Mandel: why Leach is persona non grata

[MikeWaters]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp

I hate Craig James. What a waste of meat.

Every time Tech loses, I take great joy. Football, basketball, whatever.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp

I hate Craig James. What a waste of meat.

Every time Tech loses, I take great joy. Football, basketball, whatever.

Leach's travails have little to do with the Jameses. Had he managed the situation more effectivly, had he not previously given the TT president and the trustees reason to hate his guts, had he not sued Texas Tech for his $800,000 bonus (lol this may be his most unforgivable act in the eyes of university administrators; for a chance to win a measly $800,000 he's being denied shots at multi-million dollar jobs at the pinnacle of his profession; I wonder what he's going to pay his laweyers, could be more than $800,000; it's pathetic hearing him talking about what the depositions "prove"), he'd be coaching today at a top job.

He's one of those coaches who thought he was bigger than the university. Clearly, he wasn't. Neither was Bob Knight, Rick Majerus, Woody Hayes, Jim Harrick, Pete Carroll, countless other titans who fell hard when their hubris collided with university values.

Next time someone posts how much football means to a school with a several hundred million or a billion dollar total annual budget, remember this. You all got a lesson last summer in the relative importance of fan base and football tradition alongside core university values. Mike Leach has learned a similar lesson about the market value of his W-L record compared to what matters most to universities.

[MikeWaters]

Give me a F-ing break. It didn't have anything to do with university values. It had to do with them feeling slighted by Leach looking at other jobs every off season. I've read the actual communication between those administrative idiots.

They felt like what Leach had accomplished was not particularly significant, not worth very much money, and could be replicated by someone that kissed their ass.

You keep weighing in on things you know nothing about.

They didn't want to give Leach that big extension, but their hand was forced when Tech was having that monster season, beating Texas. The correspondence shows that they immediately started plotting firing Leach.

It has nothing to do with academics, human rights, "higher values." And everything to do with hill-billy trailer trash egos.

The city of Lubbock is a hole. Texas Tech is a terrible academic institution.

The media, now, they love Leach. They live these boring lives of talking to boring people and trying to manufacture excitement. It's so pathetic and transparent. Then along comes someone who is different, doesn't fit the mold, doesn't give a DAMN about coach-speak and what other people think. There are a lot of college football fans who are LEACH fans and will be interested in seeing his team, no matter where he ends up.

I don't give a damn that Utah fired Jabba the Hut. Disgusting man. But look at where their program is now. In the toilet. They will soon be on their third post-Majerus coach. Look at Indiana. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a team from Indiana.

These guys have made millions. None of them "fell." I wish I could fall with millions.

Leach, however, feels like he was slandered. And he takes some pride in his integrity and he's not going to allow those Texas panhandle hill-billies make him out to be a monster. If I was Leach I'd take this all the way and then some. Many Tech fans, to their credit, are absolutely embarrassed by their incompetent administration.

Best thing about all this--Tommy Tuberville has already tried to leave Tech! The very thing that pissed off the admin about Mike Leach. It's funny when I hear sports media guys constantly praising the job that Leach did "at Tech." Just today, "No offence to Tech fans, but that university is a hard place to win at"....i.e. because it is a sh**-hole.

The hubris actually fits on the other foot.

[MikeWaters]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6044702

Court rules that TT has sovereign immunity, and can't be sued for breach of contract even if they did breach it. Which means these contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6044702

Court rules that TT has sovereign immunity, and can't be sued for breach of contract even if they did breach it. Which means these contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.

As a conservative you should very much favor sovereign immunity. The concept is as old as polygamy or prophets.

Nevertheless, you should know that most states aren't as atavistic as Texas. See Washington and the outcome of Neuheisal's claim against UW. This law is very different state to state.

One more reason Leach's course has been self-destructive.

[MikeWaters]

When those poor kids died while constructing the A&M bonfire--A&M claimed sovereign immunity as well.

Parents of students injured or killed in the 1999 collapse filed lawsuits against Texas A&M officials, including President Ray Bowen, Vice President of Student Affairs J. Malon Southerland, the 1999 redpots, and the university.[41] In one of the six lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged that A&M officials violated the Bonfire victims' right of due process by placing those victims in a "state-created danger" by not ensuring Bonfire's structural integrity and by allowing unqualified students to work on the stack.[40] The plaintiffs pointed to a $2 million liability policy the university obtained in 1996 and accidental death and dismemberment insurance policies that the university obtained for student workers as early as 1987 as proof that the administrators knew of the dangers of Bonfire. Texas A&M maintains that the insurance policies were actually purchased by an advisory committee to Bonfire and not the university.[41] On May 21, 2004, Federal Judge Samuel B. Kent dismissed all claims against the Texas A&M officials.[40] In 2005, 36 of the 64 original defendants, including all of the redpots, settled their portion of the case for an estimated $4.25 million, paid by their insurance companies.[42][43] The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the remaining lawsuits against Texas A&M and its officials in April 2007.[44] In October 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the appeals court ruling.[45]

On October 28, 2008, Texas A&M settled the final lawsuit filed by the victims and their families. The university agreed to pay $2.1 million and promised that if Bonfire returned to campus that "engineering oversight" would be provided.[49]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggie_Bonfire

One would think that this should mean that anyone who works at a state institution would never have recourse to sue their employer--yet I hardly think that is the case. I think their is some selective crap going on here.

[Archaea]

I didn't read the link but sovereign immunity immunizing breach of contract is strange. It doesn't extend that far in Nevada, only to tort liability.

You can circumvent that through Monell liability, as set forth in this link.

http://www.johnsonandbell.com/market...tsWinter06.htm

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I didn't read the contract but sovereign immunity immunizing breach of contract is strange. It doesn't extend that far in Nevada, only to tort liability.

You can circumvent that through Monell liability, as set forth in this link.

http://www.johnsonandbell.com/market...tsWinter06.htm

In most places it doesn't extend to most tort liability, subject to certain special procedures. Breach of contract is unheard of, except I guess in Texas.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

In most places it doesn't extend to most tort liability, subject to certain special procedures. Breach of contract is unheard of, except I guess in Texas.

Wow, how does one get liability against state actors in Texas with that sort of immunity?

[MikeWaters]

I saw somewhere on the internet tubes someone saying that businesses and vendors that do business with the state have explicit legal protections, and that isn't covered by sovereign immunity. But employees of the state have no such protections.