The Pirate Speaks: Leach thread v2.0

A few things:
I knew I heard the name Kent Hance before. He beat GWB in a Congressional race in 78.

How much was Leach's buyout if fired without cause? No way he gets more than that. If he is smart, he takes a mil off Tech and starts looking for a new gig.

 

I think SockPuppet was assuming it would be at James' request. You're right. I don't see them forcing him to go, but I can't imagine him wanting to stay at this point, either.

 

There's a rumor out there among SMU fanbois (yes, there are a few) that the whole mess started because James wanted to transfer to SMU but Leach won't release his players to transfer to other Texas DI teams. According to this rumor, a few days after Leach made it clear he wouldn't release him for the transfer, James complained of headaches to the team doctor.

Now, honestly, I don't think SMU would really want Adam James regardless of the situation in Lubbock. When he was coming out of high school, a terrible Mustangs team had no interest and sent him one cursory form letter, which royally ticket off his father. But that's the rumor out in Ponyville.

 

He can transfer wherever he wants. There is no reserve clause in college football. If TT does not release him, he's ineligible for athletic financial aid for one year at his new school. After that, he's free and clear.

I suspect the James family has the money to pay for him to go anywhere for one year if TT does not release him.

I can't see TT not releasing him, however, if he decides to transfer.

 

People keep saying this. Is it really true?

Here's where it gets very, very tricky for me: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/sports/ncaafootball/01leach.html?ref=sports

The N.Y. Times got Leach to talk. More important, I think, is they got statements from the trainer.

Frankly, even taking into account that they have Texas Tech's interests also at heart, I'm inclined to believe a medical professional who is bound to the Hippocratic oath over Adam James or his father:

Sure makes it very, very, very hard to believe that James was ever "mistreated," especially enough to cause Texas Tech to fire Leach.

 

There really isn't anything new in there. The physician has always said that James was not endangered by anything Leach did. The team trainer backed the coach? Can't say that shocks me. Seems like Leach has lined up plenty of people to take shots at the kid to try to justify his actions.

Was this an excuse to get rid of the coach? Yeah, I can see that. Did the James family push for it. I think so. Is the kid a pain in the ass? Sure seems like it.

That said, it is fair to call what was done to James a punishment, even if you consider it to be a very mild one. There is no excuse for punishing a kid for having a concussion. None. Ever. The message you send to your team by doing so is a terrible one that encourages reckless and dangerous behavior (hiding concussion symptoms).

And Leach didn't get fired just for what he did to James. He got fired for filing an injunction against his employers. He had been fighting with them for a while and they had enough.

 

Sending the message that a player can be punished for sitting out a practice with a concussion is dangerous. It encourages them to hide concussion symptoms, which is not that hard to do if it is a relatively minor one. And that can lead to much more severe brain injuries. That has been my issue all along, not that Leach endangered James, but he sent all of his players an unhealthy message.

 

But what exactly was the PUNISHMENT? He couldn't do anything football-related, right? So Leach had him just walking around at first. Don't see a problem there, unless that's too much exertion. And then when he showed some attitude, Leach sent him to the "garage," right? Where he hung out for a few hours, away from bright lights, and where he even slept for a while? And this is something the trainer says he recommended for James?

Again, what's the problem with any of this? Where is this supposed "message" being sent from? Where is the "punishment"?

And most of all, where is the "mistreatment"?

Sounds like a lot of people are ignoring all but James' side of the story.

 

I'm not ignoring Leach's side at all. I don't fully buy either side. To me, sending the kid to a dark room and posting somebody to keep him there was a punishment. Even many of Leach's defenders concede as much. Kind of a "get him out of my sight" thing. If it was actual treatment, he should have been in the trainer's room.

Any form of punishment for missing practice due to a concussion is inexcusable. The university has every right to suspend the coach pending an investigation. Leach then forced their hands by filing an injunction.

 

Wish DocTalk was around to weigh in, but ...

Anybody who has been in a trainer's room during a practice or before a game knows they can be some of the loudest, most hectic places in the entire facility. Lots of players moving in and out, getting taped up, taking medicine or hanging around, sometimes wailing/moaning if they're in any pain, all kinds of different smells, etc. Hardly a good place to "treat" someone with concussion symptoms.

A dark room without any distractions or sounds, on the other hand, is one of the BEST places that someone with concussion symptoms can be.

 

Also, according to the NYTimes account, James wasn't sent to a dark room because he had a concussion, but because he wouldn't walk around the field (I assume as the concussion-appropriate version of riding a stationary bike when you can't practice). So yeah, it was a punishment, but for attitude, not injury. If a guy has a separated shoulder and refuses to ride the bike, then I think a coach has a right to discipline him. It's not punishing him for the injury - it's punishing him for not participating in the version of practice he's approved for.

Assuming James was healthy enough to walk around the field, and there's no indications from the doctors or trainers that he wasn't, then Leach has the right to discipline him for not wanting to do so. And while it was a punishment, it was a medically appropriate one. He didn't make him run laps. He told him to take the time he would have spent at practice and spend it in a dark, quiet, isolated environment.

But the school was looking for a reason to fire him, and his reaction to the investigation gave them that. Leach has no one to blame for that but himself.

 

40 percent of the remaining value of the contract. It was worth $12.7 million, minus this year's base and outside income (which he's presumably been paid) and it drops to $10.8 million so the buyout would be roughly $4.32 million -- depending on how much he's already been paid this year. He's in good position to get a good chunk of that. The cost of litigation would be high and it'd be in the university's/state's interest to settle since they're likely to be on the losing end of it.