Texas Monthly Backs Leach's Version

D

derrumbe

< 25 Posts
Some measure of confirmation of Leach's side of the story, per the writer from Texas Monthly of their cover story a few months back:



www.texasmonthly.com/2010-01-01/webextra.php

cover.jpg
 
I like Leach and what he has done for Tech. I read the TM article when it came out and as I posted elsewhere, I believe Leach is going to come out on top of this scandal on the plains.
 
The C. James/Hance conspiracy is a little far fetched without further proof. However, Meyers has had a hard on for Leach since last year. He was looking for something, and the James' provided it to him.

Last time I checked, Lubbock is a pit in the middle of no where. Briles is probably the only mentioned coach who could possibly stand the surroundings for any length of time.
 
Myers and Leach would not be at the same school for long. I guess Myers made friends better. When Bobby Knight was hired, Myers (former Tech basketball coach by the way) gave Leach's parking spot to Knight. This infuriated Leach. He even started parking far away to highlight this to Myers (like a kid).

It reminds me a bit of Kentucky in the 1950s. Bear Bryant won the SEC and was given a watch. At the same time, Kentucky gave Rupp a Cadillac. I think Bryant quit immediately and then had to go to A&M.
 
I don't see how it confirms either side of the story. It seems undisputed that the staff thought James was a slacker, that Craig James wanted more PT for his son, and that Leach told James to stand in the dark.

Regardless of the truth of the first two issues, it seems that the question is whether Leach can be fired for sending someone with an alleged concussion to stand in room/shed for two to three hours.

In any other context, I don't think anyone would have a problem with the firing
 
Hance has been a dirtbag politician for a long time. Craig James wants to become one and they apparently were trying to get in on the wind farm business boom together so anything is possible.
 
Do any of you people know how to read? Leach did not get fired for sending the pampered kid to the corner. He himself got sent to the corner. Then he did what any true genius will do when sanctioned by their boss.

He sued the employer. That is what he got fired for.

Considering he has been trying to leave for several years and did nothing to disguise that fact and that he acted like a complete jerk in delaying signing his contract last spring, he must have known what was going to happen when he filed his attempt at a TRO.

Leach is "good copy" in the journalism parlance, but his winning record was not any better than Spike Dykes' and he was getting in screaming matches with his superiors several years ago.

They pay good and have good facilities and the players don't seem to be too upset about his departure.

There is a reason why the boy genius has not been offered good jobs elsewhere.

Good riddance to him and I hope he keeps his sense of humor.
 
That was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it. I hope Leach wins in court since Texas Tech was completely wrong.
 
here's a pretty good summary written by a fellow Techsan on another board...
I saw the document on a PDF from the AJ or something.

It said the same as his contract, basically an acknowledgment to follow University policy. The only variation was the "monitor by GM" which was stricken by Guy Bailey. That strike-through is important because it demonstrates that Bailey and Hance were willing to give on something. To try and work it out.

The matter is one of student treatment and safety, at least broadly. They HAVE to address it somehow. You bring in the employee and "counsel" him about the situation. He acknowledges the counseling took place and to abide by the rules now that he has been refreshed. It's done in a way to not accuse, but state "there has been a concern." Now Admin has addressed the situation. You tell the complainant you have addressed the situation. End of story.

And it probably would have ended just like that, but Leach was too smart by half. His internal lawyer, ego, arrogance or whatever decided to blow up.

Now the Admin is confronted with an employee who is refusing to sign off on a letter to treat his athletes in accordance with school policy. Now this is big deal. A HUGE deal. Potentially, a health and safety issue for students in the future, much less sorry little Adam James.

At this point, you have NO CHOICE but to suspend. The suspension is indefinite till he comes to his senses and acknowledges the policy.

But no, Mike still thinks his law degree means he knows something in the real world. He's going to force the issue in court.

Now your employee is openly defiant and clearly doesn't understand how things work. He's unwilling to do anything but what he wants. This is where all the burned bridges come in. He has no one in power to back him up. Everyone with a lick of sense has been pissed off or pissed on by Mike. AND you have the $800K bonus coming right at you. It would seem pretty foolish to pay the money to someone you may have to fire next week.

Pull the trigger, jettison the baggage. It was destined to happen anyway, just a matter of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top