The double-edged sword of last night's Alamo Bowl for Michigan State fans is the fact the Spartans nearly beat the Texas Tech Red Raiders with a completely depleted line-up. The Mike Leach-less Red Raiders survived 41-31 over Mark Dantonio's team that was sent back to the pre-Dantonio era of thugery that plagued the program. Yet, despite a 10-player suspension for yet another campus brawl, it was Texas Tech that disgusted me most. How can you have such blind allegiance to a coach and be so classless to boo an undergraduate player as the bullseye of warped blame after his head coach shunned him in a shed? The pirate flags and Leach signs in his defense are an embarassment to the state of football and the out of whack priorities in play today.
I commend Rick Morrissey (or was it Rick Telander as credited in the print version?) for taking this joke of a fan base to task but taking it to a higher level under the umbrella notion of never showing weakness. Check out this well-written and thought-provoking article here. It are nights like this that you are so proud to have Fitz on your team and despite the lack of national respect, you've got to be proud of our program. Granted, we're not without our own baggage and all you have to do is ask Fitz about some of his former teammates, namely Dennis Lundy, to see the purple are not impervious to bad actions by a few that tarnish the program. However, when you have a parking lot full of yahoos throwing an alleged "soft" and "entitled" player under the bus to the point of booing him and defaming him with signs, we've got a major problem.
It all somehow combined to make Michigan State likable which is understandable since the guys on the field had nothing to do with the stupid acts of their former and currently suspended teammates. Dantonio should dump them all and start with the clean slate to help make a statement that bad apples have no place in college football regardless of their talent level.
Sorry for the soapbox, but I couldn't resist. You'll notice the 2010 schedule is up in the upper right, but there is one obvious omission as NU has yet to secure a 12th opponent for either of its open dates. I'll be pressing Teddy G. and NU to find out what the status of this game is. As Teddy reported a month ago, Kansas State is said to be in talks to fill the slot.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I like this blog a lot, but you're way off base here.
Leach was really fired because the administration didn't want to pay him the bonus he'd earn in 2 days. They already didn't like him because of his "Yankee agent," and because he's "not a good old boy." Those quotes are from their internal emails, BTW. They used a convenient complaint from a powerful, intrusive dad who wanted to get his son more playing time, which Leach was reluctant to give. ESPN also turned it's guns on Leach because-- surprise!! -- that's where dad works. They even had him comment on the story. This is the main reason why much of the country believes Leach is the bad guy.
Those hardasses discussed in the column you cite-- that's what he wasn't, and that's a large part of why the West Texas oligarchy wanted him out.
Leach, by comparison, is a highly educated man (J.D. from Pepperdine), and his players have the #8 graduation rate in Division I. That's right, Texas Tech is in the top 10 since Leach has been there. He's also a revolutionary thinker in football who has been profiled by Michael (Moneyball) Lewis. Not only that, he's not a pass-along-the abuse-he-received type guy: he never played the game.
Fitz is great, but he couldn't have done more for Texas Tech than Leach has. The fans were right.
I think he was fired for not taking seriously the concussion symptoms of a player, as well as for general all-around douchebaggery.
Alvious--
Well, this is how smear campaigns work, isn't it? Leach is a "douchebag." Really? It would be nice if there were some evidence besides Craig James's smear campaign. You know, the one that began with saying that Adam was sent to an "electrical closet." That wasn't true, of course. And that was able to read Leach's mind when it was reported as news that the purpose was to "humiliate" Adam.
But maybe he's a "douchebag" because of all those recruiting vio... wait, no. Or perhaps he's physically abused... nope. This isn't working out at all, is it? Well, if you can't believe a bunch of Texas Republicans who stand to gain nothin (except money and/or the aggrandizement of their children) who can you believe?
As to taking the concussion symptoms seriously, what would you have him do? Light sensitivity is a primary symptom of concussion.
But I guess we all feel good about ourselves when we have a villain clearly identified by the media, so we can point and say "lookit that guy, wotta douchebag." Hope that works out for you.
That must be it Bill. A whole Texas conspiracy to oust Leach because he was just too darn successful. And of course ESPN was in on it. In fact they all planned it. Give me a break.
I am dumbfounded that the Leach defenders don't realize his firing was not about putting James in a closet/shed/dark room. Humiliating a player with a concussion for not practicing endangers every kid on that team...knowing the next time they will be the one that gets humiliated if they admit to concussion symptoms.
Texas Tech has the right to fire their coach for behavior they believe is beneath the standards of the University. And given Leach's refusal to cooperate with their inquiry, I don't blame them for concluding Leach was a problem.
And LTP had it right; the fans going after James was classless.
Well, I bow to Scott's superior knowledge. Since the stories about what happened that day conflict, there's no way for me to know exactly what happened. But apparently he was there, and was able to infer Leach's intention from the sequence of events, Leach's vocal intonation, etc. And also that Adam James was 'humiliated.' You see, all I have is Adam James's word that he was humiliated.
Not having been there,I have to rely on the facts that have been established:
The desire of the admin to get rid of Leach, starting a year before in the wake of his contract negotiations.
The intense and unethical meddling of Craig James.
The unethical role of ESPN in having the James family's story reported uncritically.
Leach's outstanding record in all things not regarding the son of Craig James.
But I wasn't there, so he obviously knows better.
That's right Bill, you were not there...but you defend Leach blindly none the less.
Perhaps you should trust the judgments of those that were...the Texas Tech administration and athletic department. Oh no, you can't do that, because of your conspiracy theory. That's right, I almost forgot...nobody in Lubbock had anything else to do just before a major bowl game but plot with ESPN how to get there most successful coach in school history fired...all to save $400k.
Let me guess: you think the CIA planned the 9/11 attacks with Bush. You know, it was all a plot to get to invade Iraq for the oil.
Scott--
You obviously have no understanding of what happened. You made a surmise based on the early ESPN reporting and are sticking with it come hell or high water. That's your right. But you seriously when you cite zero evidence for your opinion. I have supported mine, and you have nothing to say in reply to these points. Your statements are the epitome of taking a position "blindly." Have you even read the Tech internal emails? Have you read Leach's contract? Have you watched the interviews with Leach, or the one with Craig James? Do you know who Jim Sowell is? In short, do you know anything about this case? I'm going to venture a guess myself: no to all of the above.
Northwestern must be very proud of the critical thinking it instilled in you.
"you seriously" --> "you aren't going to be taken seriously"
Well I can offer this: NU is more proud of my thinking than Texas Tech is of their former football coach's.
Go back to making your "James is evil" signs Bill.
So my guess was correct. Thanks for the confirmation and have a nice day.
I don't want to get in the middle of this back and forth, but here is what I've noticed:
1. I find it troubling that James' angle gets reported first by ESPN, and gets established as "objective." There's no doubt that ESPN has the bully pulpit and they can force their agenda.
2. Leach is reminiscient of Bobby Knight -- "my way or the highway", yet incredibly effective. I agree that the Admin has the right to fire anyone if they don't uphold the standards of the University -- however, they've had him for 10 years, and have had to put up with his antics. This couldn't have been the first time a player has been humiliated under his watch, so why haven't they acted before? Why re-sign this guy to a big contract if they knew he was going to be trouble?
3. Are the same people campaigning for a B10 championship game and a college playoff the same folks that are concerned about player's health? Given that these students are supposed to be students, yet perform at a near professional level -- something's gotta give, right?
My take-away: in light of the recent incidents of Mangino and Leavitt, it's crucial that we're paying attention to this health and well-being of players in this violent sport, and begin to challenge this "machismo code." However, as an outside observer (I'm still trying to make sense of this whole story) I still can't shake the sense that Leach didn't get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment here.
(Sidenote IMHO: I wish we had stuck with 11 game seasons, and don't care for a playoff to extend the season. My personal opinion that is this is too much wear and tear on these guys.)
Scott,
I'm with Bill, and since I'm assuming that you don't have a dog in this fight, I don't understand why you (and LTP as well, I'm afraid to say) don't try to see all that occurred and form your own independent judgement instead of just believing what the TTech admin says.
Mind you, when I first heard the allegations, I was shocked and thought Leach should be fired, plus I don't think Leach is one of those coaches that cares deeply about his players, however, the more I look in to this, the more this smells like a railroading, and I hate injustice.
The facts have been laid out by Bill, but to reiterate, this is what I have read:
1. The administration did not like Leach and didn't want to pay him what was agreed to in the contract(refer to emails)
2. Leach didn't get pissed off at A James when he was diagnosed with a concussion, but did when he showed up for practice in street clothes and acted in a "nonchalant manner" (this is the description of the trainer who's testimony the administration used to support their case), and Leach wanted to remove A James away from the practice field because he didn't want the other players to see A James acting nonchalantly (is this what Leach told the trainer).
3. Numerous other TTech coaches have stated on record that they think A James is a lazy player who ddidn't have the right attitude before the concussion (mind you, by doing so, they are going against the admin, guys who sign their paychecks, so it's actually not in their interest to back up Leach against James).
All the evidence points to Leach being angry at A James not because he had a concussion but because of his attitude, and the admin waiting for any reason to fire Leach and get out of the contract.
I'm also disturbed that people just assume abuse has been going on under Leach; as Mark May and Lou Holtz pointed out, in this day in age, when even college football practices are covered by numerous media and bloggers, it's hard to hide anything, yet there hasn't been a whiff of negatively associated with the TTech program until now. If other coaches were held to the same standard Leach was, Bobby Bowden would have been fired 2 decades ago, and Lane Kiffen would've lasted a month at Tennessee.
The only reason I can think of for why so many people have bought in to the smear campaign is because of the innate human reflex of deferring to authority that so many of us unfortunately possess.
It's rather scary, in fact, because this is how the Nazi's operated. Hitler said certain groups of people are evil and should be eliminated from society, and since he was their leader, the majority believed him, instead of examining just what was going on.
BTW, I'm no supporter of neanderthal coachal abuse; I think Jim Leavitt should be fired for choking and striking a player in the face. Unfortunately, at both TTech and USF, it looks like there will be miscarriages of justice. If this teaches us anything, it's that most of college football is a sleazy world, where people talk about doing the right thing, but ultimately, the powerful get to do what they want. The powers-that-be get out of paying Leach in a slimy manner, and Leavitt gets to abuse college kids and still keep getting his lucrative paycheck
Richard--
I couldn't agree with you more, including originally having an outraged reaction in the other direction. Leach abusing James fits the narrative of the times-- especially with concussion (rightfully) being so closely examined these days. But it's by weaving together these memes (abusive coach, concussion, etc.) that makes powerful PR machines so effective at playing the public.
Post a Comment