WATCH: The Lessons We Learn From Dogs
LOOK: Meet The World's Cutest Police Recruit
Texas Tech University fired its football coach Mike Leach last week amid allegations he mistreated sophomore receiver Adam James (the son of ESPN football analyst Craig James). Leach is accused of forcing James to stand in a dark closet for three hours, after it was deemed James couldn't practice due to a mild concussion.On Saturday night Texas Tech defeated Michigan State in the Alamo Bowl. During the game, Red Raider fans weighed in on Leach's dismissal by waving signs in support of their former coach and booing Adam James, who was on the sideline but didn't dress for the game.
Much of the animus towards 21-year-old stems from reports suggesting his famous father orchestrated Leach's firing, as well as a widely held belief that the Texas Tech coaching staff regarded James as an entitled rich kid who refused to work hard. (Getting to that second point, our friends at With Leather posted video from April in which Leach dresses James down for improperly behaving like he "accomplished something.")
On the other hand, Leach (who would have earned an $800,000 bonus for coaching Texas Tech in its bowl game) gave the impression that he was punishing a player for suffering a concussion -- which was boneheaded, given all the recent controversy surrounding football and head injuries.
Do you think the Adam Jones incident is enough for the otherwise successful coach to get the axe? Or is something else going on in Lubbock?
| Yes -- Concussions are serious business. | |
|---|---|
| No -- He really got fired for not giving a famous man's lazy son enough playing time. |
Helen Lost 82 Pounds: 'Helping Others Is What Life Is All About'
'Undercover Boss': Top 4 Moments From Season 4 [VIDEO]
Amy Adams' Bikini Body Isn't What You'd Expect ...
Las Vegas Court Officials Accused Of Covering Up Sex Assault [VIDEO]
St. Louis Sports Bar Gives Man Receipt Criticizing His Child
41 Busted In Child Sex Sting
Walmart vs. Costco: How Do They Really Compare?
Groomers Lose Dog, Claim Not Responsible
LOOK: Teen Was 'Shamed' By TSA Officer For This Outfit
The Story Behind Shapewear: From Girdles to Spanx
'Grease' Cast: Where Are They Now?
PHOTO: Brazilian Officer Pepper-Sprays Female Protester In The Face
'Lone Ranger' Star Johnny Depp Opens Up About Split From Vanessa Paradis
Microsoft E3 2013 Xbox liveblog!
Michael Hastings Dies In Car Crash At Age 33
Careless Chinese Baggage Handler Really Throws Himself Into His Work
WATCH: Porn Star Says My Dad's Angry I Ruined Porn For Him
Outrage Over Class Photo: 'Adults Should Know Better'
Couple Finds Ancient Skeleton In Backyard, May Have To Foot $5,000 Excavation Bill
Axl Rose Doesn't Look Like This Anymore ...
Khloe's Workout Photos Are Pretty Alarming
WATCH: The Amazing Moment A Trapped Fox Approaches Men For Help
5 Ways To Get A Flat Stomach -- While Standing Up
Chris Brown's Girlfriend Sure Knows How To Wear A Bikini
LOOK: The Mystery That's Stumped Feds For DECADES
14-Year-Old Faces Jail After Wearing Pro-Gun Shirt To School
7 Beautiful Actresses Who Were Told They Weren't Pretty Enough
Kim Kardashian's Baby Looks Just Like ...
PHOTOS: Michelle Obama's Bangs Spark A Major Backlash
Inside Kim Kardashian's Pregnancy Nightmare
Tamra Barney Gets Married, See Her Dress!
Jennifer Aniston's Wedding Postponed?
Comments:
Add a comment
Monday 04 January
By ellep
Follow the money. Who stands to gain or lose the most?
Leach, if guilty, gains nothing from suing Tech and egging them into firing him. If he had tucked his tail, admitted doing something wrong, apologized and took his suspension, Tech would look even worse for firing him, and Leach would have another job pretty quickly. Either way, he's out $800,000 bowl bonus that Tech no longer has to pay him. The accusations alone damage his chances of getting a job somewhere else that pays as well and gives him a shot at the BCS - the NFL might take him, but there's no telling if his bizarro system would work as well on that level.
On the other hand, Tech saves millions by voiding the contract of a coach who's been successful, but not successful enough - beating Texas is fine, going 11-1 is great, being ranked in the top 5 during a season is fantastic, but doing so by stepping on booster, media and administration toes while never securing any big prize isn't enough in major-conference ball. Tech wants to move on but weren't smart enough to do so before Leach signed a long, big-money extension. Someone got buyer's remorse along the way, wanted to pull the plug, and heard that the Joneses had an ax to grind over Adam's playing time. Match made in heaven.
Meanwhile, Adam Jones gets a tour of the talk-show circuit, maybe a book deal. His dad and ESPN get to help promote the whole thing. Everyone there makes a dime, probably many more dimes than Adam Jones would ever make from his dim football career prospects. They had nothing to lose - Leach clearly wasn't going to cave in to Papa Jones' phone stalking and play Adam more.
Was Texas Tech right to fire Mike Leach? Depends on what your definition of "right" was. If it's to maybe try to lure a higher-profile coach now that Tech has national name recognition off Leach's success, with the aim of improving the program while saving some cash off a tilted contract that Leach milked from them, then finding the clause that lets them fire Leach without significant financial burden is the tactically "right" choice.
The only way Tech is ethically right, however, is if Adam Jones actually was abused by Mike Leach. And if all the Jones family can do with a PR firm and Papa James' ESPN ties is barf up an undated, unverifiable cell phone cam clip onto YouTube months after the fact, then Tech had better have something they're holding back on for the ensuing lawsuits, or the lawsuits against them could turn into money pits of their own - and if Tech really bones things, could get the NCAA involved and blow a hole into their program far bigger than the fallout of a non sequitur coach who pitches fits.
Reply
Tuesday 05 January
By Sharilyn Prideaux
Below is an excerpt from a letter I sent to President Guy Bailey stating my feelings over the firing of Mike Leach.
I am first and foremost astounded that an institution such as yours could be influenced by the treatment of one student, whether or not it was right or wrong. If this student had been the child of a poor West Texas farmer, no one, from students up to and including the local media, much less the national media would have ever even heard of this episode. But, because he was the son of a famous analyst for the foremost sports programmer, all the world was let in on it, and the University was evidently forced to cower under the influence of this student's father. Even if what Mike Leach decided to do to this student, probably with good reason, was so bad, he should have been written up and counseled, not be coerced to sign something he felt strongly was not in his best interest, or the best interest of everyone else involved with the team, or face the consequence of being fired from his position. Most of us who follow teams in the Sports world can imagine what actually happened between the prima dona spoiled brat whining about how he should be allowed to play despite a serious concussive injury, and a coach who has had it with the kid's attitude. How many of us have heard the fans and the commentators say during a game, "I wouldn't want to be in that locker room during intermission," knowing that the team would be receiving a not too kindly dressing down by the coach.
I am also greatly astonished, and incensed that Mike Leach would be held to such a high standard after you, President Bailey, hired Coach Knight who was known to not only verbally, but also physically abuse his players.
I am especially infuriated as well, that reports I've heard both from people I know in Lubbock, as well in the national press, that this incident afforded you and your University to not have to stand by the contract you made with Coach Leach after the first winning seasons Tech had experienced in many, many years, having made it legally and in good faith.
In closing I feel that you, Kent Hance, and the University owe Mike Leach a formal and public apology, as well as the students, fans, and alumni of Texas Tech University.
Reply
Monday 04 January
By a
I guess we'll never know since tech didn't have a formal investigation.
Reply
Monday 04 January
By BigBadBill
Was it kidnapping or false imprisonment. Both are terms for hold someone against their will. Take you pick, both carry long permission terms. Maybe James is a lazy rich kid. Maybe he did not like to work at football, maybe he did not have a concussion. None of that matters. He was being held against his will. It is that simple. Football coaches and players live under the same laws as the rest of us. There is nothing special about them that exempts them from the law. The Leach needs to stand trial for either kidnapping or false imprisonment, if he was holding James against his will.
Reply
Tuesday 05 January
By Cmdaily
Wow you are an idiot. If you are forced to go to practice that is kidnapping? My employer by your definition should be prosecuted on 100k counts! James was not imprisoned! He could leave or not show up to practice at any time! His spot on the team would have been lost but if I didn't show up for work I would get fired. He was given a less desirable place to go in lieu of practice hoping he would decide he would rather participate. Never was he held against his will.
Monday 04 January
By a
exactly... so why didn't the James family press charges? Wouldn't ANY good parent press charges? Also, why didn't Texas Tech launch an investigation to fully support the James family in helping them prosecute Leach to the fullest extent of the law?
As of now, the James family has not pressed charges, Texas Tech has not launched a full investigation, and Mike Leach is not in jail.
Why?
The allegations are false... there is no evidence. That's why.
Monday 04 January
By Bevo Hoosier Paul
Viewing this whole situation from the snow ridden region of Indiana, I haven't seen anyone ask why "the Pirate" didn't just cut the kid. There seems to be plenty of players who wanted to give the raiders an effort ( ask the Michigan State Spartans) > and I agree TT owes the pirate some money...maybe Oprah needs to go down there and give both Leach and TT administrators a quick "charm school" session on how to handlke success...there actually is enough glory for everybody
Reply
Monday 04 January
By Justin
I find it interesting that so many of these sports blogs are ignoring what other Tech players have been saying this past week. They are happy Leech is gone saying he was pretty awful to all of them and it was simply James who finally said something.
I'm fairly certain that you have to be a bit smart to run a university - I highly doubt that this firing was over just this one instance. Also, let's be realistic here - many of us are weighing in on something we know little to nothing about. So keep your cool people.
Reply
Monday 04 January
By Kp
The number of hoops it takes for any single action to make it through the bureaucracy of an institution as large as Tech makes it 100% clear to me that this one act is NOT what got Leach fired. The public may never know - employment files are confidential - but there must be more to this that had already been moving through the woodwork when this concussed kid came out with his story.
I will grant that the publicity James garnered through his self-entitled whining probably made the decision to cut Leach loose an easier one, but Tech values the good name of their program too much to fire a coach with Leach's credentials over something that could have very easily been explained away in a well spun press release.
What I would be interested in is the opinion of the Tech players - they would have had enough of an ear to the wall through this issue to have formed a more informed "insider scoop" stance than the average Joe watching ESPN. From what I've read, they're okay with the University's choice.
Reply
Monday 04 January
By Quasimofo
Heard a rumor Leach is being discussed for the Raiders coaching position. If he does become the Raiders head coach for the season opener they should take one of those Rubbermaid sheds they sell at Home Depot and build it just outside the the tunnel leading from the home teams locker room with the back end cut out so it looks like the players are all coming out of the shed.
Reply
Monday 04 January
By thejellybelly
We continue to look like what we have long been called - a bunch of country boobs (Gomers). A smart administraton- I dont think so. Since I was laid off over a year ago we have struggled to pay for our 3 season football tickets but we did largely because of the success Mike brought to Tech, Lubbock and Texas. What a relief. Now I can use that money for something else. I refuse, regardless of what decision the administration ultimately makes regarding our coaching position, to support any more stupidity on the part of the administration of Texas Tech University!!!
Reply
Tuesday 05 January
By Techobserver
After doing a lot of research, I am of the opinion that Mike Leach was fired under false pretenses. Initially I was stunned by what I heard that Coach Leach had supposedly done. The story was that he had punished a player because he thought the player was faking a concussion and that the punishment had exposed the player to the risk of additional injury. Very despicable to purposefully endanger a young man’s health over football, even here in Texas. Everyone that is bashing Coach Leach is doing so on the basis that this story is true. But a look at the facts do not support the allegation. In fact, they support what Leach said: It’s all a bunch of lies.
First, Adam James was not sent to the shed because he claimed he had a concussion. He was sent to the shed as a disciplinary action for having a ruinous attitude. This is clear from the 1-1-10 Pincock affidavit published by TT. Second, nothing Leach did increased the risk of additional injury. The Tech team doctor, Dr. Phy, stated this in his first statement given to Leach’s attorney. The discipline may have been tough, mean and unpleasant for James, but it did not increase his risk of additional injury. No medical doctor has stated otherwise. This is despite the fact that Tech has a medical school and numerous doctors at its disposal. Despite press reports to the contrary, Dr. Phy did not recant this statement in his 1-1-10 affidavit published by the university. As far as the risk of aggravating his concussion, to a lay person he would appear safer in the shed with trainers periodically checking on him than when he was in his own bed at night.
The bottom line is that Adam James had a bad attitude and was disciplined in a manner which did not risk aggravation of his concussion. Bad attitudes are infectious. In preparation for a post season bowl game they can be disastrous. Bowl games are played weeks after the regular season. How many great football teams have come out flat in a bowl game and gotten badly beaten? It happens all the time. All the evidence show that James did not come to practice dressed as an injured player should and was loafing around the track. (See the Pincock affidavit published by Texas Tech). If this type of conduct was allowed to continue and go unpunished, it would undermine the work ethic of the rest of the team. In light of James’ powerful father, it would have also created the impression of favoritism. Leach would have been a poor coach if he allowed James to go unpunished. It was certainly within the coach’s authority to discipline players for wrongful conduct, so long as the discipline does not unreasonably risk injury. That is what Leach did. He disciplined James in a manner which did not risk additional injury. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Chancellor Hance’s statement that no doctor would prescribe sending a player to a dark room for hours as treatment for a concussion and Dr. Phy’s statement that such treatment would be a deviation of the standard of medical care are true, but off point. James was not sent to the shed as part of his medical treatment. He was sent there for attitude adjustment. No doctor would prescribe 2 hour in a dark room as treatment for a broken arm either. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the dark room disciplinary action unreasonably risked the player to additional injury. Contrary to Tech’s official statement on the Leach firing and contrary to Craig James’ innuendo on ESPN, it did not. The shed would have been acceptable discipline for a player with a broken arm and it was acceptable discipline for a player with a day old mild concussion. Just because a player is injured does not mean he is immune from discipline.
In its official statement on Leach's firing, Tech stated that his termination was precipitated (i.e., brought about abruptly) by his treatment of a player with a concussion which expose the player to the risk of addition injury. Although Tech willingly engaged in a media campaign, they have not provided any evidence to support the claim--only innuendo and subterfuge. On the other hand, Leach has refuted their allegations with medical testimony that James was not put at risk for additional injury.
Reply
Tuesday 05 January
By golfwoody
Well written Techobserver. Well laid out and well articulated. And all true.
An intresting thing to know would be who it was that hired Spaeth Communications to handle the PR for the James. They are the company who leaked the Adam James cell phone video. Was it James or could it have been Jim Sowell, ESPN or the Tech Admin.? We may have to wait for the trial but I am pretty sure someone is working on finding this out. Once it has been discovered who, then we can find out when. Possibly it was prior to the 'shed' incident. If so, call the police.
Wednesday 06 January
By Caltechsan
Way to go Tech!
If anything, the University must support and in this case, protect, its students. Bobby Knights conduct at Univ. of Indiana lead (rightfully) to his firing. Although Tech gave him a second chance. Leach's conduct here also (rightfully) lead to his firing. I agree that there is more to the story. But seems to me that arrogance simply got in the way of Leach's self preservation and interest in keeping a job at Texas Tech. The University administration called his bluff. And now Leach and his tarnished reputation are now out on the streets.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of Coach Leach and will miss him and the excitement he brought to Red Raider football. I am grateful to him for that. But I believe the institution needs to keep its "guns up" on this one. The University must stand behind the interests of its students first -- that defines academic integrity for me.
I'm proud of my school. Go Texas Tech Red Raiders!
Reply
Wednesday 06 January
By Techobserver
Not so fast Caltechsan.
I agree that the university should support and protect its students from mistreatment. But not every unpleasant or disliked treatment is “mistreatment.” If that were the case, then the school could never put anyone on scholastic probation or impose a parking fine. Mistreatment is treatment which the actor did not have the authority to impose. A college football coach certainly has the authority to discipline a player for violating team rules. He does not have authority to discipline a player in a manner which injures him. All the evidence revealed so far indicates that James was not injured by his punishment nor exposed to any risk of additional injury.
As far as whether his firing was “rightful,” it depends on whether he unreasonably exposed James to risk of further injury. Again, all the evidence says he did not.
Leach may be an arrogant type A person. I doubt that there is a successful college football coach that does not have a type A personality…well, except Henry Winkler in “Water Boy.” But arrogance is not “cause.” Leach did not contractually obligate himself not to be arrogant. The school had the power to fire him for arrogance, but it would not constitute a termination “with cause” and they would have been unequivocally liable for $800,000 completion bonus plus $1,600,000 liquidated damages. Not to mention having to explain their actions to the rest of the school.
You should be proud of Tech, but, at least based on what we’ve seen so far, you shouldn’t be proud of Meyers, Bailey and Hance.
Wednesday 06 January
By Techobserver
Not so fast Caltechsan.
I agree that the university should support and protect its students from mistreatment. But not every unpleasant or disliked treatment is “mistreatment.” If that were the case, then the school could never put anyone on scholastic probation or impose a parking fine. Mistreatment is treatment which the actor did not have the authority to impose. A college football coach certainly has the authority to discipline a player for violating team rules. He does not have authority to discipline a player in a manner which injures him. All the evidence revealed so far indicates that James was not injured by his punishment nor exposed to any risk of additional injury.
As far as whether his firing was “rightful,” it depends on whether he unreasonably exposed James to risk of further injury. Again, all the evidence says he did not.
Leach may be an arrogant type A person. I doubt that there is a successful college football coach that does not have a type A personality…well, except Henry Winkler in “Water Boy.” But arrogance is not “cause.” Leach did not contractually obligate himself not to be arrogant. The school had the power to fire him for arrogance, but it would not constitute a termination “with cause” and they would have been unequivocally liable for $800,000 completion bonus plus $1,600,000 liquidated damages. Not to mention having to explain their actions to the rest of the school.
You should be proud of Tech, but, at least based on what we’ve seen so far, you shouldn’t be proud of Meyers, Bailey and Hance.
Friday 08 January
By Robert Scott
We have raised a bunch of disrespectful brats. Adam James showed the results of poor parenting and entitlement. He failed ot both baseball and football at TT. Look at the polls and see that 80% of people responding support Leach.
Wednesday 06 January
By deriter
This was an issue of control. The TTU administration was afraid of losing control of Mike Leach, and in the process, paying the money that did not want to give up to a coach who made them capitulate. For Craig James, it was the opportunity to shame Leach publicly for not doing his 'bidding'. In the end, it was the collusion between TTU administrators and Craig James that was used to torpedo Leach's career.The next football coach at TTU will be the one to suffer for this miscarriage of justice and due process.
Reply