The Pirate Speaks: Leach thread v2.0

If screaming was all James had done, he'd still be coaching Texas Tech. And we all know it.

 

Tech canned Leach because they'd been looking for reasons to get rid of him since the previous contract negotiations and likely before that. His refusal to sign a letter of apology and his public response to the ensuing suspension were what got him fired, not his treatment of a player.

 

The same type of medical breakthough as:



One day the true genius of Mike Leach will be recognized.

Someone said a few posts back the kid had been cleared to practice. Did I miss that? Is that true?

 

Oct. 15, 2008

LUBBOCK, Texas - The numbers are in and Texas Tech Football student-athletes are earning degrees. In the latest Graduation Success Rates released by the NCAA, Texas Tech graduated 79 percent of its football players that entered the program out of high school or transferred in between 1998 and 2001 and graduated within six years.

"Academics are top priority at Texas Tech and we can't stress enough the importance of getting the work done in the classroom," Texas Tech Head Coach Mike Leach said. "Our players do an excellent job of balancing the classroom with football and are committed to working toward and receiving their degrees. Our academics support staff here does a great job of preparing our players for the classroom."

Tech's 79 percent rate ranks the program first in the Big 12 Conference, one percentage point ahead of Nebraska and Baylor. Other Big 12 programs rank as follows: Colorado (75%), Kansas State (67%), Oklahoma State (62%), Missouri (59%), Texas A&M (56%), Iowa State (55%), Kansas (53%), Texas (50%) and Oklahoma (46%). Texas Tech has consistently posted one of the top graduation rates in the country, ranking among the American Football Coaches Association's top 30 each of the last eight years.

 

Ragu, it's clear there was no love lost here on both sides. But if they REALLY wanted to fire him, they wouldn't have given him the chance to apologize. Why did they do that? Because they recognized that what he'd done was at least wrong, and possibly actionable, and an apology was the easiest way to patch things up. James would have calmed down and the school would have been able to gain a little more control over Leach.

The problem with saying this was a trumped up reason to fire him was: A) He essentially fired himself by not apologizing and going to court; and B) They could have just not re-signed him during the contract negotiations.

 

Dallas Morning News said he was not cleared to practice:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/122909dnspocarlton.3e43cd9.html

 

They offered him the chance to apologize because they knew he wouldn't, and it helps their PR cause immensely to say "We gave him every chance to make this right, and gosh darn it, he just wouldn't do it."

They didn't let him walk during the contract negotiations for a similar reason. It would have been a huge PR hit.

 

I think Machine Head is misinterperting what was stated in the thread.

The contention that is apparently made in the NYTimes is that James was cleared to walk around the field during practice, not take part in practice itself. He refused to walk around the field during practice and was thus sent to wherever it was.

 

LOL, seriously, if you boss wants you to apologize - and you don't - do you really have any cause to complain? Regardless of what your job is?

And Ragu, I'm sure that's how Leach looks at it. Me? I'd call it institutional control, i.e. reminding Leach that he's not bigger than the institution. Either way, the fact remains, if he'd apologized, he'd have a job.