Adam James escorted off the field by security guards

[TUSooner]

LL = Tar Baby, the more you punches it the stucker you gits. Stop trying to hammer him on every irrlevant disagreement, and you'll live better.

[Leroy Lizard]

Alright, I am dropping this because you have proven basically nothing, as you seem to not understand anything about the sport of football and how to discipline a dumbass lazy 20 yr old.

Evidently, neither does Leach.

[TUSooner]

BY THE WAY--- If you think the affidavits are 180 degrees from the prior statements you have been stupidly listenting to ESPiN in stead of reading the affidavits. They vary only a little in a "Let me just cover my @$$ a bit" way.

[sooneron]

BY THE WAY--- If you think the affidavits are 180 degrees from the prior statements you have been stupidly listenting to ESPiN in stead of reading the affidavits. They vary only a little in a "Let me just cover my @$$ a bit" way.

I read them. Have the pdfs on my desktop. They differ by quite a bit . Maybe not 180, but quite a bit.

quite.
a.
bit.

Thanks Jenni.

[TUSooner]

I read them. Have the pdfs on my desktop. They differ by quite a bit . Maybe not 180, but quite a bit.

quite.
a.
bit.

Thanks Jenni.

Who ya gonna believe? Me or your own two eyes ?!

[sooneron]

Who ya gonna believe? Me or your own two eyes ?!

I'll get back to you on that. I have to ask the wife how to answer that question!:D

[SicEmBaylor]

Why would Briles leave Baylor for Tech now? He used the Tech interest last year to get a raise out of Baylor and is evidently getting somewhere close to market rate. Baylor has a pretty wealthy alumni base and one that thinks .500 is a winning season and an administration that seems less meddlesome.

I also think it is probably easier to recruit to Waco than Lubbock since it is located inside the Texas Triangle and not in another world for most Texans like Lubbock. My wife was from West Texas and knew what Lubbock was when she went there. A friend from Tyler played at Tech in the early 80's, he said he knew nothing about it and if he would have had another comparable offer from somewhere closer he would have taken it.

At most places, you don't want to follow an iconic coach, you want to follow the guy who followed him. I think most of us can agree that for Tech, Leach was an iconic coach there.

Baylor's admin is anything but less meddlesome. In fact, our administration makes Tech's admin look down-right hands off. The big reason why we've had so much trouble in football since joining in the Big XII is because our administration won't stop meddling.

They have literally done everything they possibly can over the last 10 years to stand in the way of progress and success. If there are two choices to be made...one that betters our program and one that does not...our admin, without fail, chooses the one that does not.

[Jacie]

Leroy= NickZep ?????

If that ain't the kiss of death I don't know what is . . .

[MamaMia]

Who ya gonna believe? Me or your own two eyes ?! Wow, thats exactly what my best friends X husband said when she came home early one day. :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

Me or her own 2 boobs eh?

[Leroy Lizard]

If that ain't the kiss of death I don't know what is . . .

They've been making that comparison for years.

[AlbqSooner]

Wow, thats exactly what my best friends X husband said when she came home early one day. :D

Actually, I think the original quote was: Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin eyes.:)

[Crucifax Autumn]

Who ya gonna believe, me or the hooker concealing my weiner?

[Leroy Lizard]

Does she allow you to visit it from time to time?

[King Barry's Back]

The player not doing his part is a separate issue and should be treated separately. There was no reason to drag his dad into the fray.



A Ph.D. in mathematics takes a lot of mental toughness. Don't kid yourself.



Explain how having someone stand in the dark for two hours makes them into a badass. You still haven't explained that.

You can have a good football team without inflicting unusual punishments on the players. I never heard Stoops doing anything like this. To me, this is simply nothing more than a coach mishandling a situation with no tangible benefit in mind. What was he even trying to accomplish?

Part of being professional is knowing why you are doing something when you are doing it. There needs to be a goal in mind, and the actions have to be chosen to reach that goal. I have no idea what Leach was trying to accomplish here, and I don't even know if he knows. To me, having James stand in an electrical closet smacks of vindictiveness born out of frustration. I can understand why Leach did it. But that doesn't make it a good decision.

The coaching community needs to learn from this and discuss the proper ways of treating players. If they drafted their own code of conduct, that would be even better.



Nice jog around the question. What was the goal behind Leach's decision?



That's no excuse for Leach's own arrogance.

And he doesn't run a dictatorship. Dictators might get shot, but they don't get fired.


LL, let me summarize your argument for you (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Basically, the summation of your posts seems to be that you believe many people in this mess are at fault and that nobody really handled themselves in a top-notch manner. Fair enough?

But, you also believe that one of the people guilty of unprofessional behavior was Mike Leach, and that he more or less deserved to be fired for his unprofessional behavior, regardless of the guilt or innocence of other people. Or, at least, if the AD believed Leach was guilty of unprofessional behavior, then Leach doesn't have much complaint about being fired.

Is this a fair characterization? For the moment, let's assume that it is on the money. If so, I think that's a pretty fair position to take.

But then you also state that the fact that Leach has been wildly successful as a football coach shouldn't protect him from being fired, and if Leach thinks so, then Leach is also guilty of arrogance.

Is this also fair?

Here is where I think you wander off base. Let's take a car dealership. Let's say the owner doesn't mind firing folks for their errors, maybe he enjoys making examples of them. Then you take the top performer. Let's say he sells 25% more cars in a typical month than the second place guy. That's a lot of cars, and a lot of money for you.

Now, inevitably, people make mistakes, and as humans, they inevitably behave unprofessionally from time to time. (You do too.)

When this happens with the top performer -- is the owner equally likely to fire his best guy, or does he have to weigh the consequences?

Likewise, the top research professor in a university, with publications down the arm, brings in tens of millions in research grants (and pays for 2/3rds of his department's budget) -- let's say he does something that the Chancellor doesn't like. Do you
give him the hook, or do you maybe think about the consequences to you? (Don't bring in tenure. Tenured folks can be fired for cause as well.)

Or take an outstanding teaching professor. Recognized nationally. Celebrated across campus. Always named most popular and most respected among students. Do you fire him the first time he screws up, or do you give him a second chance based on past results?

Mike Leach IS the most successful football coach in the history of Tx Tech, and even more so, he has given them a national recognition and identity that will evaporate with his departure. They will once again be a nameless football program in the middle of a desert.

You say that Leach is also guilty of arrogance. Of course he is. You don't hire a an executive level decision maker who lacks arrogance, because they lack the self-confidence to make those decisions, all day long, everyday, week-in and week-out.

At the same time, I'd say the AD is MORE GUILTY of arrogance. I think a great AD has to accept that his coaches are the stars, and his job is to hire great coaches, and then enable them to be successful. (THis is clearly the model followed by Mr Castiglione, though i've never heard him express it that way.)

Instead, this AD at Tech wants to be given the credit for their football success. He doesn't realize that he is in a supporting role only. Spike Dykes was a great coach, but let's face it, he's a less threatening personality than is Mike Leach.

This AD wanted to fire Mike Leach, in order to hire Art Briles? Are you kidding me? In the middle of a 12-1 season, when Tech was top-5, this AD wanted to hire a guy that coaches at BAYLOR!?! WTF!?!

That guy is a bad guy. He's a bad guy for his coaches, he's a bad guy for his athletic program, and he's a bad guy for his school.

I don't think deep down there's really that big of a difference between your views and most of the posters here -- but you seem to refuse to recognize that a) maybe Leach deserves a break because he's objectively doing a great job meeting the standards of his position; and b) the AD just doesn't know what he is doing.

[HateTheWhorns]

[QUOTE=King Barry's Back;2806468]Leroy,

What I am about to say is going to sound like a personal attack against you. I don't mean it that way, but it's probably going to sound that way. So my apologies up front.

I don't really know anything about you except what you post, and that you teach school or are a professor, or something like that.

Leroy, I spent a pretty good share of my career among academics, and I'll tell you their biggest collective short coming.

It is this. They live largely in a theoretical world, where they make assumptions and hold some variables constant, and then bravely and unwaveringly state that the world behaves accordingly.


The flaw in everyones arguments is that the dispute between ML and the TT administration dates back to last year's contract negotiations. I have a close family member who is on the TT Board of Regents and the issues with ML go back several years. Drinking problems, insubordination with the TT Administration, you name it. The contract issues last year were only icing on the cake. Yes, they were looking for a way to get rid of ML, but don't even begin to think the issues began last year. The issues have been festering for several years.

[BajaOklahoma]

If I had to live in Lubbock, I'd be drinkin' a lot too.

[Leroy Lizard]

LL, let me summarize your argument for you (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Basically, the summation of your posts seems to be that you believe many people in this mess are at fault and that nobody really handled themselves in a top-notch manner. Fair enough?

But, you also believe that one of the people guilty of unprofessional behavior was Mike Leach, and that he more or less deserved to be fired for his unprofessional behavior, regardless of the guilt or innocence of other people. Or, at least, if the AD believed Leach was guilty of unprofessional behavior, then Leach doesn't have much complaint about being fired.

Is this a fair characterization? For the moment, let's assume that it is on the money. If so, I think that's a pretty fair position to take.

IF the reports on the affidavit are true, then they IMO constitute a fire-able offense. So firing him would be justified.

I don't think I would have fired him on that account alone. But IF he was unwilling to acknowledge his role in the problem and refused to cooperate, that would probably lead me to fire him. My question would be, "Is he working for the university, or working for himself?"

If the Tech administration is correct in what took place, I understand why they fired Leach and think they were justified.


But then you also state that the fact that Leach has been wildly successful as a football coach shouldn't protect him from being fired, and if Leach thinks so, then Leach is also guilty of arrogance.

Is this also fair?

I think being wildly successful certainly makes it easier to justify NOT firing him. I don't think you can ignore a person's success. At the same time, success does not grant one a license to do as they please. If one thinks so, they are arrogant, even if they can get away with a little more than the next guy.


Here is where I think you wander off base. Let's take a car dealership. Let's say the owner doesn't mind firing folks for their errors, maybe he enjoys making examples of them. Then you take the top performer. Let's say he sells 25% more cars in a typical month than the second place guy. That's a lot of cars, and a lot of money for you.

Now, inevitably, people make mistakes, and as humans, they inevitably behave unprofessionally from time to time. (You do too.)

When this happens with the top performer -- is the owner equally likely to fire his best guy, or does he have to weigh the consequences?

Oh, he will weigh the consequences.

But your analogy does differ from the Leach affair in that it isn't the Tech administrator's personal money at stake and they have, as government workers, an obligation to look past the money to a greater extent than a car dealership owner. Frankly speaking, a car dealership owner can excuse murder if he feels it will profit him, and there is little we can say other than not buy from him. But the university is a public organization. They have a duty; the business owner doesn't.

A better analogy would be a salesman (wildly successful) that has a habit of (say) calling up the wives of customers and asking them out. As a manager of the business (not the owner), I confront him and he refuses to stop. He's fired. Sales or no sales, he is insubordinate and only looking after himself. Sooner or later, he is going to bring the company down.


Likewise, the top research professor in a university, with publications down the arm, brings in tens of millions in research grants (and pays for 2/3rds of his department's budget) -- let's say he does something that the Chancellor doesn't like. Do you give him the hook, or do you maybe think about the consequences to you? (Don't bring in tenure. Tenured folks can be fired for cause as well.)

Firing a tenured professor is almost impossible. Believe me, it's really tough.

But the issue here isn't that Leach did something that pissed off the Chancellor. Rather, Leach made a mistake, and refused to cooperate in a manner to protect the university. (This is if you believe the Tech administration. I'm not so sure.)

I think you're forgetting something that is crucial to understand: It is not our concern to look after the finances of Texas Tech, it is the Chancellor's. Why are we in an uproar? It's no skin off our backs if Texas Tech loses out on account of this, but we act as if our own jobs are on the line.

If I'm the Dean and the Chancellor called me up to tell me that my researcher has pissed him off, I would ask him what happened. If it's strictly a personal issue, that's the Chancellor's problem, although I would possibly talk to the researcher and tell him that the Chancellor is a pretty good guy and it's up to us to get along with him.


Or take an outstanding teaching professor. Recognized nationally. Celebrated across campus. Always named most popular and most respected among students. Do you fire him the first time he screws up, or do you give him a second chance based on past results?

Again, I wouldn't have necessarily fired Leach for the electrical closet offense even if the account is accurate. But he has to help me set things back on course. He created the problem; he has to help me solve it. He can't just leave my office holding the bag.



Mike Leach IS the most successful football coach in the history of Tx Tech, and even more so, he has given them a national recognition and identity that will evaporate with his departure. They will once again be a nameless football program in the middle of a desert.

You say that Leach is also guilty of arrogance. Of course he is. You don't hire a an executive level decision maker who lacks arrogance, because they lack the self-confidence to make those decisions, all day long, everyday, week-in and week-out.

You can be confident without being arrogant. I never considered Switzer or Stoops arrogant. Cocky, maybe. But not to the point where they think the rules of decent behavior didn't apply to them. I certainly cannot recall Switzer or Stoops pushing the envelope on how they treat players. Tough? Sure. But even Marcus Dupree was never handed any wild punishments to my knowledge.


At the same time, I'd say the AD is MORE GUILTY of arrogance. I think a great AD has to accept that his coaches are the stars, and his job is to hire great coaches, and then enable them to be successful. (THis is clearly the model followed by Mr Castiglione, though i've never heard him express it that way.)

Instead, this AD at Tech wants to be given the credit for their football success. He doesn't realize that he is in a supporting role only. Spike Dykes was a great coach, but let's face it, he's a less threatening personality than is Mike Leach.

This AD wanted to fire Mike Leach, in order to hire Art Briles? Are you kidding me? In the middle of a 12-1 season, when Tech was top-5, this AD wanted to hire a guy that coaches at BAYLOR!?! WTF!?!

That guy is a bad guy. He's a bad guy for his coaches, he's a bad guy for his athletic program, and he's a bad guy for his school.

I'm not too privy to that situation. What's his side of the story? The AD may have had a deep personal grudge against Leach for any number of reasons. Not an excuse, though, because you have to keep the personal separate from the professional.

Bad guy? Well, I think that he has his reasons for wanting to get rid of Leach, and they may be good or bad. I just don't know what they are.


I don't think deep down there's really that big of a difference between your views and most of the posters here -- but you seem to refuse to recognize that a) maybe Leach deserves a break because he's objectively doing a great job meeting the standards of his position; and b) the AD just doesn't know what he is doing.

The big difference is that people in here jumped immediately on Leach's side because he is well liked here. He is a former OU assistant who has a wacky side that is downright entertaining. I'm a fan myself, but not to the point where I am willing to ignore possible abuses.

Also, people jumped immediately on Craig James because, let's face it, he is not well-liked. However, if what Leach says is true, then I can understand their dislike of him, but Leach's version of things has not been proven. We just took it for gospel because we think Leach, being a great guy, must be telling the truth and Craig, being Satan incarnate, must be lying.

Same thing for Mangino, another former Sooner assistant that is well liked here.

Ron Leavitt was accused of choking a player, and everyone immediately jumped on the player's side in here. Why? Ron Leavitt isn't a former Sooner assistant. How did that story work out?

[soonerhubs]

To summarize. Same ole circle-jerk for this page, and no new information.

[pweitkem]

To summarize. Same ole circle-jerk for this page, and no new information.

No kidding, I had to read a novella to find out that we have some really good speculators and people that type fast on this board.

I don't care if Leach threw the kid in the locker room and broke his collar bone, he wasn't that good anyway. Winning IS everything. I don't care how drunk he gets. If he's insubordinate or arrogant, so what, then avoid him on campus. You think the Board of Regents, Boosters, President of the University were bigger then the King? No way in hell, the King was the most important person in the state. ML made TT relevant. Without him, 99% of the US couldn't tell you where TT was located.

Bring back the '80s and get rid of all these candyasses!

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't care if Leach threw the kid in the locker room and broke his collar bone, he wasn't that good anyway. Winning IS everything.

Nobody that matters will agree with you. Not even the coaches.

[trpltongue]

LL,

Can you briefly provide what you believe happened based on the affidavits? Because in reading your recent posts, it sounds like you and I are reading something entirely different.

From the Affidavidts: (my emphasis added)

"James arrived wearing street clothes, his cap on backwards, and sunglasses and began walking around the field in a very nonchalant way. He was not wearing the standard jersey and cleats or workout gear expected of all players during practice, including injured players."

(note that if you've ever had a concusion, sensitivity to light is a common side effect, one to which james complained of on the following day, which is probably why he was wearing sunglasses, but there is no excuse for not dressing for practice)

"Leach was upset and concerned about James' appearance and attitude. Leach said he did not want him loafing while the players were working. Leach told me to place James in a dark place near the practice field. Leach further said something to the effect that he wanted me to tell James that I was to 'lock his f'ing pssy azz in a place so dark the only way he knows he has a d*** is to reach down and touch it', which I repeated to James."

(so basically, James shows up without properly dressing accourding to team policy, and is slacking and Leach is pissed. Obviously the kid needs to be punished for breaking team policy and Leach see's him wearing sunglasses and basically tells the trainer to get him out of his site and put him some place dark in reference to James wearing sunglasses. Obviously Leach spouts some pretty choice words but nothing atypical for a coach or even a dad to say to a son he is pissed at.)

"Leach further told me to have him stand in the dark during the entire practice. He did not want James on the field, and he did not want James in the training facility. He did not want to see James. He wanted James to be uncomfortable. He did not want him showing poor effort."

(This amounts to Leach telling the trainer to put James in timeout and make sure he stands the whole time, which he would have been doing out in the sun on 'muscle beach' anyway, so that he isn't being a slacker and at least realizes he's being punished for showing up with a bad attitude and dressed against team policy)

"I took James and Jordan (an undergraduante student athletic trainer) to the sports medicine / athletic training shed near the field.....The shed is a portable building ....approximately the size of a single car garage......I told him I would get him out when practice was over, and I shut the door."

(no mention of locking anything. so the kid got put in timeout in a dark garage.)

"When I went to check on James after approximately 30 minutes, Jordan told me he had just checked on James and found him on the floor. Leach had also instructed me to have a student trainer sit outside the shed to make sure he was standing and that he didn not leave. I told Leach where I had placed James, and he was fine with it."

(again, obviously the shed wasn't locked or James would not have needed to have a trainer make sure he didn't leave)

2 days later and James still has concussion symptoms:

"James came to practice but was still not allowed to participate due to his injury. He was dressed in approprate attire. Leach again asked me to place James in the same shed he was in during the last practice.....Zane Perry mentioned using the media interview room. I located James and Jordan and walked to that room.....the student trainer was placed outside the room to check on James and to ensure James was following instructions.....the media room was very dark and cold. Leach was aware of where I placed him and was fine with it."

(okay, next practice James still can't participate and Leach is still pissed so he puts James in timeout again. This time in a media room.)

Next day:

"James no longer had symptoms of a concussion; therefore, we placed him on standard cardio treatment in the training room with the lights dimmed while the team practiced....Other players who have sustained concussions in the past were sometimes placed in the physician's examination room with the lights dimmedk, or in the weight room or athletic training room."

So basically, other athletes had been treated the same way, except for the infamous "shed" which is most likely larger than a physicians exam room.

From the doctor:

"...in spite of the fact that James may not have been harmed by these actions....."

So to summarize:

Kid gets concussion and doesn't show up dressed for practice the next day as he is suppossed to.

Leach reprimands him by isolating him from the team (common practice for coaches).

Because of James' appearance and wearing of sunglasses, Leach decides to put him in a darkened shed, the closest place to the practice field that allows James to be isolated from the team. This could just as easily have been a physicians exam room with the lights darkened, no difference.

Next day's practice is at a different location and James can't participate (is complaining of sensitivity to light) and is still being reprimaned by Leach so he is isolated in a media room that is dark and cold. Again, no big deal.

3rd practice, James is no longer being reprimanded and spends the day doing cardio in a darkened workout room.

So what part of this is the terrible treatment that deserves to have someone fired? If leach had put James in a physican's room (as has been done with other players previously) the first day instead of the shed, would that have been acceptable? Recognize that the "shed" is likely 10 times larger than a physician's office.

Just curious which part of this you find to be a "fireable" offense?

[Jello Biafra]

LL,

Can you briefly provide what you believe happened based on the affidavits? Because in reading your recent posts, it sounds like you and I are reading something entirely different.

From the Affidavidts: (my emphasis added)

"James arrived wearing street clothes, his cap on backwards, and sunglasses and began walking around the field in a very nonchalant way. He was not wearing the standard jersey and cleats or workout gear expected of all players during practice, including injured players."

(note that if you've ever had a concusion, sensitivity to light is a common side effect, one to which james complained of on the following day, which is probably why he was wearing sunglasses, but there is no excuse for not dressing for practice)

"Leach was upset and concerned about James' appearance and attitude. Leach said he did not want him loafing while the players were working. Leach told me to place James in a dark place near the practice field. Leach further said something to the effect that he wanted me to tell James that I was to 'lock his f'ing pssy azz in a place so dark the only way he knows he has a d*** is to reach down and touch it', which I repeated to James."

(so basically, James shows up without properly dressing accourding to team policy, and is slacking and Leach is pissed. Obviously the kid needs to be punished for breaking team policy and Leach see's him wearing sunglasses and basically tells the trainer to get him out of his site and put him some place dark in reference to James wearing sunglasses. Obviously Leach spouts some pretty choice words but nothing atypical for a coach or even a dad to say to a son he is pissed at.)

"Leach further told me to have him stand in the dark during the entire practice. He did not want James on the field, and he did not want James in the training facility. He did not want to see James. He wanted James to be uncomfortable. He did not want him showing poor effort."

(This amounts to Leach telling the trainer to put James in timeout and make sure he stands the whole time, which he would have been doing out in the sun on 'muscle beach' anyway, so that he isn't being a slacker and at least realizes he's being punished for showing up with a bad attitude and dressed against team policy)

"I took James and Jordan (an undergraduante student athletic trainer) to the sports medicine / athletic training shed near the field.....The shed is a portable building ....approximately the size of a single car garage......I told him I would get him out when practice was over, and I shut the door."

(no mention of locking anything. so the kid got put in timeout in a dark garage.)

"When I went to check on James after approximately 30 minutes, Jordan told me he had just checked on James and found him on the floor. Leach had also instructed me to have a student trainer sit outside the shed to make sure he was standing and that he didn not leave. I told Leach where I had placed James, and he was fine with it."

(again, obviously the shed wasn't locked or James would not have needed to have a trainer make sure he didn't leave)

2 days later and James still has concussion symptoms:

"James came to practice but was still not allowed to participate due to his injury. He was dressed in approprate attire. Leach again asked me to place James in the same shed he was in during the last practice.....Zane Perry mentioned using the media interview room. I located James and Jordan and walked to that room.....the student trainer was placed outside the room to check on James and to ensure James was following instructions.....the media room was very dark and cold. Leach was aware of where I placed him and was fine with it."

(okay, next practice James still can't participate and Leach is still pissed so he puts James in timeout again. This time in a media room.)

Next day:

"James no longer had symptoms of a concussion; therefore, we placed him on standard cardio treatment in the training room with the lights dimmed while the team practiced....Other players who have sustained concussions in the past were sometimes placed in the physician's examination room with the lights dimmedk, or in the weight room or athletic training room."

So basically, other athletes had been treated the same way, except for the infamous "shed" which is most likely larger than a physicians exam room.

From the doctor:

"...in spite of the fact that James may not have been harmed by these actions....."

So to summarize:

Kid gets concussion and doesn't show up dressed for practice the next day as he is suppossed to.

Leach reprimands him by isolating him from the team (common practice for coaches).

Because of James' appearance and wearing of sunglasses, Leach decides to put him in a darkened shed, the closest place to the practice field that allows James to be isolated from the team. This could just as easily have been a physicians exam room with the lights darkened, no difference.

Next day's practice is at a different location and James can't participate (is complaining of sensitivity to light) and is still being reprimaned by Leach so he is isolated in a media room that is dark and cold. Again, no big deal.

3rd practice, James is no longer being reprimanded and spends the day doing cardio in a darkened workout room.

So what part of this is the terrible treatment that deserves to have someone fired? If leach had put James in a physican's room (as has been done with other players previously) the first day instead of the shed, would that have been acceptable? Recognize that the "shed" is likely 10 times larger than a physician's office.

Just curious which part of this you find to be a "fireable" offense?



i wonder what these dooshbargs would think of my high school coach...

what a puss...

its simple.
be a team player.
do your job.
if you can't do your job because of injury, still show up AS A TEAM PLAYER and at least act like you are the same as everyone else.


my coach would have ripped his genitals off and beat him with them. prolly anyway.

[trpltongue]

Agreed.

The whole thing just gets completely blown out of proportion by the media reporting "facts" before actually checking them.

If the ticker had read, "Tech player removed from practice for not participating and required to spend practice in dark garage" it would have been missed by almost everyone. However, "Player with consusion (sp?) locked in dark electrical closet" gets a lot more reaction.

[badger]

I am trying to find something cool to link like I have the past few pages here, but RaiderPower has stopped their e-mail campaigns to ESPN and Myers and everyone else and seems to just be talking about who the next coach will be.

It seems that they all want Tuberville, because he'll maintain the offense and bring an "SEC defense."

Holy shizzle, are you for real? Are you for serious? SRSLY?!?! Did you not see Tuberville's offense during his last season at All-barn?!?! He tried a spread and failed miserably! Go ahead and hire Tubs... I'd like to beat Tech every year again.

[sooneron]

Agreed.

The whole thing just gets completely blown out of proportion by the media reporting "facts" before actually checking them.

If the ticker had read, "Tech player removed from practice for not participating and required to spend practice in dark garage" it would have been missed by almost everyone. However, "Craig James' son out with concussion (sp?) locked in dark electrical closet" gets a lot more reaction.

fixed that for you.:texan:

[Jello Biafra]

fixed that for you.:texan:

more importantly, they reported him as being the son of Craig James, ESPN analyst.

[Leroy Lizard]

The whole thing just gets completely blown out of proportion by the media reporting "facts" before actually checking them.

If the ticker had read, "Tech player removed from practice for not participating and required to spend practice in dark garage" it would have been missed by almost everyone. However, "Player with consusion (sp?) locked in dark electrical closet" gets a lot more reaction.

What was the first news piece that came out about this situation? The first thing I read was that Leach had been suspended from coaching in the bowl game.

[Leroy Lizard]

Can you briefly provide what you believe happened based on the affidavits? Because in reading your recent posts, it sounds like you and I are reading something entirely different.

Here is what I think happened. This is just if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the following:

Adam James and Mike Leach have been going around and around for quite awhile. Leach has little respect for his motivation and attitude.

So, Adam gets a note from his doctor saying that he should not be practicing and shows up in casual attire, with a goofy attitude. He's wearing sunglasses, which ticks off Leach. Adam shows the note, saying with a smirk that the doctor said he had to stay out of direct light.

This is where I think Leach makes his mistake. He tells his trainers that if Adam needs to stay out of the light, he will show him what that means. So he directs the trainers to put Adam in a room and make it pitch black. It's not a well thought-out reaction and smacks of vindictiveness.

Adam calls his Dad and tells him what happened. To Adam, being placed in th dark room tells him that Leach is pissed about him wearing sunglasses, which is related to the concussion. Whether Adam is really pissed is hard to say, but his Dad considers the punishment as humiliating and inappropriate. (This IS his son, keep in mind.)

So Craig calls up the AD, which is Craig's mistake. He should have told Adam to file his own complaint and that he would show up in support. The AD is now looking at a possible lawsuit and negative press over this incident, days before a new contract needs to be finalized. So he calls Leach and asks him what happened. Leach probably tells him something close to the truth, that Adam was not placed in the closet on account of the concussion but rather as punishment for being a jerk. The AD looks upon this situation as a humiliating punishment, but nothing that cannot be smoothed over with an apology and a short suspension to show that they take such misdeeds seriously. But Leach refuses, saying he did no wrong and that the AD and Chancellor can stick it up their ***.

At that point, the Chancellor is looking at a potential media blowup with a coach who will do nothing to help the university. Worse, Leach's propensity to play it loose with the talk may only worsen the situation. With a huge contract looming and the prospect of resigning a coach that is going to immerse the university in a long-winding scandal, they feel they have no choice but to fire him. To make it stick, they use the concussion, which is the more serious charge.

The whole situation plays into Tech's hands. Leach is not much of a team player with the administration and gives the impression that he is only in it for himself. When times get tough, they feel that Leach will simply blow out of town and leave them holding the bag. So getting rid of him is a no-brainer. Since Leach installed a well-oiled machine, someone else can come in and keep it running... someone that has some people skills.

[Crucifax Autumn]

rDv6dK7cR7E

[Leroy Lizard]

olevet, collier... your turn.

[badger]

Here (http://nationalsportsreview.com/sports/us/d-wil/2010/01/05/the-mike-leach-affair-lessons-in-the-nature-of-power/) is a fun article. Just a column, but recaps everything nicely.

[StoopTroup]

Here is what I think happened. This is just if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the following:

Adam James and Mike Leach have been going around and around for quite awhile. Leach has little respect for his motivation and attitude.

So, Adam gets a note from his doctor saying that he should not be practicing and shows up in casual attire, with a goofy attitude. He's wearing sunglasses, which ticks off Leach. Adam shows the note, saying with a smirk that the doctor said he had to stay out of direct light.


See Leroid.....this is where many of us would put...."that's where Adam made his first mistake". The rest is just a bunch of BS that should have never happened. Adam's actions ended up hurting the Coach, The Team and the future of +exas +ech football IMO.

You want to continue to put this on Leach and in reality....it's too bad Mike didn't just knock his punk *** head off and give him a concussion. But...of course that would be wrong to do and be worthy of getting fired and also a law suit.

As it stands....Adam is probably done. Leach will get a bunch of money and +ech won't recover until the folks running things over there are also fired.

And just because Adam wanted to play games with his Head Coach.

What a shame.

[StoopTroup]

Here (http://nationalsportsreview.com/sports/us/d-wil/2010/01/05/the-mike-leach-affair-lessons-in-the-nature-of-power/) is a fun article. Just a column, but recaps everything nicely.

Heh. Good Stuff Badj.

This comment made me LOL.....


Thank you for a clear and precise look at the facts. Revenge is sweet. I am day dreaming of the day when Craig James is ran out of Texas, seeing Adam James sucking his thumb wandering the streets begging for a school to accept him, Meyers working at McDonalds and Hance cleaning Coach Leach toliets!

[Jello Biafra]

See Leroid.....this is where many of us would put...."that's where Adam made his first mistake". The rest is just a bunch of BS that should have never happened. Adam's actions ended up hurting the Coach, The Team and the future of +exas +ech football IMO.

You want to continue to put this on Leach and in reality....it's too bad Mike didn't just knock his punk *** head off and give him a concussion. But...of course that would be wrong to do and be worthy of getting fired and also a law suit.

As it stands....Adam is probably done. Leach will get a bunch of money and +ech won't recover until the folks running things over there are also fired.

And just because Adam wanted to play games with his Head Coach.

What a shame.



bingo. my coach (and i suspect many OLD school coaches) would have gone over the wall and choked out a few admins if they were not allowed to handle their players.... i suspect this was a long time (as in, he has needed a good arse whipping since his high school days)coming and i see adams career as a student athlete coming to an abrupt end.

[Leroy Lizard]

See Leroid.....this is where many of us would put...."that's where Adam made his first mistake". The rest is just a bunch of BS that should have never happened. Adam's actions ended up hurting the Coach, The Team and the future of +exas +ech football IMO.

I thought it was pretty clear that I was not excusing Adam's actions.

Certainly Adam's actions were the catalyst for what eventually took place, but if no one around him acts like a responsible adult I'm not sure how much blame he deserves. After all, Leach put him in the room. His dad complained to Tech. Leach (apparently) scuffled with the administration. The administration fired Leach. How much of that can be directly blamed on Adam?


You want to continue to put this on Leach and in reality....it's too bad Mike didn't just knock his punk *** head off and give him a concussion. But...of course that would be wrong to do and be worthy of getting fired and also a law suit.

Leach has been tremendously successful at Tech. He has given the team unprecedented success and helped the school make money. Under those conditions, if Leach doesn't have the people skills to overcome what was apparently a minor incident, then that's on him. With such huge success, how can you not get along with administration unless you have some undesirable personality trait?

Unless I do something truly terrible, no one student is going to get me fired unless I have built a considerable amount of ill will beforehand. And we know that there was already bad blood between Leach and Tech. Is that Adam's fault?


As it stands....Adam is probably done. Leach will get a bunch of money and +ech won't recover until the folks running things over there are also fired.

It remains to be seen. I'm not sure what Adam will do, but I'm not sure he had much of a future anyway. If he is a good student and takes courses that will be marketable, people will hire him. They're not going to care about this incident.

Certainly he doesn't need the athletic scholarship to continue with his coursework, as his dad can easily afford the tuition.

I have no idea what Leach's future looks like.


And just because Adam wanted to play games with his Head Coach.

What a shame.

If not Adam, it was going to be something else. The Tech administration did not want Leach, and Leach needs to rethink the manner in which he works with administrators. As a football coach, a large part of your job is based on public relations. You are a highly visible rep of the university, and you have to perform that job. Some coaches relish it, and they tend to hang around longer than their overall record suggests they should. Some don't, and we know what happens to them.


i suspect this was a long time (as in, he has needed a good arse whipping since his high school days)coming and i see adams career as a student athlete coming to an abrupt end.

If you're the new coach at Tech, you are going to have to bend over backwards to make sure that Adam's playing time is judged fairly. Document EVERYTHING and play it by the rules.

The new coach is not going to make an example out of Adam if he knows what's good for him. Remember, Adam has not broken any laws or university policies. His past behaviors cannot, under any circumstances, be taken into account by the new coach. Adam has to earn the playing time just like everyone else, but he has to start with a blank slate, just like everyone else.

[TUSooner]

This thread needs a silver bullet, or some garlic, or a stake through the heart or something.

[Leroy Lizard]

Or we can ignore it and not bother reading it.

[trpltongue]

LL,

Do you feel that putting James in a darkened 10'x20' room as punishment for violating team rules is out of line? Keep in mind that, per the team doctor, other players with head injuries are kept in a darkened physician's office (maybe 10'x10'?).

If so, would you consider it acceptable to have James go stand in a corner as punishment?

[TUSooner]

Or we can ignore it and not bother reading it.

Where's the fun in that?
Actually, I think I'll do that. Whenever I look in lately, hoping to see something knew, I see the same old regurgitations.

[Leroy Lizard]

Do you feel that putting James in a darkened 10'x20' room as punishment for violating team rules is out of line? Keep in mind that, per the team doctor, other players with head injuries are kept in a darkened physician's office (maybe 10'x10'?).

If so, would you consider it acceptable to have James go stand in a corner as punishment?

The motive for placing Adam in a darkened room is critical. It isn't just what happened, but why.

Was he forced to stand? Why? Was it because the rest of the team has to stand, or was it to punish him?

How dark was the room? Was it unnecessarily dark? Why?

Do you normally put your players in there? If not, why just Adam? If so, was the room made dark out of concern for his health, or was it made dark to form a punishment of irony?

How many days did you do this? When was it going to end? Did you tell Adam how long this punishment was going to last? If not, did you provide him a means of ending the punishment by changing his behavior?

These are the questions that the Tech administration likely asked, and the answers could have gotten Leach off the hook or fired.

Now, if I'm the AD and I want to get rid of him, I ask him right up front: What is our university policy toward staff treatment of athletes in situations where the athlete violates team rules? Gotta' know the rules.

[StoopTroup]

The motive for placing Adam in a darkened room is critical.

Why are you still on this anyway?

I'm not even gonna ask why it's critical either.

Just the fact that he was on the sidelines for the Bowl Game is proof enough that Leach did nothing to harm the kid.

This is all beyond any of our control and what happens from here on out is all that really will drive any more discussions about it.

Seriously....get your head checked.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why are you still on this anyway?

Because somebody asked me.

Pay attention.

[trpltongue]

The motive for placing Adam in a darkened room is critical. It isn't just what happened, but why.

The motivation is quite clear per the trainer's affidavit, as punishment for violating team rules requiring James to be wearing practice gear, not street clothes.


Was he forced to stand? Why? Was it because the rest of the team has to stand, or was it to punish him?

Assume he was forced to stand. He would have been "forced" to stand regardless of where he was. There are no chairs on the practice field.


How dark was the room? Was it unnecessarily dark? Why?

Assume it was as dark as a closed garage. I doubt it was pitch black but have no idea. Is that a problem? Is being in the dark cruel and unusual punishment?


Do you normally put your players in there? If not, why just Adam? If so, was the room made dark out of concern for his health, or was it made dark to form a punishment of irony?

Why does it matter if you usually put players in there? Punishment comes in all sorts of different forms. There is no pre-defined code for punishment. Sure there is typical forms (running, pushups, etc), but coaches often find new ways of punishment based on the situation. Again, why does the reason for the dark room matter? Let's assume it was not for his health, but for punishment.


How many days did you do this? When was it going to end? Did you tell Adam how long this punishment was going to last? If not, did you provide him a means of ending the punishment by changing his behavior?

It's very obvious from the affidavits that his punishment lasted 3 hours in the garage and the following practice in the media room. Why does communicating the duration of his punishment matter? Parents often send their children to their rooms "until I tell you to come out". As to providing a means of ending the punishment; sometimes there is no getting "out" of punishment. You just have to take what is assigned to you and when the coach tells you that it's done, it's done.


These are the questions that the Tech administration likely asked, and the answers could have gotten Leach off the hook or fired.

Which of these questions could have resulted in firing him? We already know the answers to most of these questions based on the affidavidts and none of them IMO, warrant firing.


Now, if I'm the AD and I want to get rid of him, I ask him right up front: What is our university policy toward staff treatment of athletes in situations where the athlete violates team rules? Gotta' know the rules.

Certainly do need to know the rules. And if there's a specified punishment for not showing up to practice in practice gear, he should have used that punishment. Even so, I go back to my original question. Do you feel that being put in a darkened "garage" for a timeout is a punishment worth firing a coach over (assuming there is no rule specificy stating the coach can NOT do such action).

[Leroy Lizard]

The motivation is quite clear per the trainer's affidavit, as punishment for violating team rules requiring James to be wearing practice gear, not street clothes.

Okay, since this is punishment then that means the university code of conduct towards punishing student-athletes applies. I'm not sure what that is at Tech. I found one policy online for the University of Buffalo. Very interesting, as it applies specifically to student athletes:

http://www.ubathletics.buffalo.edu/teaminfo/compliance/handbook/responsibilities.shtml


Policy: The University at Buffalo Division of Athletics supports only those activities which are constructive, educational, inspirational, and that contribute to student-athletes' intellectual and personal development. UB Athletics unequivocally opposes any situation created intentionally to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule. Leach's activities would be hard to justify according to this policy. He could try and claim that he was only trying to help Adam develop emotionally, but no one would buy it.

Prohibited Behaviors: Actions and activities that may be prohibited under The University at Buffalo's Code of Student Conduct and the Division of Athletics Hazing Policy, and may be a violation of New York State law, regardless of the person's intention or willingness to participate, include, but are not limited to, the following:

* Any type of initiation or other activity where there is an expectation of individuals joining a particular team to participate in behavior designed to humiliate, degrade, or abuse them.
* Brutality of any nature, outside the realm of normal practice and competition
1. this includes: whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics (Leach was not accused of this, but I found it interesting), exposure to the elements Leach has done this in the past, but this is not related to Adam
* omitted (along with many other points
* Forcing or requiring calisthenics, such as push-ups, sit-ups, and runs in a situation or setting not related to team training/supervised by the coaches. The key here is training. Forcing students to run the stairs to punish them would likely violate this rule.
* Physical abuse of any kind.
* Subjecting a member to cruel and unusual psychological conditions. The James family is probably suggesting that forcing a player to stand in a completely darkened room for two hours on multiple days violates this condition


Assume he was forced to stand. He would have been "forced" to stand regardless of where he was. There are no chairs on the practice field.

But you didn't answer my question. Was he forced to stand as punishment, or because that was normal routine.

Yes, there are no chairs on the practice field. But there were chairs in the "shed." Why were the chairs removed?


Assume it was as dark as a closed garage. I doubt it was pitch black but have no idea. Is that a problem? Is being in the dark cruel and unusual punishment?

I thought that one of the affidavits swore that Leach mandated that the room be pitch black. If so, Leach is probably in violation of university policy.


Why does it matter if you usually put players in there? Punishment comes in all sorts of different forms. There is no pre-defined code for punishment. Sure there is typical forms (running, pushups, etc), but coaches often find new ways of punishment based on the situation.

Player attitude problems are common. Coaches deal with them all the time. A coach should have a prescribed plan for dealing with those issues.

To me, this is the critical question, that is, whether Adam was treated like any other player that violated team rules or singled out for special punishment.


Again, why does the reason for the dark room matter? Let's assume it was not for his health, but for punishment.

Then it's likely a violation of university policy. To admit that it is punishment is to admit that it is a form of mental discomfort. (Otherwise, it isn't much of a punishment.) The rules I posted above are not Tech's, but I image Tech has a similar policy.


It's very obvious that his punishment lasted 3 hours in the garage and the following practice in the media room. Why does communicating the duration of his punishment matter? Parents often send their children to their rooms "until I tell you to come out".

I'm not talking about the number of hours (although that is an issue as well) but the number of days. I heard two. Did it end because Adam complained?

A coach is not a parent, BTW, not even in surrogate.


As to providing a means of ending the punishment; sometimes there is no getting "out" of punishment. You just have to take what is assigned to you and when the coach tells you that it's done, it's done.

We don't even do that to criminals.

But the reason the duration is important is a concern about being systematic. You don't want punishment to appear as completely capricious.



Which of these questions could have resulted in firing him? We already know the answers to most of these questions based on the affidavidts and none of them IMO, warrant firing.

Well, I don't think anything that happened alone warranted Leach's firing.
However, many of the questions point to possible university policy violations that Leach would have had to cooperate to alleviate. If he refuses, adios.

You have to be a team player. You would think that a coach would know that more than anyone else. But I'm not sure Leach is a team player.

[trpltongue]

Policy: The University at Buffalo Division of Athletics supports only those activities which are constructive, educational, inspirational, and that contribute to student-athletes' intellectual and personal development. UB Athletics unequivocally opposes any situation created intentionally to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule. Leach's activities would be hard to justify according to this policy. He could try and claim that he was only trying to help Adam develop emotionally, but no one would buy it.

In what way was his punishment introducing mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule? You could maybe argue mental discomfort, but again, unless he's afraid of the dark and sleeps with a night light, that's a pretty weak argument.


But you didn't answer my question. Was he forced to stand as punishment, or because that was normal routine.

Yes, there are no chairs on the practice field. But there were chairs in the "shed." Why were the chairs removed?

Assume it was both part of the punishment and normal routine. I.e. he had to stand because no one at practice is allowed to sit down.

I thought that one of the affidavits swore that Leach mandated that the room be pitch black. If so, Leach is probably in violation of university policy.

On the first day he did say something to that effect, but the reality is that he was put in a "garage". Either way, you didn't answer my question. Is being put in a dark garage cruel and unusual punishment?

Player attitude problems are common. Coaches deal with them all the time. A coach should have a prescribed plan for dealing with those issues.

To me, this is the critical question, that is, whether Adam was treated like any other player that violated team rules or singled out for special punishment.

Coaches don't have a prescribed specific way of dealing with those problems. Each one is treated differently. That's just the way it is. My opinion is that James was not singled out. However, by necessity his treatment was unique. As I said, every problem is dealt with differently.

Then it's likely a violation of university policy. To admit that it is punishment is to admit that it is a form of mental discomfort. (Otherwise, it isn't much of a punishment.) The rules I posted above are not Tech's, but I image Tech has a similar policy.

Completely disagree. First, punishment does not need to be in the form of mental discomfort as you imply. Second, I don't believe that sitting in a dark room for 3 hours is mental discomfort.

I'm not talking about the number of hours (although that is an issue as well) but the number of days. I heard two. Did it end because Adam complained?

A coach is not a parent, BTW, not even in surrogate

Apologies for not being clearer. His punishment was clearly outlined as lasting 2 days. I admit that coaches are not parents, but just illustrating typical human behavior that is acceptable.

We don't even do that to criminals.

But the reason the duration is important is a concern about being systematic. You don't want punishment to appear as completely capricious.

Again, I disagree. We often punish student athlets and other human beings for undisclosed periods of time. I've been told to run suicides until my coach gets tired of watching me, and I deserved every one of them.

I have to go, but find this very interesting.

[Leroy Lizard]

In what way was his punishment introducing mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule? You could maybe argue mental discomfort, but again, unless he's afraid of the dark and sleeps with a night light, that's a pretty weak argument.

By inflicting it as a punishment, you are in effect conceding that it constitutes mental discomfort. Otherwise, it isn't really punishment. (See below)


Assume it was both part of the punishment and normal routine. I.e. he had to stand because no one at practice is allowed to sit down.

That would work in his favor. It all comes down to what Leach told the administration.


On the first day he did say something to that effect, but the reality is that he was put in a "garage". Either way, you didn't answer my question. Is being put in a dark garage cruel and unusual punishment?

If Leach told the trainers to make the room pitch black (which he has said), then he intended that to form a part of Adam's punishment. University policy probably says nothing about cruel and unusual, and I'm not sure where that started. (Was it in Leach's contract?) We're not talking about the imprisonment of murderers here.

Did Leach's punishment violate university policy? That depends on how the policy is worded. If mental discomfort is the standard, then Leach's punishment is certainly a violation, by the very definition of punishment.


Coaches don't have a prescribed specific way of dealing with those problems. Each one is treated differently. That's just the way it is. My opinion is that James was not singled out. However, by necessity his treatment was unique. As I said, every problem is dealt with differently.

Then the coaching profession looks unprofessional. If a player grabs a facemask, we don't allow refs to just decide a punishment at their own whim. There is judgment involved, but the actions you take need to be based on standards.

Whenever a profession allows its members to take action on the fly, problems always arise (like players' dads filing complaints). That's why we avoid it.


Completely disagree. First, punishment does not need to be in the form of mental discomfort as you imply.

Well it could be physical discomfort, but I don't think anyone is making that argument. You can punish by depriving someone of something, but I doubt that applies here... so yep, it was mental discomfort.


Second, I don't believe that sitting in a dark room for 3 hours is mental discomfort.

Sitting, or standing? If standing, try it.

Go into a room, turn out all the lights so that the room is pitch black and just stand there. After ten minutes you will feel that you have been in there for an hour. Try two hours of it.

It isn't torture. But if I was forced to do it for two days straight, I would complain.

Apologies
for not being clearer. His punishment was clearly outlined as lasting 2 days. I admit that coaches are not parents, but just illustrating typical human behavior that is acceptable.

It is acceptable from a parent. There are a lot of things parents do to their children that they do not allow other grownups to do. It isn't a good standard to live by.

And time out is mainly for small kids. We typically don't apply such punishments to adults because they're humiliating.


Again, I disagree. We often punish student athlets and other human beings for undisclosed periods of time. I've been told to run suicides until my coach gets tired of watching me, and I deserved every one of them.

What if you had been hurt? In court, they will make much hay out of the fact that your punishment was completely open-ended.

If my suicides are designed to last ten minutes, then I can point out similar policies with other coaches to show that my policy fits within acceptable guidelines. It isn't a perfect defense, but compare that to "I make them run until I feel they're done." How do you defend that?

You claim that he ran for only ten minutes, but the parents claim twenty minutes. With no policy guidelines to protect you, it's their word against yours, and in court they're going to win.

This is the age of liability. You can't just do whatever you feel like doing.

To have a set of standards and abide by them is the mark of professionalism.

Here is Tech's policy on hazing:


Hazing is a fundamental violation of human dignity. It is defined in the
Texas Education Code and the Texas Tech University Student Affairs
Handbook: Code of Student Conduct. Hazing is a broad term
encompassing any action or activity which does not contribute to the
positive development of a person; which inflicts or intends to cause
physical or mental harm or anxieties or sleep deprivation; which may
demean, degrade, or disgrace any person, regardless of location, intent or consent of participants. Hazing can also be defined as any action or
situation which intentionally or unintentionally endangers a student
seeking admission into or affiliation with any student organization.

Coaches violate the hazing prohibition often, my guess. They should know the policy and avoid doing so.

[trpltongue]

By inflicting it as a punishment, you are in effect conceding that it constitutes mental discomfort. Otherwise, it isn't really punishment. (See below)

Leroy, this is a circular argument. You're defining punishment as applying mental discomfort, then arguing that it's against policy to apply mental discomfort. By doing so, you are declaring that punishment is inherintly forbidden by policy which is clearly NOT the case.

Then the coaching profession looks unprofessional. If a player grabs a facemask, we don't allow refs to just decide a punishment at their own whim. There is judgment involved, but the actions you take need to be based on standards.

Whenever a profession allows its members to take action on the fly, problems always arise (like players' dads filing complaints). That's why we avoid it.

you can't be serious right? There is no blanket way to deal with a malcontentious student. Ask any school counselor if every student reacts to treatment the same way. Hell, my brother and I reacted to polar opposites of treatment. I reacted to verbal punishment, whereas my brother reacted to physical punishment.

Sitting, or standing? If standing, try it.

Go into a room, turn out all the lights so that the room is pitch black and just stand there. After ten minutes you will feel that you have been in there for an hour. Try two hours of it.

It isn't torture. But if I was forced to do it for two days straight, I would complain.

I completely disagree here. I've done so much worse than stand in a dark garage during my time working as a college kid that I actually find it kind of humorous that anything is even being made of this. Try tearing down brick walls with a hammer and chisel in the snow for 10 hours a day, 5 days a week. Compared to that, standing in a dark garage for 3 hours 1 day, and in a dark air conditioned media room for 3 hours, 2 days later is a cake walk.

And time out is mainly for small kids. We typically don't apply such punishments to adults because they're humiliating.

Again, this is absolutely false. Ever hear of solitary confinement? Seclusion is one of the most basic forms of behavioral modification. And just to get a bit of a jab in....if an 18-22yr old is acting like a 12yr old, punish him like one :)

What if you had been hurt? In court, they will make much hay out of the fact that your punishment was completely open-ended.

But you are assuming the punishment was open-ended. Just because I didn't know how long it would last doesn't mean that the coach didn't. What difference does it make if I was told to run for 30 minutes, or if I was told to run until my coach said stop and he told me to stop after 30 minutes? The true difference would be if the coach made me run until I was being physically damaged. THAT would be irresponsible.

This is the age of liability. You can't just do whatever you feel like doing.
To have a set of standards and abide by them is the mark of professionalism.

This is the age of litigation. It should be the age of self-liability. Take ownership of your own actions, don't blame someone else when you have to pay the consequences. It sounds every bit of the child who cries for more and more candy until his mother gives it to him, then blames his mother when he has a stomach ache. You can't have it both ways.

Also, the KKK has a set of standards, would you consider them professional? The true mark of professionalism is to have a set of morals that respects ones right to the pursuit of life, and to abide by them.

Finally, much is being made of the fact that if James was such a "cancer" that Leach should have removed him from the team. The reality is that no matter how poorly kids act, the coaches generally have the kid's best interest at heart and do what they can to try to teach the kids to be better people. It takes a serious offense to make a coach do something as terrible as revoking a scholarship. There have been a number of kids who just didnt' "get it" until later in their college careers and it would be a shame if coaches gave up on them prematurely.

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy, this is a circular argument. You're defining punishment as applying mental discomfort, then arguing that it's against policy to apply mental discomfort. By doing so, you are declaring that punishment is inherintly forbidden by policy which is clearly NOT the case.

You used a fallacy.

I never said that punishment constituted mental discomfort; I said that mental discomfort can constitute punishment.

For example, if Leach had told him Adam that he was not going to be allowed to join the team on the bowl trip and would not be allowed to play, that would not constitute mental discomfort, but would constitute punishment.

Leach would have been on much firmer ground if he had done this instead, according to university policy. As coach, he is entitled to choose which players participate in activities and he could apply such punishment to all players in the same manner. After all, participating in the game and joining the team on trips is a privilege.

See the difference?


you can't be serious right? There is no blanket way to deal with a malcontentious student. Ask any school counselor if every student reacts to treatment the same way. Hell, my brother and I reacted to polar opposites of treatment. I reacted to verbal punishment, whereas my brother reacted to physical punishment.

You sit him down for the upcoming game. Regardless of how the player reacts, the punishment is the same for all players and it doesn't violate any university policies.

That is just ONE way. I am sure there are others.

By the way, I'm not saying that a coach should never tailor punishments for individual players, but only that doing so puts them in a liability situation. Do so at your own risk and if it blows up in your face, do what you have to do to make things good.


I completely disagree here. I've done so much worse than stand in a dark garage during my time working as a college kid that I actually find it kind of humorous that anything is even being made of this. Try tearing down brick walls with a hammer and chisel in the snow for 10 hours a day, 5 days a week.

We have all been placed in situations that were more mentally or physically uncomfortable than standing in the dark for two hours. But try it sometime. Now do it two days in a row. Now do it when you have no idea how many days in a row you are going to required to do it.

It's a form of stir crazy, of shorter duration but intensified on account of lacking any form of external stimuli. (Here come the jokes.)

Can't see. Can't hear anything. Can't move around because you can't see. Can't even sit down (although you can probably get away with it). Two straight hours? Not me.

You are forgetting one important fact also: Some people handle these situations better than others. That is why you should avoid unusual punishments. How do you know how the person is going to react?


Again, this is absolutely false. Ever hear of solitary confinement? Seclusion is one of the most basic forms of behavioral modification. And just to get a bit of a jab in....if an 18-22yr old is acting like a 12yr old, punish him like one

Yes, and get sued like an adult.

We apply solitary confinement to PRISONERS. And even then it is considered a serious punishment and highly regulated. Some consider it a form of psychological torture. It can certainly turn some prisoners looney.

(BTW, I am not comparing the punishment of James to solitary confinement.)


But you are assuming the punishment was open-ended. Just because I didn't know how long it would last doesn't mean that the coach didn't. What difference does it make if I was told to run for 30 minutes, or if I was told to run until my coach said stop and he told me to stop after 30 minutes?

Big difference. Suppose you die. In court, they will ask the coach to defend his policy of forced exercise. What policy? There is no policy. He's got nothing.

Suppose one of my students has to write a makeup essay. "How many issues do you want me to cover?" "Oh, just keep writing. I'll tell you when to stop." That policy is crap.


The true difference would be if the coach made me run until I was being physically damaged. THAT would be irresponsible.

Sounds great. While on the stand, I will ask him for his credentials to make such a determination. "I've been coaching for 25 years..." isn't worth much.


This is the age of litigation. It should be the age of self-liability. Take ownership of your own actions, don't blame someone else when you have to pay the consequences. It sounds every bit of the child who cries for more and more candy until his mother gives it to him, then blames his mother when he has a stomach ache. You can't have it both ways.

This is a very poor analogy. Adam didn't ask to be placed in the "shed." And furthermore, what if the child asked for rat poison and you gave it to him? Who's liable then?

Comparing student-athletes to children is just not a good idea.


Also, the KKK has a set of standards, would you consider them professional? The true mark of professionalism is to have a set of morals that respects ones right to the pursuit of life, and to abide by them.

There are other things that go into professionalism than standards. But morals are a form of standards. Right?


Finally, much is being made of the fact that if James was such a "cancer" that Leach should have removed him from the team. The reality is that no matter how poorly kids act, the coaches generally have the kid's best interest at heart and do what they can to try to teach the kids to be better people.

I agree. I just think Leach will have a terrible time convincing anyone that placing Adam in the "shed" was designed as a teaching experience where the coach had his best interests at heart.

To me, he was just lashing out at a player. We all do things like this. It happens. But when called on it, do the things you need to do set it right. I don't think Leach did.

Is Leach a bad guy? I don't think so. He meant no harm I'm sure. But I don't think he handled the aftermath very well by the sounds of it.

[trpltongue]

LL,

It's been fun, but it's time for this discussion to end (at least for me). While I respect your opinions, you continue to neglect to answer my questions and ignore basic principles of reality. I will reiterate for the last time, that blanket punishments do NOT work, and you admit as much by saying:

"By the way, I'm not saying that a coach should never tailor punishments for individual players, but only that doing so puts them in a liability situation. Do so at your own risk and if it blows up in your face, do what you have to do to make things good."

You are in fact contradicting your very argument, that there must be blanket policies in place. You simply cannot morally require blanket punishments and then acknowledge that it's acceptable to deviate from them "at your own risk". If your require blanket punishments than any deviation is immediate grounds for dismissal. You cannot have it both ways. In my moral compass, allowing different forms of punishment is acceptable as long as they are not permanently harming the student physically or emotionally.

Finally, if Leach believes the punishment was fair, then he owes nothing to Adam James. The very act of "apologizing" would be to admit that he has taken wrong action and abandoning his moral fibre. Would you tell a man who was intent on raping your wife that you were "sorry" you shot him before he could? No, because to do so would be to admit you did something wrong, which you clearly did not. Apologizing would be condoning his actions.

Again, it's been entertaining and fascinating, but I must end my participation.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Leroy Lizard]

If your require blanket punishments than any deviation is immediate grounds for dismissal.

Never said it.

Nope. In fact, I said the following in a previous post:


Well, I don't think anything that happened alone warranted Leach's firing. However, many of the questions point to possible university policy violations that Leach would have had to cooperate to alleviate. If he refuses, adios.

Moving on.


Finally, if Leach believes the punishment was fair, then he owes nothing to Adam James.

This is where you are wrong. Whether he owes something to Adam depends on whether he in fact broke university policy, not whether he thinks he did.


The very act of "apologizing" would be to admit that he has taken wrong action and abandoning his moral fibre. Would you tell a man who was intent on raping your wife that you were "sorry" you shot him before he could? No, because to do so would be to admit you did something wrong, which you clearly did not. Apologizing would be condoning his actions.

It would be up to the Tech administration to point out to Leach that he broke university policy. It's in the manual.

It's not up to Leach to decide his own guilt or innocence in these matters once they have brought to the attention of his superiors.

Of course, no one can force him to accept his own guilt. But refusing to acknowledge guilt does not let one off the hook.

This assumes Leach is truly guilty. I'm not saying he is, only that it appears he could have violated policy (which no one in here appears to even accept).


Again, it's been entertaining and fascinating, but I must end my participation.


It's been fun.

[StoopTroup]

Because somebody asked me.

Pay attention.

I'm paying attention. It's you that's missing the flame-baiting. One of the reasons it even continues is how you've tried to talk your way out of a hole. What you probably need to do is quit viewing the thread and put yourself some really dark sunglasses on and go stand on your head in an electrical closet. Take your cell phone in case you get scared and need to call a family member.

[Leroy Lizard]

One of the reasons it even continues is how you've tried to talk your way out of a hole. What you probably need to do is quit viewing the thread...

Since you have no interest in the thread, why don't you bug out of here? You haven't added anything worth a **** the entire time. All you do is follow me around and complain about the same crap.

Stop the fixation. You don't have to respond to every post I make.

[Crucifax Autumn]

But you've got such a purdy mouth!

[StoopTroup]

But you've got such a purdy mouth!

It is perty. You know how to spot em Crux.

Damn that's fine.....lol

http://generationbubble.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/beatty1.jpg