [@](#): > > But offensive lineman Brandon Carter had a message for fans: James isn’t the one to blame. > > “This was not the first situation,” Carter said. “This was just the last straw. Sooner or later, something was going to come out. Adam is part of our family. Hopefully, this washes over for Adam and he can stay and he won’t have to go.” Their quarterback didn’t seem to sad about Leach leaving either. > **[NBC Sports - news, scores, stats, rumors, videos, and more](https://www.nbcsports.com/)** > > Stay up-to-date with the latest sports news and scores from NBC Sports. > [@](#): > > Hours before kickoff, Texas Tech released an affidavit in which school athletic trainer Steve Pincock says he told James he was “sorry” for having placed the player inside an equipment shed near the practice field. Pincock told Tech officials he didn’t agree with that “form of treatment for anyone.” Another voice confirming the Leach accusations were true. > [@](#): > > McNeill wants the job, and this win might help. Players were unanimous in wanting McNeill back, too. interim coach Ruffin McNeill deserves a shot at the job. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/137 "2010-01-03T22:17:57Z")
[http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/news/story?id=4792320](http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/news/story?id=4792320) Here is a article in ESPN saying a player interviewed said Leach was getting to think he was bigger than the program. This is not the only event players felt was over the line. He was alienating the team. He had apparently let his ego get loose. They appear to be on James side . ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/138 "2010-01-03T22:38:58Z")
I was disappointed as a Spartan fan in the outcome of the game last night, though I thought Ruffin McNeill did a good job in the game. His name would have been a great name for a placekicker (Ruffin the Kicker). But I think he’s too closely tied to Leach to get the job. It reminds me a lot of when Saban left MSU, Bobby Williams coached the bowl win over Florida and we all thought he earned the permanent job. He got it, and turned out to be somewhat less than mediocre as head coach. One bowl win doth not a good head coach make. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/139 "2010-01-03T23:41:12Z")
But there’s very little time for TT to do anything else but promote McNeill, besides getting points from the NCAA for the racial aspect. He may not turn out well, despite handling the situation and the team’s preparation very well, but what else can they do? It’s prime recruiting season and they need the situation settled. The more I hear about _and from_ this jackass Leach, the more I wonder why he got to stick around so long. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906/140 "2010-01-04T04:10:45Z")
I’ve been following this from Austin and one thing is clear - Leach is pretty bad at reading the room. He burned a lot of bridges in Lubbock after the contract negotiations, for some reason wasn’t able to figure out that Adam James’ baggage (his dad) would be trouble and offered him a scholly anyway - and then when given the chance to cut bait and release the kid, refused to. While I’m sure the players are aware of how the sands are shifting and are responding accordingly, it’s pretty surprising to see players so soon trashing the coach. You’d think they’d go the safe route and just not say anything. It seems that Leach always thought he was smarter than his bosses. Maybe he is, but it shows a lack of smarts to have behaved as recklessly as he did and not account for the fact that he had very few friends in Lubbock. Which really makes him a terribly unattractive candidate elsewhere. If things had gone this badly, he should have taken one of the offers he flirted with last summer. The only logic I can see here is that Leach is just bored of coaching period, and is going to milk the notoriety of being the pirate forced to walk the plank for a payday in court and a slot on Best Damn Sports Show Period, or whatever it’s called. I seriously doubt any school “above” Tech is going to consider him as HC material. While he brought some excitement and big wins to Lubbock all of his prized QBs did nothing in the NFL. Schools below Tech might be interested but fanbases and trustees are going to wonder about this guy. There are plenty of up and coming coaches I’m sure without the baggage. I don’t think he has the charisma or wins to pull off a Rick Neuheisel. Case in point: UTSA (that’s the UT branch in San Antonio) is starting a program and hired… Larry Coker as their first coach. Coker, as far as I know, didn’t have any skeletons in the closet when he got fired from Miami. But the best he could do was UTSA! And of course the irony of Tech firing a guy for being abusive to his players… the very school that hired Bobby Knight. So it seems they are willing to take a chance on a guy who can bring in the wins. They obviously feel that they can do as well if not better without him. Last, as good as Leach has been, Spike Dykes had success at Tech before him, and if you’re #3 as far as local big-name programs in the football rich state of Texas (behind Texas and o.u. - sorry TCU, you’re not there yet) you should be able to compete with the big boys. So I don’t think they will have a hard time bringing in a good coach, nor will a good coach struggle to win out there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-tech-suspends-coach-mike-leach-indefinitely/522906.md?page=8)