Leach sues ESPN

[usaosooner]

Mike Leach sues ESPN, PR firm for slander, libel
Former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach is suing ESPN Inc. and a public relations firm allegedly hired by Craig James for libel and slander.

By BETSY BLANEY Oklahoman Comment on this article 8
Published: November 24, 2010

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — Former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach is suing ESPN Inc. and a public relations firm allegedly hired by Craig James for libel and slander.

The suit filed Wednesday claims the network's coverage of Leach's firing last year was “willful and negligent defamation” and that it failed to “retract false and damaging statements” it made from “misinformation” James provided to ESPN.

The network, based in Bristol, Conn., did not immediately have a comment on the lawsuit filed in Texas district court.

The university fired Leach last Dec. 30, two days after suspending him amid allegations he mistreated James's son, Adam James. Leach has denied the claim.

The suit also names Spaeth Communciations as a defendant, claiming James hired the firm for “purposes of creating public opinion hostile to Leach.”


Read more: http://newsok.com/mike-leach-sues-espn- ... z16EeU1opS

:pop:

[Taxman71]

Good for him. They stood by and let Craig James use their network to roast Leach prior to any due diligence (allegedly). Although this will likely yield a quick settlement, the depo with Craig James and his son would be entertaining.

[Frozen Sooner]

Negligent defamation is a loser out of the box. He's a public figure for purposes of defamation.

Willful defamation might be a winner.

[badger]

Mike Leach is gonna own that network after this lawsuit. And then, he is going to return to coaching and when he does, ESPN will be forced to broadcast his team (in an fair and unbiased way of course). Leach is going to be the one leading Craig James through those stupid conditioning drills on Thursday night football. My hope is that it's something like this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_00KgXXpcj-Q/SwRDO71HuqI/AAAAAAAAAWE/3Vm5-MmQBog/s1600/walk-the-plank.jpg

[soonerchk]

I hope leach owns ESPN when it's all done. That would be so much more interesting than it is now!

[soonerboy_odanorth]

I guess it just goes to prove the old saying...

You can take the pirate out of the law profession, but you can't take the law profession out of the pirate.

[sooned]

Good for him! After everything is over the new name of TT will be Leach Tech University and the new name of ESPN will be the Leach broadcasting system.

[Collier11]

Negligent defamation is a loser out of the box. He's a public figure for purposes of defamation.

Willful defamation might be a winner.

im sure that Leach probably knows this, most likely doing it just to pile on in the publics eye

[badger]

I agree that public figures can be poked fun at in a negligent way - so long as there isn't noticeable damage done.

If Leach's feelers were hurt, that's not damage.

If Leach loses a ball game, that's not damage.

If Leach is bedowngraded from pirate master to swabbie, that's not damage.

If Leach's players turn to their fat little girlfriends, the god squad doesn't relate biblical message to football and everyone's strutting around for nearly beating texas, that's not damage.

Leach lost his job. THAT is damage. And no amount of public figuredom cancels that out in the case of libel/slander, because he is only a public figure because of his job, a job he lost due to their negligent/willful defamation.

Don't you think so, Frozo?

[Okie35]

Craig James is a bitch. That's all.

[AlboSooner]

I doubt he wins.

[85sooners]

getem mike

[soonerbub]

He'll turn it into Pirate TV and show endless loops of Hook and Pirates of the Caribbean

Arrrrrr mateys time to walk the plank

[bmjlr]

Make them walk the plank!

[Frozen Sooner]

I agree that public figures can be poked fun at in a negligent way - so long as there isn't noticeable damage done.

If Leach's feelers were hurt, that's not damage.

If Leach loses a ball game, that's not damage.

If Leach is bedowngraded from pirate master to swabbie, that's not damage.

If Leach's players turn to their fat little girlfriends, the god squad doesn't relate biblical message to football and everyone's strutting around for nearly beating texas, that's not damage.

Leach lost his job. THAT is damage. And no amount of public figuredom cancels that out in the case of libel/slander, because he is only a public figure because of his job, a job he lost due to their negligent/willful defamation.

Don't you think so, Frozo?

It's not what I think. It's what the Supreme Court says. Public figures can't sue for negligent defamation. I generally don't just make things up. :D

"The Constitution guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." New York Times v. Sullivan.

In another case, major college football coaches were held to be public figures for the purpose of that analysis. Bear Bryant and whoever was coaching Georgia at the time, I think.

Reckless is a higher standard than negligent. Therefore, a public figure--including a football coach when the defamation concerns his coaching decisions--cannot recover damages for a negligent defamatory falsehood.

He's also going to have a hard time showing that they met the standard of intentional or reckless, for what that's worth. ESPN had a source for the story. If they thought the story was correct, that's enough to get out from underneath an "intentional" or "reckless" standard.

[cvsooner]

As much as I dislike Craig James, Leach ain't gonna win this one. There might be an out-of-court settlement, but libel is really hard to prove. The information has to have been a) completely false and b) had to have been willfully stated to cause harm. Good luck with that...it was a developing news story, which unfortunately happened to involve James' kid. It's going to be extremely difficult to prove it was completely false and/or that it was stated to cause harm.

[swardboy]

The thingy against the public relations firm is the interesting item to me.

[sooned]

If Craig James wrote a letter, or emailed or phoned the Athletic Director or the President of the University and indicated that Leach should be fired and then goes on TV and rants against Leach, doesn't that go far in meeting the willful, reckless or intentional standard?

[Leroy Lizard]

I agree that public figures can be poked fun at in a negligent way - so long as there isn't noticeable damage done.

If Leach's feelers were hurt, that's not damage.

If Leach loses a ball game, that's not damage.

If Leach is bedowngraded from pirate master to swabbie, that's not damage.

If Leach's players turn to their fat little girlfriends, the god squad doesn't relate biblical message to football and everyone's strutting around for nearly beating texas, that's not damage.

Leach lost his job. THAT is damage. And no amount of public figuredom cancels that out in the case of libel/slander, because he is only a public figure because of his job, a job he lost due to their negligent/willful defamation.

Don't you think so, Frozo?

But did he lose his job on account of ESPN or because of his inability to get along with his superiors?

Leach is not going to damage ESPN on any meaningful level. They can take the negative publicity in stride.

[Leroy Lizard]

He's also going to have a hard time showing that they met the standard of intentional or reckless, for what that's worth. ESPN had a source for the story. If they thought the story was correct, that's enough to get out from underneath an "intentional" or "reckless" standard.

Question: Suppose Adam Leach told his dad stories that were not true. Acting on those stories, Craig lashed out in a manner and demanded a firing.

If Craig was misled by Adam, what is his liability? (Serious question.)


If Craig James wrote a letter, or emailed or phoned the Athletic Director or the President of the University and indicated that Leach should be fired and then goes on TV and rants against Leach, doesn't that go far in meeting the willful, reckless or intentional standard?

The problem is that Craig James did not rant about Leach on tv, at least not by any standard of "rant" that I am aware of.

[Frozen Sooner]

If Craig James wrote a letter, or emailed or phoned the Athletic Director or the President of the University and indicated that Leach should be fired and then goes on TV and rants against Leach, doesn't that go far in meeting the willful, reckless or intentional standard?

In my opinion? No. The standard is that ESPN has to either know that the statements being made are untrue or that they SHOULD know they're untrue. If Craig James represented to ESPN that the statements he was making were true, they're probably not reckless in accepting his word on that unless he has a history of lying on these matters. Since he claimed to get the information directly from a party involved, it doesn't seem particularly reckless. Possibly negligent, if they didn't bother to get a second source--but the First Amendment prevents public officials from recovering for negligent defamation.

But hey, that's just my opinion. That's going to be a finding of fact. Who knows what a jury will decide? As a matter of law, though, Leach doesn't have a claim for negligent defamation.

[Frozen Sooner]

Question: Suppose Adam Leach told his dad stories that were not true. Acting on those stories, Craig lashed out in a manner and demanded a firing.

If Craig was misled by Adam, what is his liability? (Serious question.)


Iffy case. You're going to run into proximate causation problems. At least that's what I think. Would Adam reasonably expect that when he complained to his dad, that his dad would write a letter demanding Leach's firing? Would it be reasonably foreseeable that a single letter demanding that a coach be fired would result in that coach's firing? Would it be reasonably foreseeable that telling a false story to your father who happens to be a TV personality would lead to him reporting the story on-air, leading to the coach's firing without the university investigating?

Again, findings of fact.

[Leroy Lizard]

Iffy case. You're going to run into proximate causation problems. At least that's what I think.

Another question: An angry parent calls a school and demands a firing, which ultimately takes place. If the parent's facts were in error, isn't it the school's responsibility to investigate, and not the parent's?

After all, Tech was under no obligation to fire Leach, Craig or no Craig.

[Frozen Sooner]

Another question: An angry parent calls a school and demands a firing, which ultimately takes place. If the parent's facts were in error, isn't it the school's responsibility to investigate, and not the parent's?

After all, Tech was under no obligation to fire Leach, Craig or no Craig.

That's what I was getting at when I edited my post. It worries me that you had a parallel thought. :D

But yeah, that's wrapped up in the "proximate cause" ball.

Of course, the University can't be sued on a contract, since Texas hasn't waived sovereign immunity for contract claims (I think).

There's a possible tortious interference with contract claim, but those tend to be weak AND doesn't appear to be pleaded.

[Leroy Lizard]

In my opinion? No. The standard is that ESPN has to either know that the statements being made are untrue or that they SHOULD know they're untrue. If Craig James represented to ESPN that the statements he was making were true, they're probably not reckless in accepting his word on that unless he has a history of lying on these matters. Since he claimed to get the information directly from a party involved, it doesn't seem particularly reckless. Possibly negligent, if they didn't bother to get a second source--but the First Amendment prevents public officials from recovering for negligent defamation.

To be honest, I think many in here think Leach has a good case against ESPN because they don't like ESPN. But I just don't see how ESPN is liable here.

Craig James? Maybe.

[Frozen Sooner]

Moreso than the dislike for ESPN, it's like for Mike Leach for whatever reason. I mean, the guy didn't really do us any favors once he left for Lubbock. He did a good job in his one year as OC, and recruited Josh Heupel, but other than being good for a quote he's done zilch for OU in the last decade.

[Collier11]

So Leach is a lawyer, if one of the two lawsuits is surely a loser, why did he file it?

[Leroy Lizard]

Moreso than the dislike for ESPN, it's like for Mike Leach for whatever reason. I mean, the guy didn't really do us any favors once he left for Lubbock. He did a good job in his one year as OC, and recruited Josh Heupel, but other than being good for a quote he's done zilch for OU in the last decade.

Don't forget the dislike for Craig James. It was a factor as well. And the fact that Adam appears to be a whiny rich brat, which people tend to hate, doesn't help.

The love for Leach is a little weird. I admit he does have some appealing mannerisms and he would be a cool neighbor. Solid coach, too. But I also get the feeling that he has real troubles getting along with colleagues and this is largely his own doing. If you act like a jerk, sooner or later you will **** off the wrong person. (And I should know.)

[Leroy Lizard]

So Leach is a lawyer, if one of the two lawsuits is surely a loser, why did he file it?

For the same reason he is not representing himself.

[Collier11]

he beat texas in 08, thats why I love him...and cus he is funny

[Collier11]

For the same reason he is not representing himself.

cus he no longer practices?

[Leroy Lizard]

he beat texas in 08, thats why I love him...and cus he is funny

True, but we don't have to deal with him on a personal level. He may not have been as funny to those who worked with him on a daily basis.

[sooned]

If my memory serves me correctly, ESPN was quite one-sided in their presentation and while "rant" may not be the correct term, Craig James appeared on tv and gave his side of things which was harmful to Leach.

In most professional situations (don't know if this is true of journalism), when a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest exists, you excuse yourself from being professionally involved. Even though Craig James was directly involved in communicating to University officials that Leach should be reprimanded, he did not recuse himself from commenting on ESPN.

I'm sure ESPN and James had legal advice about his comments on TV, but the advice given might not be enough to save ESPN from paying out a lot of money in a settlement. ESPN probably doesn't want this to go to a jury.

[Leroy Lizard]

cus he no longer practices?

Even if he did he wouldn't represent himself. Froze, tell Collier about the wisdom of representing oneself in a court of law.

[Frozen Sooner]

So Leach is a lawyer, if one of the two lawsuits is surely a loser, why did he file it?

Doesn't hurt to, and there's always the chance that opposing counsel screws up and forgets to respond to that particular allegation in his answer.

Also, as a tactical thing, it might help with the jury to be able to say that the negligence claim was dismissed on a "technicality" (as people seem to consider Constitutional rules these days) and get them more sympathetic to a claim of actual malice.

[Collier11]

Even if he did he wouldn't represent himself. Froze, tell Collier about the wisdom of representing oneself in a court of law.

I was being a smart azz

[badger]

Why I love Mike Leach:
http://ou.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2008/12/07/big12BIS.jpg
This would have not been possible without Mike Leach. Mike Leach, we love you.

[Frozen Sooner]

cus he no longer practices?

If he no longer has a bar card, he's not a lawyer. ;) He just went to law school.


Even if he did he wouldn't represent himself. Froze, tell Collier about the wisdom of representing oneself in a court of law.

Fool for a client, etc etc.

Though if you want to see a counter-example, listen to Michael Newdow representing himself in front of the Supreme Court some time. It's on Oyez.com I think. Guy's never been a practicing attorney (though he does have a JD) and gives one of the best oral arguments ever. Like so good that people engaged in appellate advocacy recommend that others wanting to sharpen their skills listen to it. He lost the case, but not on the merits. But yeah, that's a BIG exception.

[Frozen Sooner]

Why I love Mike Leach:
http://ou.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2008/12/07/big12BIS.jpg
This would have not been possible without Mike Leach. Mike Leach, we love you.

Also wouldn't have been possible without Brent Venables, but I don't see a lot of love for him around here either.

[badger]

As for Craig James, he is known for two things - being part of the reason for SMU's death penalty, and being the last white running back to rush for 1,000 yards in the NFL.

What great things to have your name tied to [/sarcasm]

[Leroy Lizard]

If my memory serves me correctly, ESPN was quite one-sided in their presentation and while "rant" may not be the correct term, Craig James appeared on tv and gave his side of things which was harmful to Leach.

In most professional situations (don't know if this is true of journalism), when a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest exists, you excuse yourself from being professionally involved. Even though Craig James was directly involved in communicating to University officials that Leach should be reprimanded, he did not recuse himself from commenting on ESPN.

But Craig James' interest in the case was obvious. No one truly expected Craig James to present an argument sympathetic to Leach.

As for recusing himself, Craig was not involved in any decision-making here. He simply told his side of the story, to which he is entitled.


I'm sure ESPN and James had legal advice about his comments on TV, but the advice given might not be enough to save ESPN from paying out a lot of money in a settlement. ESPN probably doesn't want this to go to a jury.

They'll probably throw some chump change at Leach with a gag order attached.

[Leroy Lizard]

As for Craig James, he is known for two things - being part of the reason for SMU's death penalty, and being the last white running back to rush for 1,000 yards in the NFL.

What great things to have your name tied to [/sarcasm]

Not sure how sarcasm works here.

You have a short memory. He was one of the best players in the game at both the college and pro level. I mean, give me a break.

[badger]

You have a short memory. He was one of the best players in the game at both the college and pro level. I mean, give me a break.

One of the best... one of the best of what, exactly? One of the ten best? No. One of the 50 best? Not even close. One of the 100 best? Closer. One of the 500 best? Ok, sure. Craig James was one of the 500 best players in the game at both the college and pro level. Happy?

[sooned]

If "chump change" is several hundred thousand dollars, I agree.

[Leroy Lizard]

One of the best... one of the best of what, exactly? One of the ten best? No. One of the 50 best? Not even close. One of the 100 best? Closer. One of the 500 best? Ok, sure. Craig James was one of the 500 best players in the game at both the college and pro level. Happy?

Wasn't he Offensive Player of the Year in the NFL?

[badger]

Wasn't he Offensive Player of the Year in the NFL?

Something tells me that you pulled the most impressive thing off his Wikipedia page you could find and spouted it here... so, I will counter you with another Wikipedia page right here to tell you that you are wrong.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Offensive_Player_of_the_Y ear_Award)

[Leroy Lizard]

Something tells me that you pulled the most impressive thing off his Wikipedia page you could find and spouted it here... so, I will counter you with another Wikipedia page right here to tell you that you are wrong.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Offensive_Player_of_the_Y ear_Award)

Hmmm....


With the Patriots, he was named Offensive Player of the Year by the Vince Lombardi Committee in 1985 and started in both the 1985 Pro Bowl and Super Bowl XX.

Obviously he was no journeyman. Pro Bowlers and Offensive Players of the Year rarely are.

And Craig James comments for NCAA football, so his college experience is more relevant to the discussion. No one can reasonably argue that he wasn't a great college player.

[badger]

I can see that we are going to disagree on this and I will readily admit that as the one that got Leach fired I am never going to be a fan of Craig James or say anything in support of him, so I'll just close by saying that at least 80 players were named to the 1985 Pro Bowl, so to be named to one Pro Bowl is not something that I would consider a prerequisite to being named "one of the greatest ever." Perhaps if he was in either the college or pro hall of fame you might be able to claim that, but he isn't, and likely will never be a college hall of famer due to his off-field actions at SMU.

Again, he was not offensive player of the year. I gave you a link to the official list already. Just because a random committee (even one named after Vince Lombardi) names it doesn't make it so. Bammer might claim any championship anyone issues, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.

As for his college expertise - marred by both his SMU death penalty ties and his involvement in Mike Leach getting let go at Tech due to the treatment of his son. I'll never take the guy seriously again after he whined about his family still being the victim after Leach was fired. Boo hoo.

So, that's all I have to say about that. Happy Thanksgiving, Leroy. Thanks for playing.

[sendbaht]

So I'm thinking Leach won't be an ESPN color analyst anytime soon?

[ouduckhunter]

My only question is, what took him so long to file against ESpin? Go get em Mike!! Regardless of whether he wins or loses, I hope that he makes Craig James look like the biggest idiot in sports broadcasting!

[47straight]

It's enough to get the litigation going until Craig James can get made a bitch during a deposition. And that's really the little gem of justice.

[soonerchk]

I agree that public figures can be poked fun at in a negligent way - so long as there isn't noticeable damage done.

If Leach's feelers were hurt, that's not damage.

If Leach loses a ball game, that's not damage.

If Leach is bedowngraded from pirate master to swabbie, that's not damage.

If Leach's players turn to their fat little girlfriends, the god squad doesn't relate biblical message to football and everyone's strutting around for nearly beating texas, that's not damage.

Leach lost his job. THAT is damage. And no amount of public figuredom cancels that out in the case of libel/slander, because he is only a public figure because of his job, a job he lost due to their negligent/willful defamation.

Don't you think so, Frozo?

More reminders of why college football needs Mike Leach.

[oumartin]

it's nice being surrounded by a bunch of Legal experts on this board. :rolleyes:

[Frozen Sooner]

it's nice being surrounded by a bunch of Legal experts on this board. :rolleyes:

You've been invited to leave several times in the past. If you don't like it, you should.

[SoonerLB]

It's enough to get the litigation going until Craig James can get made a bitch during a deposition. And that's really the little gem of justice.

And what Craig James did in the past has no bearing, this is about his actions in defense of his whiney little biotch of an offspring and the disipline he both deserved and should have taken like a man instead of crying to daddy and the media.

Good luck Mike, win or lose, but at least tell the rest of the story that ESPN wouldn't!

[A Sooner in Texas]

If my memory serves me correctly, ESPN was quite one-sided in their presentation and while "rant" may not be the correct term, Craig James appeared on tv and gave his side of things which was harmful to Leach.

In most professional situations (don't know if this is true of journalism), when a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest exists, you excuse yourself from being professionally involved.

It is absolutely true in journalism that you excuse yourself from being professionally involved when there's a potential conflict of interest. That's why the situation with James reporting on this seems so egregious...and why ESPN should never have allowed him to do so. The network lost any appearance of impartiality (not that it's ever had that, anyway) when James was allowed to report on Leach's alleged abuse of his son.

[A Sooner in Texas]

You've been invited to leave several times in the past. If you don't like it, you should.

I really like how judiciously you said that. ;)

[soonerbub]

In the end honestly Leach fired Leach. The bottom line is he was wrong in handling the situation as he did (making the kid sit in a shed really?)

He fought the law (TT admin + the Jameses) and the law won
That said he is perfect for the Buffs if they want him

[SoonerRick46]

There is no doubt in my mind that what James did was unprofessional and ESPN knew this and let him get away with it. ESPN has never cared about what is professional or what is right. All they have ever cared about is increasing their viewing audience with controversy.

As a retired trial attorney (yes another one on the board) Frozen Sooner is correct. As a matter of law (based on precedent), Leach can't win on that count of his petition. In fact, if I'm the attorney for ESPN/James, my first move is to make a motion for summary judgment on that count of the petition as a matter of law to keep this from the jury. Jury's only decide questions of fact, not questions of law. And the last thing any judge wants is to be overturned on appeal, so I would not be surprised to see a judge grant such a motion.

I also agree that he's going to have a very difficult time prevailing on slander charges. But as Frozen says, you never know what a jury is going to do.

I also agree that you're not going to "hurt" ESPN financially, but Leach may be doing this "as a matter of principle" or to change public opinion of him and this incident as further leverage for a future Head Coaching gig.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

im sure that Leach probably knows this, most likely doing it just to pile on in the publics eye

Yeah, but ESPiN may just settle and throw some money Leach's way so he can continue his lawsuit against TT.

Anybody know if Adam James is playing or has played this year?

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, but ESPiN may just settle and throw some money Leach's way so he can continue his lawsuit against TT.


I don't think Leach has a lawsuit against Texas Tech. Someone who practices in Texas mentioned back in December that Texas has not waived sovereign immunity in breach of contract actions, so they wouldn't be amenable to suit in either state or federal court.

[badger]

If you're really curious, here' (http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2010-11-24/leach-tech-formalize-agreement-exempting-individuals-lawsuit)s the latest.

It almost sounds like he dropped some guys from one lawsuit to be able to start a new lawsuit :)

[Frozen Sooner]

The university’s lawyers have claimed the state’s sovereign immunity laws exempt Tech from the suit as a state entity.

Like I was sayin'...:D

[Collier11]

Ive been hearing that would be their argument but apparently Leach and his lawyers see a hole in that any clue what I think im talking about? :D

[olevetonahill]

My only question is, what took him so long to file against ESpin? Go get em Mike!! Regardless of whether he wins or loses, I hope that he makes Craig James look like the biggest idiot in sports broadcasting!

Hasn't Craig James already done this ?;)

[STUpendOUs]

Hasn't Craig James already done this ?;)
to death...

[Frozen Sooner]

Ive been hearing that would be their argument but apparently Leach and his lawyers see a hole in that any clue what I think im talking about? :D

Since the last opinion by the Texas Supreme Court to squarely hold that Texas hasn't waived sovereign immunity in contract suits, Texas has enacted a statute that broadly waives sovereign immunity in certain cases. It's waived in tort suits now, but apparently there's a question as to whether it's waived in contract suits. That's the only way I see that the trial court didn't just dismiss out of hand.

There's some statutory authority that Texas has waived sovereign immunity to certain contract claims against local government agencies, but case law establishes that state universities aren't local government agencies.

Dunno. I'd like to see the judge's ruling on the SI issue. Anyone have access to Texas legal filings?

[olevetonahill]

Mike , I gots a question
I know you were in Banking for a long time and yer in yer 2nd year of Law Skool .
Now My ? Have you allways been a follower of the Law? Ya know keeping up with this statute or that one . Or have you learned most if not all of what you know during yer 3 semesters of Law Skool ?
( not being a smartass, just really curious.)

[Collier11]

See, I knew I had heard something but I wouldnt have a clue how to explain it...plus, I knew you would have an idea :D

[Frozen Sooner]

One of my parents is a lawyer. Another is a guardian ad litem. Dinner table talk focused on the law a lot. I got a lot of practical application of some types of law in banking and insurance. I'm also considered a "law nerd" in school: I do a lot of reading and research that's outside the requirements for class because something in class either sparks my interest or didn't make sense as explained. If I can do some bragging, it seems to have worked pretty well: I graded on to law review and have multiple job offers for next summer. (Sorry.)

Most of what I discussed in this thread is stuff I learned in law school. The stuff about defamation is basic Constitutional Law curriculum. With the Texas stuff, I just happen to be studying sovereign immunity for a class I have a final in next week, so the basic principles are already near the front of my mind. Cursory research on what the specific laws are in Texas is easy with an unlimited Westlaw account.

[olevetonahill]

I knew there was some background there ;) Thanks.
You have ready access to the answers and you have a family history of the questions being axed
Good Jorb Bro

[Frozen Sooner]

Thanks Howard. I know I come on a little strong with the legal stuff sometimes (or all the time.) This is one of the ways I make sure that what I'm studying gets fixed in my mind. That's one of the things I love about SF. Where else on the internet am I going to get practice discussing sovereign immunity? Or First Amendment limits on defamation claims?

[Collier11]

One of my parents is a lawyer. Another is a guardian ad litem. Dinner table talk focused on the law a lot. I got a lot of practical application of some types of law in banking and insurance. I'm also considered a "law nerd" in school: I do a lot of reading and research that's outside the requirements for class because something in class either sparks my interest or didn't make sense as explained. If I can do some bragging, it seems to have worked pretty well: I graded on to law review and have multiple job offers for next summer. (Sorry.)

Most of what I discussed in this thread is stuff I learned in law school. The stuff about defamation is basic Constitutional Law curriculum. With the Texas stuff, I just happen to be studying sovereign immunity for a class I have a final in next week, so the basic principles are already near the front of my mind. Cursory research on what the specific laws are in Texas is easy with an unlimited Westlaw account.

Yea man, thats impressive. I have a college degree and my step-sis makes me look like the black sheep of the fam. She got her undergrad and Law degree done in 6 years, aced her Bar, and now works for the dept of labor in DC. :(

[Frozen Sooner]

Nice! Sounds like she's doing some good things: it ain't easy getting a federal lawyerin' job, at least not in the bigger departments.

Doing undergrad and law school in 6 years is damn impressive. I'm taking a bit more...leisurely...pace. I could probably graduate next Fall, but I'd rather take 12-14 hours a semester (which is just about killing me as it is) than 16-18 like I'd need to.

[Collier11]

She has always been very career focused, hell, it took me 6 years to get my undergrad degree. Not cus I was getting bad grades but cus I was having too much fun and couldnt decide what I wanted to do.

The only problem with my step-sis, and its a legitimate problem is that she did undergrad at osu, law school at OU, but is an osu fan...bleht

[Frozen Sooner]

I run into that a lot here. TSDTR doesn't have a law school, so a bunch of Boogs are running around the law school. Even worse, they got student tickets to the Iron Bowl.

[Collier11]

bucking the system...posers.

[olevetonahill]

I werent bitchin Bro , I just knew there was a Backstory here that hadnt been told, cause I hadnt heard it ;)
Plus it amasses me how you have the time to do the Board stuff and keep up with yer skool
I to made the mistake of doing 18 hrs my 1st semester in College, then dropped to 16 from then on.
shat was cuttin into my Beer drankin time :D

[Collier11]

Hell, I went out drinking most nights in college, skipped as many classes as allowable, and barely did 12 hours a semester :D

[olevetonahill]

Hell, I went out drinking most nights in college, skipped as many classes as allowable, and barely did 12 hours a semester :D

Yea well I was married and werked a 40 hr swing shift job so I had to really budget MY time :P

[MamaMia]

Good. Even if he doesn't win the case, ESPN and James deserve the aggravation. What ever happened to that son of his?

[Frozen Sooner]

I werent bitchin Bro , I just knew there was a Backstory here that hadnt been told, cause I hadnt heard it ;)
Plus it amasses me how you have the time to do the Board stuff and keep up with yer skool
I to made the mistake of doing 18 hrs my 1st semester in College, then dropped to 16 from then on.
shat was cuttin into my Beer drankin time :D

I was more just making a general apology to anyone who's bothered by the legal wrangling.

The Board doesn't take a ton of time away from studying (except for tonight: I have 130 pages to read before bed, and I've only done about five of 'em in the last two hours) because I normally take a few minutes off every hour. You may notice I take several week breaks, too: that's when ****'s gotten hectic with school.

In undergrad I rarely took more than 12 hours a semester. :D I'm taking 14 right now and it's damn near killing me. On the bright side, I have 6 "banked" hours from this summer and will have 6 banked from ALR, so my last semester I might just go ahead and take like one class, use the banked hours to stay full-time, and study my *** off for the July Bar.

Oh, yeah: also, I found a woman who'd put up with me this semester, which is also taking a bunch of time.

[olevetonahill]

Good. Even if he doesn't win the case, ESPN and James deserve the aggravation. What ever happened to that son of his?

He's a delivery driver fer Lowes :D
http://www.youdumbidiot.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/trunk-idiot.jpg

[OUstud]

In most professional situations (don't know if this is true of journalism), when a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest exists, you excuse yourself from being professionally involved. Even though Craig James was directly involved in communicating to University officials that Leach should be reprimanded, he did not recuse himself from commenting on ESPN.

It would be one thing to refrain from commenting about it on ESPN, or during another game he was calling, but he called the Tech bowl game. That, to me, was very unprofessional of Craig to call that game, and unprofessional of ESPN to allow him to call it.

[Collier11]

It is quite clear for a while now that ESPN is pretty arrogant about their place in sports

[prrriiide]

It's really this simple: he who has the gold makes the rules.

ESPN is owned by The Mouse. Very few corporations have deeper pockets than The Mouse. In one month The Mouse makes more than the annual GDP of some nations. The Mouse can give Exxon a run for their money. One trip to Orlando should show you just how much money we're talking about. When The Mouse wakes up and sits on the terlet he craps bundles of money. His lawyers are the best at what they do. Leach and his legal team will go blind on paperwork before a judge even knows a suit has been filed. By the time its all over with, Leach will be paying The Mouse's lawyers for all of the time they spent ginning up that paperwork.

Leach vs. The Mouse is like USAO vs. the Lakers.

[Collier11]

incorrect

[prrriiide]

He simply told
his side of the story, to which he is entitled.

Was Leach afforded the same entitlement by ESPN to the same extent as James? IIRC, he was not. To me, that's Leach's only hope: to show that giving James the bully pulpit and denying it to Leach was what allowed the libel to occur in the first place. By not taking steps to counter a POSSIBLE libel situation, ESPN is equally responsible for the libel.

But I'm not a lawyer, I just stayed at Holiday Inn last night.

[Frozen Sooner]

Hm. That does bring up a good point. Leach is represented by Ted Liggett of the Liggett Law Group, P.C.. While I'm sure they're a great firm, it's a two-man office. They're going to have a hard time keeping up with the mountain of **** that Bingham McCutchen can shovel at them while defending Disney.

[Frozen Sooner]

Was Leach afforded the same entitlement by ESPN to the same extent as James? IIRC, he was not. To me, that's Leach's only hope: to show that giving James the bully pulpit and denying it to Leach was what allowed the libel to occur in the first place. By not taking steps to counter a POSSIBLE libel situation, ESPN is equally responsible for the libel.

But I'm not a lawyer, I just stayed at Holiday Inn last night.

They have no obligation to allow him to rebut accusations. If Mike Leach wanted to rebut the accusations, he was more than welcome to buy his own cable network (or just go on others, which he did).

I mean, c'mon guys. If the standards some people (and this isn't directed at you, prrriiide) are putting out there were actually applied in this country, Fox News and MSNBC would be out of business tomorrow. One of the things you give up when you thrust yourself into the public eye is the expectation that people won't say mean **** about you, and that they have to meticulously check those things out before they say them.

[Leroy Lizard]

I can see that we are going to disagree on this and I will readily admit that as the one that got Leach fired I am never going to be a fan of Craig James or say anything in support of him, so I'll just close by saying that at least 80 players were named to the 1985 Pro Bowl, so to be named to one Pro Bowl is not something that I would consider a prerequisite to being named "one of the greatest ever."

Nice misquote. I said he was one of the best in the game. At the time he was playing, he was considered top notch. Again, you don't get named Offensive Player of the Year if you're mediocre.

I realize you don't like him, but why try to discredit him? He was hired by ESPN primarily because of his stature as a player. He was a big name at the time. Were you even following football at the time?


Perhaps if he was in either the college or pro hall of fame you might be able to claim that, but he isn't, and likely will never be a college hall of famer due to his off-field actions at SMU.

Billy Sims isn't even in the pro hall of fame.


Again, he was not offensive player of the year. I gave you a link to the official list already. Just because a random committee (even one named after Vince Lombardi) names it doesn't make it so.

The Vince Lombardi Committee isn't going to name a player the Offensive Player of the Year without some basis for it. Obviously he must have done something that year to warrant it.


As for his college expertise - marred by both his SMU death penalty ties and his involvement in Mike Leach getting let go at Tech due to the treatment of his son.

I know of no ties to SMU's death penalty. I have asked for evidence of his involvement many times in here and no one has ever offered anything but innuendo. Not to say he didn't benefit, who knows? But didn't Billy Sims?

[Leroy Lizard]

Was Leach afforded the same entitlement by ESPN to the same extent as James? IIRC, he was not.

Back up. I'm not so sure. He may well have been and advised by his lawyer not to do so.


To me, that's Leach's only hope: to show that giving James the bully pulpit and denying it to Leach was what allowed the libel to occur in the first place. By not taking steps to counter a POSSIBLE libel situation, ESPN is equally responsible for the libel.

Good luck with that one.

[Leroy Lizard]

Hm. That does bring up a good point. Leach is represented by Ted Liggett of the Liggett Law Group, P.C.. While I'm sure they're a great firm, it's a two-man office. They're going to have a hard time keeping up with the mountain of **** that Bingham McCutchen can shovel at them while defending Disney.

Does it seem to you that Leach is just trying to find someone, anyone, he can sue?

[Frozen Sooner]

Does it seem to you that Leach is just trying to find someone, anyone, he can sue?

Well, yeah. When you have an injury, you sue anyone you can and hope it sticks against someone.

In all honestly, I kind of feel badly for Leach about the sovereign immunity thing. I think Texas Tech probably breached, and on the whole I think sovereign immunity is incompatible with the philosophy underlying our system of government. The Founders didn't agree with me on that one, though.

[usaosooner]

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q140/Akillarian/Random/deer-corn.gif

[Leroy Lizard]

In the end honestly Leach fired Leach.

The crux of the problem.

How does a coach come into Lubbock and be as successful as Leach, and still have a hard time getting along with the administration? Stoops sure doesn't have this problem. Mack doesn't have it.

If I was an athletic director, I'm not certain I would hire him. He can coach, no doubt. And I think on a personal level he is a good guy. But on a professional level, I don't need anyone alienating members of the administration or pissing off potential donors.

He's like the Leroy Lizard of the coaching world.

[texaspokieokie]

he's not that bad.;)

[delhalew]

The crux of the problem.

How does a coach come into Lubbock and be as successful as Leach, and still have a hard time getting along with the administration? Stoops sure doesn't have this problem. Mack doesn't have it.

If I was an athletic director, I'm not certain I would hire him. He can coach, no doubt. And I think on a personal level he is a good guy. But on a professional level, I don't need anyone alienating members of the administration or pissing off potential donors.

He's like the Leroy Lizard of the coaching world.

He got along fine with the previous administrations. You need to consider the possibility that you know not of what you speak.

[jkjsooner]

In my opinion? No. The standard is that ESPN has to either know that the statements being made are untrue or that they SHOULD know they're untrue. If Craig James represented to ESPN that the statements he was making were true, they're probably not reckless in accepting his word.

What if James knew the statements weren't entirely true but he did not share this with ESPN? Isn't Craig James a representative of ESPN and acting on ESPN's behalf? How would that play?

[jkjsooner]

Moreso than the dislike for ESPN, it's like for Mike Leach for whatever reason. I mean, the guy didn't really do us any favors once he left for Lubbock. He did a good job in his one year as OC, and recruited Josh Heupel, but other than being good for a quote he's done zilch for OU in the last decade.

Considering we spent a decade trying to open up our offense and it was mostly a failure outside of a few Gundy years I'd say he did a lot for our program.

[Frozen Sooner]

What if James knew the statements weren't entirely true but he did not share this with ESPN? Isn't Craig James a representative of ESPN and acting on ESPN's behalf? How would that play?

There might be a claim for vicarious liability on the "willfull" side, but you're still going to have to prove what James knew or should have known and an appellate court is likely going to be pretty concerned about the chilling effect on protected speech if a trial court allows vicarious liability on those facts. That being said, I don't know what the law on vicarious liability for defamation is in Texas.

Quick Westlaw: There's been a couple of cases involving vicarious liability for defamation in Texas, but neither involved a public official. I did find one case involving defamation of a public figure by someone on TV, but the judge who was defamed didn't sue the station.

[jkjsooner]

I don't think Leach has a lawsuit against Texas Tech. Someone who practices in Texas mentioned back in December that Texas has not waived sovereign immunity in breach of contract actions, so they wouldn't be amenable to suit in either state or federal court.

Can you put this in layman's terms? Does this mean that in Texas a contract with a state institution is not worth the paper it's written on?

I'd sure think twice about doing business with the state if that's the case.

[Frozen Sooner]

Sure. Sovereign immunity is the doctrine that a sovereign, whether a state or the federal government, can't be sued without its consent. The justifications range from it being inherent in the nature of a sovereign to be immune from suit to it being a violation of separation of powers for the judiciary to order the state to pay out money when only the legislature has taxing and spending power.

I think you'd be surprised at how many states refuse to waive SI in broad categories. For example, Alabama doesn't waive it at all. You fall down the steps at Bryant-Denny, you better hope you can find a private citizen who pushed you.

This doesn't apply to a lot of suits in the civil rights context. The U.S. Congress has a very limited ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity in that context.

[hvhurricane]

ESPN will not have to pay Leach anything.

[Leroy Lizard]

He got along fine with the previous administrations. .

Do we know that as a fact are you just presuming that?

[delhalew]

Do we know that as a fact are you just presuming that?

It was not an unbiased source. I've heard a great deal about this straight from the mouth of Leach. The idea is that one particular admin was embarassed during the last contract negotiation, and decided to find a way to avoid paying out. Leach speaks very highly of everyone be ever worked with at Tech, with only a couple of bad apples being the exception.

[Leroy Lizard]

It was not an unbiased source. I've heard a great deal about this straight from the mouth of Leach.

:rolleyes:

BTW, Gerald Myers has been the AD at Tech throughout Leach's tenure. And Leach's problems with Myers dates back to 2002, not long after Leach was hired.

[badger]

If nobody's mentioned it, Craig James was removed from the Tech bowl after Leach got fired. He was originally scheduled to call it, but was taken off. So, credit ESPN for doing something right

[soonerchk]

If nobody's mentioned it, Craig James was removed from the Tech bowl after Leach got fired. He was originally scheduled to call it, but was taken off. So, credit ESPN for doing something right

Didn't they interview him at halftime? I know the announcers talked about it the whole friggin game.:rolleyes:

[PalmBeachSooner]

Leach lost his job. THAT is damage. And no amount of public figuredom cancels that out in the case of libel/slander, because he is only a public figure because of his job, a job he lost due to their negligent/willful defamation.

Don't you think so, Frozo?

Even if Leach were to prove willful defamation it will be hard to prove that was the reason he was fired. I don't see this going anywhere.

[flyou11]

Glad he sued!! Hope he wins too. ESPN really was a joke to listen to during that time.

[Leroy Lizard]

Didn't they interview him at halftime? I know the announcers talked about it the whole friggin game.:rolleyes:

Yes, but since he didn't call the game there was no conflict of interest. The only time he spoke was to specifically present his views on the subject, to which he is entitled.

[delhalew]

All I am wondering is what scumbag I can start a thread on knowing Leroy will champion his cause. Maybe if a start a thread on cancer, you can tell us all how cancer gets such a bad rap.

[Leroy Lizard]

All I am wondering is what scumbag I can start a thread on knowing Leroy will champion his cause. Maybe if a start a thread on cancer, you can tell us all how cancer gets such a bad rap.

You're just burnt because you posted something stupid and I called you on it. Gerald Myers is Leach's direct superior and has been a fixture at Tech for decades. You would have hard time finding someone who bleeds Red Raider more than Myers.

How is it possible that a coach can come to Lubbock where success has been fleeting, create a tremendous program that competes for conference titles and is even ranked #1 at one time, and still **** off Myers?!?! Does it even make you wonder? At all?

The problem is that you're not looking for a discussion; you're looking for a lynch mob. Sorry for not playing along.

[fwsooner22]

All of you who are saying "he won't win" ...."doubt he wins"....my bet is it's not about that but forcing more information out on the table. See here's the thing Leach is smarter than they are. They work at ESPN get paid a ton of money to giggle. Did you listen to them in the booth last night. They frickin' giggle at each other. What the heck kind of a broadcast was that.

Maybe he won't win but he's not cuttin' and runnin' which is what Mr. James would do. By the way hasn't he put on quite a few.

[Leroy Lizard]

All of you who are saying "he won't win" ...."doubt he wins"....my bet is it's not about that but forcing more information out on the table. See here's the thing Leach is smarter than they are. They work at ESPN get paid a ton of money to giggle. Did you listen to them in the booth last night. They frickin' giggle at each other. What the heck kind of a broadcast was that.

Somehow this giggling is relevant, but I'm not sure how.

[SpankyNek]

There might be a claim for vicarious liability on the "willfull" side, but you're still going to have to prove what James knew or should have known and an appellate court is likely going to be pretty concerned about the chilling effect on protected speech if a trial court allows vicarious liability on those facts. That being said, I don't know what the law on vicarious liability for defamation is in Texas.

Quick Westlaw: There's been a couple of cases involving vicarious liability for defamation in Texas, but neither involved a public official. I did find one case involving defamation of a public figure by someone on TV, but the judge who was defamed didn't sue the station.

Sorry to bump this thread 2 weeks later, but I missed out on this discussion.

If ESPN had been provided with statements refuting the story of Craig James, don't they have an obligation as "journalists" to report it?

Point being, it looks like Craig and Adam hired a PR firm that posted the infamous "electrical closet" video on youtube. Since the firm was hired by the James' for the purpose of doing this, one would have to find them at fault, as we all know, Adam was instructed not to enter the closet.

Fast forward to Craig James stating that his son was "locked" in said closet as punishment (untrue)...are we to believe that Adam simply lied to his dad, or that his dad (The guy that paid the PR firm to leak the vid) was trying to damage the coach?

If Leach and Co. at any point can prove that they had informed ESPN that the accusations were false, and they made no effort to investigate, aren't they liable?

When Leach was finally interviewed he provided several sworn affidavits that solidified his position, at what point does ESPN have to value statements under oath over the word of a biased employee/

[Leroy Lizard]

Sorry to bump this thread 2 weeks later, but I missed out on this discussion.

If ESPN had been provided with statements refuting the story of Craig James, don't they have an obligation as "journalists" to report it?

Ethically? Perhaps. Legally? I think it's largely a non-issue as pertaining to Leach's lawsuit with ESPN.


Point being, it looks like Craig and Adam hired a PR firm that posted the infamous "electrical closet" video on youtube. Since the firm was hired by the James' for the purpose of doing this, one would have to find them at fault, as we all know, Adam was instructed not to enter the closet.

Fast forward to Craig James stating that his son was "locked" in said closet as punishment (untrue)...are we to believe that Adam simply lied to his dad, or that his dad (The guy that paid the PR firm to leak the vid) was trying to damage the coach?

If Leach and Co. at any point can prove that they had informed ESPN that the accusations were false, and they made no effort to investigate, aren't they liable?

When Leach was finally interviewed he provided several sworn affidavits that solidified his position, at what point does ESPN have to value statements under oath over the word of a biased employee/

I am not sure what sworn affidavits you are referring. The ones I saw from the trainers tend to back Adam James, if anything.

BTW, you are casting the facts in a very pro-Leach light. As far as ESPN is concerned, it knows that Leach was fired and that the treatment of Adam James was the catalyst for the firing. So to say that this is just built up on the word of Craig James is ridiculous. As far as we know, Craig James' involvement in the case extends to nothing more than being a concerned (and possibly pushy) parent.

There had better be far more to it than this if Leach hopes to win. Frankly, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that Leach is out of luck. I don't think his case against Tech will go very far and I think his case against ESPN is hopeless.

I doubt Leach wants this to go to court, because there will be boundless stories about his coaching manner that won't look good for potential employers, especially with his interactions with superiors. (Who wants to hire trouble?) Most likely he is just trying to get a settlement.

[SpankyNek]

Ethically? Perhaps. Legally? I think it's largely a non-issue as pertaining to Leach's lawsuit with ESPN.



I am not sure what sworn affidavits you are referring. The ones I saw from the trainers tend to back Adam James, if anything.

BTW, you are casting the facts in a very pro-Leach light. As far as ESPN is concerned, it knows that Leach was fired and that the treatment of Adam James was the catalyst for the firing. So to say that this is just built up on the word of Craig James is ridiculous. As far as we know, Craig James' involvement in the case extends to nothing more than being a concerned (and possibly pushy) parent.

There had better be far more to it than this if Leach hopes to win. Frankly, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that Leach is out of luck. I don't think his case against Tech will go very far and I think his case against ESPN is hopeless.

I doubt Leach wants this to go to court, because there will be boundless stories about his coaching manner that won't look good for potential employers, especially with his interactions with superiors. (Who wants to hire trouble?) Most likely he is just trying to get a settlement.

It probably comes across that way because I do like Mike Leach (esp. his radio show) but I will admit that I know very little about the law as it pertains to this case.

The main points I was attempting to make:
1)ESPN ran with the story, but the only legal evidence that has come out stated from the medical personnel in charge of the situation was that it was not harmful to Adam in any way.

2)The only persons that stated Adam was locked in the closet were the James' and their PR firm. Those statements were lies. This would have to indicate that his role was more than "pushy parent."

Merely for the purpose of example:
Remember the fake story that came out about Landry being a cocaine dealer?

If that story had been originated by an ESPN personality that had it in(as evidenced by phone messages, etc) for Landry and ESPN ran with the story even though they had not checked with all parties involved to substantiate the allegations, would ESPN be at fault ?

One last item...the Adam James incident was not the catalyst for the Leach firing, which was in the works as early as a year prior, according to emails seized in a FOI request.

[Leroy Lizard]

It probably comes across that way because I do like Mike Leach (esp. his radio show) but I will admit that I know very little about the law as it pertains to this case.

The main points I was attempting to make:
1)ESPN ran with the story, but the only legal evidence that has come out stated from the medical personnel in charge of the situation was that it was not harmful to Adam in any way.

I fail to see how that is even relevant to the case. IMO, this is largely a straw man. Did anyone suggest that Adam was physically harmed by being placed in the electrical shed?

The accusation against Leach was that he sentenced Adam to a humiliating punishment and that, in so doing, he dismissed the importance of concussions. Not saying this is true, but that seems to be what got Leach in trouble -- unprofessional behavior. (If true, I side with Tech on this issue -- Leach had no business acting the way he did.)


2)The only persons that stated Adam was locked in the closet were the James' and their PR firm. Those statements were lies. This would have to indicate that his role was more than "pushy parent."

Did Craig James state that Adam was actually locked in the closet? And if he did, was he basing this on something Adam said to him?

If my son tells me that a coach mistreated him in some way, I tend to believe him. I would expect that Craig James would feel the same way about his son.

And was Craig James' use of the word "locked" simply a matter of loose language? Is the distinction even important?



Merely for the purpose of example:
Remember the fake story that came out about Landry being a cocaine dealer?

If that story had been originated by an ESPN personality that had it in(as evidenced by phone messages, etc) for Landry and ESPN ran with the story even though they had not checked with all parties involved to substantiate the allegations, would ESPN be at fault ?

But this Leach story did not originate with Craig James! That's a big difference. Craig may have called Tech and complained about the coach's treatment of his son (which I think is irresponsible on his part but he is certainly entitled to do it), and then Tech and Leach got into it, with the result that Leach was fired. This is about Tech and Leach -- ESPN simply followed the story (although in a possibly biased way).


One last item...the Adam James incident was not the catalyst for the Leach firing, which was in the works as early as a year prior, according to emails seized in a FOI request.

Then Leach has no complaint with ESPN. You pretty much just admitted it. How can ESPN be at fault for Leach's firing if Tech had already a plan hatched to can him? And if Tech really wanted Leach out of there, what did Leach do to engender such ill will with his employer? Is that ESPN's fault?

[Leroy Lizard]

BTW, I think Leach is a great coach and probably a cool guy on a personal level, but I wouldn't hire him to coach at my school. He is a loose cannon that has acted unprofessionally and appears to have trouble getting along with administration.

[delhalew]

BTW, I think Leach is a great coach and probably a cool guy on a personal level, but I wouldn't hire him to coach at my school. He is a loose cannon that has acted unprofessionally and appears to have trouble getting along with administration.

Again you know ****. Useless.

[Leroy Lizard]

Again you know ****. Useless.

:P

(The dude is suing his former employer. That has "don't mess" written all over it. You can get trouble for free; why pay for it?)

[Sooner_Tuf]

I think most people would sue if they were dikked out of a million dollars and had been defamed in the manner Leach has been.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think most people would sue if they were dikked out of a million dollars and had been defamed in the manner Leach has been.

No doubt. But at the same time, it gives potential employers the willies -- "are we next?" "How hard is this guy to get along with, and is he going to threaten lawsuit at every turn?" That has to be a factor.

The information that came out about Leach's handling of the Adam James situation would concern me as a university administrator. First and foremost is Leach's claim that he threatened to disclose Craig James' voice mails to the team if Adam didn't get his dad to quit calling him. Under no circumstances do you ever threaten a student, especially since it wasn't Adam making the calls, but his dad.

Does he handle all situations like this?

According to Leach, Craig James threatened to use his position at ESPN against Tech if his son didn't receive more playing time. If true, did Leach report this to the university, especially the AD? From what I can tell, no. I cannot conceive of any situation where an employer would keep such a threat to the organization from his superiors.

I dunno. It just seems that Leach tries to operate in a vacuum.

[thesnowbishop]

Leroy, did you read any of the regent emails in the midst of the tech debacle? The only suck of a vacuum came from a few of the best West Texas clowns.

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy, did you read any of the regent emails in the midst of the tech debacle? The only suck of a vacuum came from a few of the best West Texas clowns.

I've noted their inept decision-making in the past. That doesn't do Leach much good in the eyes of a potential employer. They're not contemplating hiring the chancellor to coach football.

Here is what I'm thinking: "Why are they trying to get rid of him? Are we going to have the same problems?"

Fans look at hiring decisions from a fan perspective. If you look at it from a university administrator perspective, things change.

[3DSooner]

I'm not a student of Business management, but, I am pretty sure that this is not a great career move!
Maybe he could hook up with the somali pirates and get a foreman's job!

Just sayin!

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not a student of Business management, but, I am pretty sure that this is not a great career move!
Maybe he could hook up with the somali pirates and get a foreman's job!

Just sayin!

Yeah, the problem with suing ESPN is it becomes so high-profile. If you are going to sue a former employer, you need to keep it under wraps as much as possible. Unfortunately, everyone knows about this one.

And if you hire him and he causes problems, you have no one to blame but yourself.

[delhalew]

Yeah, the problem with suing ESPN is it becomes so high-profile. If you are going to sue a former employer, you need to keep it under wraps as much as possible. Unfortunately, everyone knows about this one.

And if you hire him and he causes problems, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Why would you want a person who can take a toilet program to bowl games every year, all the while competing with the likes of Oklahoma and Texas? Especially a person who never even had the NCAA sniffing at his door, and consistently led his conference in graduation rates.

If said person also has the pride and integrity to refuse to bend over for good ole boy Texas politicos or the WWL...run away!!!

Every time you post on this subject...nevermind...forgot who I was talking to for a minute.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why would you want a person who can take a toilet program to bowl games every year, all the while competing with the likes of Oklahoma and Texas? Especially a person who never even had the NCAA sniffing at his door, and consistently led his conference in graduation rates.

Those are the obvious things working in his favor. Without them, no one would want him at all.


If said person also has the pride and integrity to refuse to bend over for good ole boy Texas politicos or the WWL...run away!!!

What are you talking about?


Every time you post on this subject...nevermind...forgot who I was talking to for a minute.

No need to take it to the personal level, unless you happened to be related to Leach.

[Sooner_Tuf]

I've noted their inept decision-making in the past. That doesn't do Leach much good in the eyes of a potential employer. They're not contemplating hiring the chancellor to coach football.

Here is what I'm thinking: "Why are they trying to get rid of him? Are we going to have the same problems?"

Fans look at hiring decisions from a fan perspective. If you look at it from a university administrator perspective, things change.

I think from the internal correspondence that has been disclosed it is clear that they didn't want to pay his 800K bonus that was due in a matter of hours from the time they fired him. There was correspondence to this earlier in the year when they signed the contract. That they would keep him through the year and replace him at the end of the season.

Sure lawsuits concern people but valid ones shouldn't be an issue to most. I wouldn't think twice about something like this when a guy is suing for performance on a contract. You should of course be concerned if you don't plan on keeping your word.

Leach is the one that was mistreated here. Nance and the gang didn't like him because they don't think a coach is worth that kind of money. Which in of itself is fine and dandy but don't commit yourself to a dollar figure you don't plan on paying in a contract. They thought Leach was holding them up a bit because he didn't sign his contract until the middle of the off season when they had demanded he do so months earlier.

You can't demand someone sign a contract when they don't agree to the terms. Well you can but it will not be defensible in court. Leach may or may not have a case on the defamation but he does have an open and shut case on his compensation. Texas Tech is in the wrong and they have to know they are going to lose and just delaying the inevitable.

The defamation will be harder to prove damages on. It is pretty clear he was defamed some of the involved parties hired a PR Firm to do so. But those parties have been released of personal responsibility, but the University has not been.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Leach will eventually get his pay and Tech will look evener dumber than they do know.

The other side of your argument is if you are big name coach would you want to work for Tech knowing how they treated someone in the past. How you might have to wait to get paid and actually do so in a public forum.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think from the internal correspondence that has been disclosed it is clear that they didn't want to pay his 800K bonus that was due in a matter of hours from the time they fired him. There was correspondence to this earlier in the year when they signed the contract. That they would keep him through the year and replace him at the end of the season.

But why would they want to replace such a successful coach? Why was there so much bad blood between Leach and the administration?

I don't think this was simply a matter of Tech being cheap. They wanted Leach out, which is odd for a coach that had done so well. Myers and Leach have been going around and around since the time Leach stepped on campus, and Myers is a rah-rah Raider supporter.

As I said before, if a coach comes in and takes a mediocre program like Tech to new heights, he should be the most loved person on campus. Administrators love looking good, and having hired a man that brought in success certainly makes them look good. So what happened?

Certainly you don't see Stoops fighting with Castiglione and Boren. Mack Brown gets along wonderfully with his administration.

My feeling is that Leach is tough to deal with on a professional level. Does another administrator want that problem? Maybe, if the school needs to win badly enough. But I think a lot of schools will pass.


Sure lawsuits concern people but valid ones shouldn't be an issue to most. I wouldn't think twice about something like this when a guy is suing for performance on a contract. You should of course be concerned if you don't plan on keeping your word.

I agree, but a lot of us are looking at the lawsuit from a very pro-Leach standpoint. (Certainly you are.) To many us, Leach can do no wrong and the Tech administration are akin to Satan's minions. But does the president of Miami or Florida think like you? Remember, the Tech administrators (the ones being sued) are those university presidents' colleagues.




Texas Tech is in the wrong and they have to know they are going to lose and just delaying the inevitable.

Not so sure about that. If I had to bet on the outcome, I'm not sure where I would put my money.


The defamation will be harder to prove damages on.

I think Leach made a mistake in suing ESPN and James. I really don't think he has a case, especially against ESPN. But I don't have all the facts.


The other side of your argument is if you are big name coach would you want to work for Tech knowing how they treated someone in the past. How you might have to wait to get paid and actually do so in a public forum.

You have a good point here. Tech is not coming out of this unscathed either.