Tell me about Texas Tech

[Uncle Nate 2097]

2 hours ago, Dirk X West said:

Tim DeRuyter expected to become new defensive coordinator at Texas Tech

https://footballscoop.com/news/tim-deruyter-expected-to-become-new-defensive-coordinator-at-texas-tech?fbclid=IwAR3yRyO_QcTAt_Ff67q1L3tnk56AFj46wWJfZVXtW3PoawTe_XNfX0E_8Ao

Arrgh, sorry man...I posted on the coaching carousel thread before I saw you posted this here.  My bad.

I am excited about this hire.  I think the bend-until-you-break defenses we've employed have been the worst pairing to the style of offenses we have used.  I am looking forward to seeing an aggressive defense compliment our offense for a change.

[LTtxfan 48952]

 

[Steel Shank 9409]

[/url]  

What would y’all think if I started going by Steel Shank Kitty?

[Vertigo 20265]

3 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

 

Wasn't Yates rumored for the good guys? Was this part of the Ewers trade?

[Gidnik 3251]

The pirate 😂😂😂

 

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/mississippi-state-football/mike-leach-calls-out-texas-tech-for-owing-him-money-quips-school-should-deliver-check-at-liberty-bowl/?fbclid=IwAR2kcbpDy8gVU_6cVLkVMKOHvNBC8z424evblN238JeEC3WHUcpvdANTKWg

[ButtFumble 5158]

12 hours ago, Gidnik said:

The pirate 😂😂😂

 

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/mississippi-state-football/mike-leach-calls-out-texas-tech-for-owing-him-money-quips-school-should-deliver-check-at-liberty-bowl/?fbclid=IwAR2kcbpDy8gVU_6cVLkVMKOHvNBC8z424evblN238JeEC3WHUcpvdANTKWg

the dumb thing about all of this is Texas Tech has a check for him, but he is too stupid to take it from them because he falsely believes he is owed more money for the bonus......but of course the reason he missed out on qualifying for that bonus is 100% on him and his fat little attorneys

I think this will be a tough game for Tech to win, but I think their players will be much more motivated by all of this than the MSU players will be and the fact that Tech has not been to a bowl game in quite a while and for MSU this is just another season of unmet expectations

mike is 8-8 in bowl games and generally fucks off the more meaningful ones and generally when he starts talking about stupid shit like "muh money" or players opting out of bowl games he fucks off the next game his team plays and they get their ass handed to them so that works in favor of Tech

[Guest]

1. Tech players DGAF about the Mike Leach deal.  They were 8-9 years old when it all went down.

2.  Don't ever stop hating Mike Leach.  It is high comedy.  You misremember a shit-ton.  Always have.  "Leach missed out on that bonus because he forced Tech to suspend him for not copping to false claims of player abuse"   High comedy indeed.

[ButtFumble 5158]

9 minutes ago, slorch said:

1. Tech players DGAF about the Mike Leach deal.  They were 8-9 years old when it all went down.

2.  Don't ever stop hating Mike Leach.  It is high comedy.  You misremember a shit-ton.  Always have.  "Leach missed out on that bonus because he forced Tech to suspend him for not copping to false claims of player abuse"   High comedy indeed.

you are the one that is too stupid to remember how things went down

Tech investigated the abuse and found no merit, but they had the right (and the legal need) to go through the song and dance of putting in policy changes that would try and prevent that from happening in the future (any well run business would do the same)

mike said he "accepted those changes", but refused to actually sign the document and thus that was not legally binding as Tech needed it to be so mike was suspended from coaching

mike did not like that and tried to go to court.....Tech had a legal grievance policy in place that needed to be followed to prevent past and future employees at all levels of the university from trying to circumvent that policy.....mike tried to go around that by going to court.....Tech could not allow that to happen so they fired mike

the best part is if mike and his fat little attorneys had just waited a matter of days the court hearing that Tech could not allow to take place would have been after mike was due the bonus and thus mike would have been owed that bonus.....but because the court hearing was prior to that bonus day and Tech could not allow that court hearing they fired him that day in court just prior to the hearing

because mike is impatient and stupid and has horrible legal representation

any well run business would have done the exact same thing.....even if an investigation finds no merit that does not mean you go back to business as normal you have to have the dog and pony show of "policy change to prevent future events".......mike did not want to take part and thought he was above that....he found out he was not......Tech had a grievance process that id mike had used would have dragged out well beyond the day Tech owned him the bonus......mike could not let his ego wait that long and thought he would just take it to court.....and he did take it to court where he was fired before he ever had that day because Tech needed to protect their long standing process

anyone that is not a total and complete moron understands this and anyone that has paid attention to things at Texas, LSU,(KU, Oregon spill over from LSU) and on and on understands that coaches have to be treated as any other employee in all cases like this or the university and many employed by the university can have issues

 

[LTtxfan 48952]

Transfer WR from Minnesota and Quinn Ewers former teammate...

https://247sports.com/Player/Brady-Boyd-46082221/

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by LTtxfan
Damn autocorrect

[hpslugga 4042]

On 12/12/2021 at 11:03 AM, ButtFumble said:

Tech investigated the abuse and found no merit,

Oh horseshit. Kent Hance was saying that Leach locked James in that electrical closet in that piss ant excuse for an interview with Rece Davis and he even repeated the claim in the deposition. You absolutely just made all that shit up.

 

[Guest]

ButtFumble has regurgitated the GOBs' storyline for over a decade now.  Figures if he keeps on, folks will forget the truth.

 

Not happening.  Never will.

[hpslugga 4042]

Just now, slorch said:

ButtFumble has regurgitated the GOBs' storyline for over a decade now.  Figures if he keeps on, folks will forget the truth.

 

Not happening.  Never will.

It reads like a drunken Alex Jones rant. Not a good look

[hpslugga 4042]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

ButtFumble has regurgitated the GOBs' storyline for over a decade now.  Figures if he keeps on, folks will forget the truth.

 

Not happening.  Never will.

I should have said the following, since this issue never fails to get me in a “torch the motherfucker down” mood whenever it comes up:

You and I actually had an exchange on SB about this nearly four years ago and I went into semi-intimate detail about the matter, which I’m sure is in far better order than the degenerate version of revisionist history buttfumble has to say about it.

Here’s what I said:

“Oh they were. The "go fuck yourself" line? Complete bullshit; and here's how you know it. It's very simple to test:

1) Steve Pincock said he told James not to go into the electrical closet. James (both Craig and Adam) says he was locked in there. Hance said he was locked in there.

2) Charlotte Bingham says Adam James told her that he was in there for 5 minutes. Craig James says it was an hour. I can't remember offhand what Hance said under oath as I can no longer find the full version of his deposition (more on that later), but he did say in that ESPN phone interview that it was for 2-3 hours. So he exaggerated Craig’s exaggerated version of Adam’s lie.

3) Hance said that on December 22nd (or so), he told (basically ordered) Leach to sign a generic statement adhering to how to and how not to act towards a player as a coach. Again, according to Hance, Leach's response was "go fuck yourself." Leach says that profanity was used by neither participant. Neither participant has listed any witnesses to this interaction

So every claim that the Jameses/Hance made regarding the electrical closet was refuted, and Adam ultimately admitted that he went into that room under no one’s orders and that the door was never locked. The Jameses and Hance clearly lied in their depositions. There's no doubt about that.

Then this business about "go fuck yourself" comes up. Ok, fine. One problem: Leach was never caught lying about anything in his deposition. Hance was. Leach says no profanity was used by either person, Hance did. Even if I completely ignore that the mere idea that "go fuck yourself" is a for-cause termination offense is an abject disgrace at humanity, why should anyone believe that it even happened to begin with? The established liar says it happened, the guy whose assertions were corroborated by disinterested 3rd parties to this matter says it didn't. Who are we suppose to fucking believe on that one? 

And if one is still inclined to believe Kent Hance, answer this:

If Leach was fired because he told the chancellor of the university to "go fuck” himself, why does his termination letter read:

Dear Coach Leach,

This letter shall serve as formal notice to you that, pursuant to Article V of your Employment Contract, you are terminated with cause effective immediately, for breach of the provisions of Article IV of that Contract."

Article V, Subsection D states:
BY UNIVERSITY WITHOUT CAUSE:

In addition to the provision set forth above, there is also reserved to the University the right to terminate this agreement without cause at any time and for any reason. The parties agree that in the event this right to terminate is exercised, the University will pay to Coach liquidated damages in an amount equal to $400.000 for each year remaining in the Term, pro rated as of the date of termination. It is agreed that University shall also pay any Supplemental Compensation set forth in Article III.C.4 above earned prior to such termination. In such event, the University shall not be liable to Coach for any other University benefits, perquisites or any collateral business opportunities, outside income revenues or guarantees or other benefits associated with Coach's position as Head Football Coach.

Article IV states:
PERFORMANCE

In the performance of his duties, Coach shall be directly responsible to and under the supervision of the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics. Without limitation of the foregoing, Coach, in the performance of his duties, shall conduct himself at all times in a manner consistent with his position as an instructor of students. The parties agree that, although this agreement is sports related, the primary purpose of the University and this agreement is educative. Thus, the educative purposes of the University shall have priority in the various provisions of this Agreement. Coach will follow all applicable University policies and procedures. Coach shall not, either directly or indirectly, breach or countenance to the breach by any player or coach subject to his control or supervision of any of the rules and standards of the Big 12 Conference, the NCAA, youth, collegiate, and master's amateur athletics as well as other associations or agencies to which the University adheres. In this connection, Coach agrees to devote his entire time, labor, effort and attention, in good faith, to conduct and perform the duties commensurate with the position as Head Football Coach, bearing in mind that University recognizes and accepts that Coach has the ability to engage in reasonable Outside Income producing activities as defined in Article III.C.3. Coach shall assure the fair and responsible treatment of student-athletes in relation to their health, welfare and discipline. Breach of such rules and standards, whether willful or through negligence, may be subject to disciplinary action and penalties ranging from termination, public or private reprimand to monetary fines or adjustments in compensation or adjustments in the term of this contract as determined by the President following consultation and review with the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics. The provision of this Article IV shall be without prejudice to any right the University may have under Article V of this Agreement.

Unless notice of termination of employment has been given to Coach in accordance with Articles V.A. or V.D. below, Coach shall not engage in discussions or negotiate, either directly or indirectly, concerning Coach's prospective employment by any other employer without first providing prior written notice to the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics of such discussions or negotiations. Failure to provide such notice may be considered a material breach of this Agreement.”

There's no mention of profanity. There's not even a mention of the chancellor. So why does his termination letter infer wrongdoing towards one of his players (the bold section), but nothing about cussing out the chancellor? Or “suing your boss?” Is it because...it didn't happen and was conjured up later on by Kent Hance?

Kent Hance's deposition took place in early March 2010, which was the first time this story of "go fuck yourself" was ever uttered by anyone, including Kent Hance. He had 3 full months to come up with the fairy tale, which is what he used the time for. You'll notice in his ESPN phone interview, Hance doesn't even mention profanity. He did manage to slip in a reference to "insubordination" at the very end, but he only linked that to "suing your boss." By the way, in that same interview, he says that he supported Leach throughout the contract negotiation, which was a lie, but the point is he never implied that was a factor.

As Leach's attorney noted in Kent Hance’s deposition:

”Q: Okay. And it's fair to say that by filing suit that didn't assist Coach Leach in terms of whether or not Tech was going to terminate him, right?

A: Didn't help him

Q: Okay. And you know that under Texas Tech policies Coach Leach had the absolute right to appeal the suspension by filing a lawsuit without fear of retaliatory action, don't you?

A: Right, but the decision to fire him was made before the lawsuit”

Come again? They suspend him on the evening of December 28th because he refused to sign that preposterous letter that had a guilty admission in between every fucking line, Leach files the injunction on December 29th, then they fire him on the 30th? Ok, so what was the point of the suspension if "the decision to fire him was made before the lawsuit?" Was this all just a dog and pony show that was ultimately  meant to route to a predetermined outcome?

And by the way, none of what I just said made any mention of those emails that were released by the DMN around the time of his firing, which make the issue clear: Tech dragged their ass on paying Leach what he was rightfully owed, they begrudgingly gave him a competitive contract but were already talking about firing him before the season began. Craig James just made it easier for them to pull the trigger because he threatened litigation against Tech if they chose not to terminate.

”Oh Craig! Please don’t twist our arms on this! We don’t want to fire the guy we wanted to fire before extending his contract! Please don’t make us do the thing we already said we were gonna do a year ago!”

Craig James killed 5 hookers…and two college football programs. Since Tech fucked Leach on his pay and they then fucked him out of his day in court with that effeminate loser “sovereign immunity” bullshit, I sincerely hope Mississippi State beats the living shit out of them.  

 

[BluTechsan 393]

All that stuff listed above isn’t when things went south between Leach and Tech

That ship sailed in early ‘09 during the post ‘08 season contract negotiations. Fact.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

All that stuff listed above isn’t when things went south between Leach and Tech

That ship sailed in early ‘09 during the post ‘08 season contract negotiations. Fact.

Indeed.  The GOBs got little-dick syndrome and "no man is bigger than the program"

Leach had to go.  Fuck paying him market value...

That's exactly why he was suspended one day before the bonus would have been "earned."  Straight up fucking spite for having been "slighted" by having to make the 2008 contract worth a fuck.

Then they thought Tommy Quitterville was the answer and they could tell Leach to...um...go fuck himself.  and all would be forgiven in the fans' eyes.  Instead, the small-minded nimrods torpedoed the program for over a decade while also embarassing the fuck out of Texas Tech University, all because they couldn't do what the Alabamas, Ohio States, and Texases do without even blinking..

Edited December 16, 2021 by slorch

[hpslugga 4042]

5 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

All that stuff listed above isn’t when things went south between Leach and Tech

That ship sailed in early ‘09 during the post ‘08 season contract negotiations. Fact.

 I appreciate the fact that you admit to clearly not reading what I said because if you had, you would have noticed that I alluded to that. Fact.

[hpslugga 4042]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

Indeed.  The GOBs got little-dick syndrome and "no man is bigger than the program"

Leach had to go.  Fuck paying him market value...

That's exactly why he was suspended one day before the bonus would have been "earned."  Straight up fucking spite for having been "slighted" by having to make the 2008 contract worth a fuck.

Then they thought Tommy Quitterville was the answer and they could tell Leach to...um...go fuck himself.  and all would be forgiven in the fans' eyes.  Instead, the small-minded nimrods torpedoed the program for over a decade while also embarassing the fuck out of Texas Tech University, all because they couldn't do what the Alabamas, Ohio States, and Texases do without even blinking..

I always called him Tommy Tubofshit

[Guest]

I used to have a link to the transcripts of the hearings, and I finally deleted it, thinking, "everyone gets it by now."

Reading your post was like taking a trip back.   Thanks for putting it out there.

I get a kick out of how the "people who( falsely) love Tech the most" never stop with the narratives, regardless of how the facts prove them to be patently wrong; while everyone outside of the Tech community can see with crystal clarity what happened.

[hpslugga 4042]

3 minutes ago, slorch said:

I used to have a link to the transcripts of the hearings, and I finally deleted it, thinking, "everyone gets it by now."

Reading your post was like taking a trip back.   Thanks for putting it out there.

I get a kick out of how the "people who( falsely) love Tech the most" never stop with the narratives, regardless of how the facts prove them to be patently wrong; while everyone outside of the Tech community can see with crystal clarity what happened.

I mean one needn’t be “outside the tech community” to know it. All it requires is the execution of a technique known as “not sticking your head up your ass.” 

[Guest]

There are definitely Techsans like myself who still respect what Leach did in Lubbock and since then.

I want Tech to get back on the right track in football, and to its credit, contract negotiations have become much more legit across all sports.  There never has been accountability for what happened though, and there is still a very real rift within out fanbase because of it.  I really don't like anyone bringing it up any more, because it's like trading sawdust from one hand to the other.  It's never going to magically turn into a board again. I do respond to the GOB  propaganda though.

The bowl game isn't emotional for me and there is zero "revenge" or "set the record straight" factor regarding what happens on the field.  Tech has had ample opportunity to own what happened and never has.  That part pisses me off to this day, so they have that going for them. It's like someone in your family who fucked up.  You still love them, but just wish they'd cop to what they did.

Edited December 16, 2021 by slorch

[hpslugga 4042]

11 minutes ago, slorch said:

The bowl game isn't emotional for me and there is zero "revenge" or "set the record straight" factor regarding what happens on the field. 

I mean I only said that because that’s all he’s been left with. We can’t sit around pretending that Tech will one day muster enough humility to admit “yes, our BMD’s drove us to fuck this guy around starting with our initial refusal to give him a raise that he earned by having the greatest season in program history and ending in a full blown hoax of an incident that was so heinous that our own chancellor committed perjury in a deposition in a desperate effort to legitimize said hoax.”

11 minutes ago, slorch said:

Tech has had ample opportunity to own what happened and never has.  That part pisses me off to this day, so they have that going for them. It's like someone in your family who fucked up.  You still love them, but just wish they'd cop to what they did.

And it’s not just Tech that they exposed; they exposed the entire state. The whole lesson that was learned from that freak show was “in the state of Texas, public universities are not bound to their contracts.” It’s a hideous and embarrassing look.

[BluTechsan 393]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

 I appreciate the fact that you admit to clearly not reading what I said because if you had, you would have noticed that I alluded to that. Fact.

My bad, I was sleepy. 😝

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by BluTechsan

[nnm 36041]

Wow, way too many words about things I don’t care about on this page. 

[Dirk X West 772]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

I mean one needn’t be “outside the tech community” to know it. All it requires is the execution of a technique known as “not sticking your head up your ass.” 

I don't think it's so much about "pulling your head out", which to me implies a lack of intelligence (maybe you mean it in a different way), as it is about looking at the situation with a modicum of objectivity.  (For me, the truth is Leach was <10% of the problem - but was part of it - and the admin and GOB guys who made it happen were >90% of the problem.)

Instead, most Tech fans' reactions landed closer to the two extremes of either "he fucked over my school so fuck him" or "Tech fired my coach so fuck Texas Tech for all of eternity! I hope Tech never wins another football game!"  And that's because too many Tech fans are thin skinned and hypersensitive and tend to quickly circle the wagons to defend their position as soon as things get difficult.  We're probably not the only fanbase like this, but we're collectively definitely like this.

The saddest part of all this - besides, of course, the last decade of shit football we've been served up - is that while the GOBs back in the '00s definitely got scared that the football program would start to get too big for them to control anymore, the current GOBs are ready to pay a fortune to get us back where we were as of 2009.  Maybe they wouldn't be so determined if football hasn't been so bad for so long (with all the negatives that come along with being bad at football, besides just watching the futility on the field), but it just sucks that we had a coincidence of petty, small minded leadership at the same time that we could have invested in the future and built on 2008 instead of blowing it all up.

[BluTechsan 393]

4 hours ago, slorch said:

Indeed.  The GOBs got little-dick syndrome and "no man is bigger than the program"

Leach had to go.  Fuck paying him market value...

That's exactly why he was suspended one day before the bonus would have been "earned."  Straight up fucking spite for having been "slighted" by having to make the 2008 contract worth a fuck.

Then they thought Tommy Quitterville was the answer and they could tell Leach to...um...go fuck himself.  and all would be forgiven in the fans' eyes.  Instead, the small-minded nimrods torpedoed the program for over a decade while also embarassing the fuck out of Texas Tech University, all because they couldn't do what the Alabamas, Ohio States, and Texases do without even blinking..

 

I'm not gonna dispute what you say about Tech's negotiating tactics but I do wish to ask that you add to the record that Mike was a complete ass during this time as well and was PUBLICLY trashing the university on nearly a daily basis to any Tom, Dick, and Harry with a mic or video camera.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

 

I'm not gonna dispute what you say about Tech's negotiating tactics but I do wish to ask that you add to the record that Mike was a complete ass during this time as well and was PUBLICLY trashing the university on nearly a daily basis to any Tom, Dick, and Harry with a mic or video camera.

After he was suspended?  They deserved it. Tech demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were not operating in good faith, and there certainly was no investigation of the facts.  They already had their version of the story being publicized by ESPN and company.

He said even before they suspended him, that he felt they intended to fire him.   He was 100% accurate.

Edited December 16, 2021 by slorch

[Uncle Nate 2097]

I'm not going to go through all of the posts above to confirm or dispute the many things said.  But I can tell you what are facts (I have first-hand knowledge of exactly how it went down with Hance and Leach):

1. Leach was the only one on the coaching staff who wanted to offer Adam James.  NONE of the other coaches wanted him.  I wish he had listened to them.
2. Leach was job shopping the last two years.  This is fact.  This did not endear him to the administration or to the big cigar supporters, especially after he was given a very, very hefty contract.
3. Adam James was a spoiled rotten brat and none of this would have escalated up to the Chancellor's Office if his dad hadn't gone on ESPN national TV to whine about how his son was treated.
4. Hance wanted to get Tech off the headlines, and wanted to appease Craig James so that James would quit talking bad about Tech.  He offered a letter for Leach to sign that was NOTHING.  A true nothing burger.  It literally restated what was already in his contract...that the safety and well-being of the student-athletes will be honored.  That's it.  That's all it said.  Leach refused to sign it.  Hance, however, should not have cowtowed to the James' family like he did.  He just hated Tech getting bad press, so his solution blew up in his face.
5. Leach literally, and by literally, I mean he said these exact words to Hance after refusing to sign the letter:  "You and the Board of Regents can go fuck yourselves."  I don't care who you are, you don't do that.  
6. In response, Hance suspended Leach for the Alamo Bowl.
7. Leach turned around and sued.  And it was his filing of the lawsuit that triggered his firing.  If he had just taken his suspension, he would not have been fired.  If he had just signed the damn letter, he wouldn't have been suspended.  If he had listened to his coaching staff, Adam James would never had been on campus, and this whole episode would have never happened.  All of this has one thing in common:  Leach's stubbornness was his ultimate undoing.
8. Leach WAS offered his pay and bonus.  This little fact keeps getting dismissed.  He was offered "everything owed to him" and refused because he wanted his day in court to air his grievances.  Bad move on his part (and his attorney should be disbarred for professional malpractice).  Again, Leach's stubbornness to refuse the settlement and go to court is what kept him from his payday.  Once he said "see you in court", the offer was off the table.
9. Here is my opinion and not fact:  I think Leach wanted out, and this was a convenient way to make it Tech's fault.  He just didn't count on losing in court.  But you could tell the last two years he was more interested in testing the job market than preparing for OU or the bowl games or recruiting.  It was obvious to anyone paying attention.

The greater sin committed by Tech after this fiasco was hiring Tommy Tuberville and then Kliff and then the lump on a log Matt Wells.  What they should have done was what they did when they hired Leach...hire a professional search firm that can find good fits for Tech, the level of talent Tech is able to get, and that fits where the program was in 2009.  Tech screwed up on the post-Leach hires so bad someone should do a case study on it.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Uncle Nate

[hpslugga 4042]

1 hour ago, Dirk X West said:

I don't think it's so much about "pulling your head out", which to me implies a lack of intelligence (maybe you mean it in a different way),

Correct. When I said that, I mean that one would have to be so closed-minded as to cling desperately to a preconceived conclusion that was spoon fed to them by obvious liars with obvious skins in the game.

1 hour ago, Dirk X West said:

as it is about looking at the situation with a modicum of objectivity.  (For me, the truth is Leach was <10% of the problem - but was part of it - and the admin and GOB guys who made it happen were >90% of the problem.)

And I understand where you’re coming from by objectively trying to assess blame, but it’s hard for any learned person to muster even 1% sympathy for the spoiled brats when they violated both civil and criminal law to cheat a guy out of what he was owed. They breached his contract under false pretenses and tried to advance their crime further in civil court by committing fucking perjury. To even pay a microsecond worth of attention to anything Leach was saying/doing is a waste of time.

1 hour ago, Dirk X West said:

The saddest part of all this - besides, of course, the last decade of shit football we've been served up - is that while the GOBs back in the '00s definitely got scared that the football program would start to get too big for them to control anymore, the current GOBs are ready to pay a fortune to get us back where we were as of 2009.  Maybe they wouldn't be so determined if football hasn't been so bad for so long (with all the negatives that come along with being bad at football, besides just watching the futility on the field), but it just sucks that we had a coincidence of petty, small minded leadership at the same time that we could have invested in the future and built on 2008 instead of blowing it all up.

Petty, small minded, and I would add that they suffered from really poor character judgment. If they looked at Mike Leach and saw a smarmy, weasley, shifty little fucker and then looked at Kent Hance and saw a straight talkin’ no nonsense guy, their character judgment had to have been as ass backwards as it is humanly possible to be.

 

52 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

(I have first-hand knowledge of exactly how it went down with Hance and Leach):

If you don’t give us a reason to believe you, we have no reason to believe you, and not having a reason to believe you is the best reason not to believe you.

52 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

1. Leach was the only one on the coaching staff who wanted to offer Adam James.  NONE of the other coaches wanted him.  I wish he had listened to them.

That’s dubious at best. It wasn’t just that the other Tech coaches didn’t want him, it was that no other school would offer. But Leach did, even though he said that they could never get his lazy and entitled ass to work hard? Sure.

52 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

1. Adam James was a spoiled rotten brat and none of this would have escalated up to the Chancellor's Office if his dad hadn't gone on ESPN national TV to whine about how his son was treated.

Of course you omitted the part where Craig James and Kent Hance were involved in a business deal together. So yeah Hance kissed his ass, but you’re only telling half the reasons why. He didn’t just go to ESPN about it, he went to Hance himself.

52 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

1. Hance wanted to get Tech off the headlines, and wanted to appease Craig James so that James would quit talking bad about Tech.  He offered a letter for Leach to sign that was NOTHING.  A true nothing burger.  It literally restated what was already in his contract...that the safety and well-being of the student-athletes will be honored.  That's it.  That's all it said.  Leach refused to sign it.

And he had no reason to sign it. At all. And Hance wanted him gone well before that circus act started.

52 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

1. Hance, however, should not have cowtowed to the James' family like he did.  He just hated Tech getting bad press, so his solution blew up in his face.

Kent Hance should never have been the Chancellor. Period. He was an abject disgrace.

52 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

1. Leach literally, and by literally, I mean he said these exact words to Hance after refusing to sign the letter:  "You and the Board of Regents can go fuck yourselves."  I don't care who you are, you don't do that.  
    

Again, there’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this. When you attach “literally” to this, you’re “literally” asserting baseless speculation as if it were a matter of fact. That’s tantamount to lying. If you had actual evidence of this instead of hearsay from a known liar, you would have presented it already. You and the rest of those who take this position have had 12 years to present tangible evidence of this and there’s been nothing. Leach denied it, the liar said it happened. Poor judgment on your part to believe the latter. 

52 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

1. In response, Hance suspended Leach for the Alamo Bowl.
2. Leach turned around and sued.  And it was his filing of the lawsuit that triggered his firing. 
    

Neither his termination letter nor Kent Hance’s deposition support this. His termination letter said it had to do with his treatment of Adam James, and Hance’s deposition said the decision had already been made. 

52 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

1. If he had just taken his suspension, he would not have been fired. 
    

Again, that’s bullshit even by Hance’s own admission. They had already made the decision to fire him prior to the lawsuit. You will never be correct about this.

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

41 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Correct. When I said that, I mean that one would have to be so closed-minded as to cling desperately to a preconceived conclusion that was spoon fed to them by obvious liars with obvious skins in the game.

And I understand where you’re coming from by objectively trying to assess blame, but it’s hard for any learned person to muster even 1% sympathy for the spoiled brats when they violated both civil and criminal law to cheat a guy out of what he was owed. They breached his contract under false pretenses and tried to advance their crime further in civil court by committing fucking perjury. To even pay a microsecond worth of attention to anything Leach was saying/doing is a waste of time.

Petty, small minded, and I would add that they suffered from really poor character judgment. If they looked at Mike Leach and saw a smarmy, weasley, shifty little fucker and then looked at Kent Hance and saw a straight talkin’ no nonsense guy, their character judgment had to have been as ass backwards as it is humanly possible to be.

 

If you don’t give us a reason to believe you, we have no reason to believe you, and not having a reason to believe you is the best reason not to believe you.

That’s dubious at best. It wasn’t just that the other Tech coaches didn’t want him, it was that no other school would offer. But Leach did, even though he said that they could never get his lazy and entitled ass to work hard? Sure.

Of course you omitted the part where Craig James and Kent Hance were involved in a business deal together. So yeah Hance kissed his ass, but you’re only telling half the reasons why. He didn’t just go to ESPN about it, he went to Hance himself.

And he had no reason to sign it. At all. And Hance wanted him gone well before that circus act started.

Kent Hance should never have been the Chancellor. Period. He was an abject disgrace.

Again, there’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this. When you attach “literally” to this, you’re “literally” asserting baseless speculation as if it were a matter of fact. That’s tantamount to lying. If you had actual evidence of this instead of hearsay from a known liar, you would have presented it already. You and the rest of those who take this position have had 12 years to present tangible evidence of this and there’s been nothing. Leach denied it, the liar said it happened. Poor judgment on your part to believe the latter. 

Neither his termination letter nor Kent Hance’s deposition support this. His termination letter said it had to do with his treatment of Adam James, and Hance’s deposition said the decision had already been made. 

Again, that’s bullshit even by Hance’s own admission. They had already made the decision to fire him prior to the lawsuit. You will never be correct about this.

 

Provide this Hance's own admission you speak of, otherwise you are the one who is completely full of shit.

 

[Steel Shank 9409]

 

[hpslugga 4042]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

Provide this Hance's own admission you speak of, otherwise you are the one who is completely full of shit.

I already did. I'll quote myself

13 hours ago, hpslugga said:

As Leach's attorney noted in Kent Hance’s deposition:

”Q: Okay. And it's fair to say that by filing suit that didn't assist Coach Leach in terms of whether or not Tech was going to terminate him, right?

[Kent Hance]: Didn't help him

Q: Okay. And you know that under Texas Tech policies Coach Leach had the absolute right to appeal the suspension by filing a lawsuit without fear of retaliatory action, don't you?

[Kent Hance]: Right, but the decision to fire him was made before the lawsuit”

For some reason, Texas Tech's webmasters have felt the need to scrub these depositions off the website from which I originally got them: 

https://www.vivathematadors.com/platform/amp/2010/5/6/1460333/leach-and-james-fire-back-world

You'll notice that the guy has a link (which are all from Texas Tech's website) to pretty much everyone's deposition, but if you click on them, they just time out. And it's not just Hance; it's everyone. That's...handy.

But it doesn't even matter because that statement I quoted was corroborated by Charlotte Bingham.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/351139/Leach_4th_Amended_Petition.pdf

"Defendant Hance called Leach to advise him that some members of the Board of Regents wanted to fire Leach over the complaints made by Craig James. Hance also advised Leach that they were going to take some kind of disciplinary action against Leach, though Hance could not articulate what Leach had done wrong. Hance indicated he wanted to fine Leach up to $100,000 and demanded a letter of apology from Leach. When Leach reiterated that he had not done anything wrong and did not believe an apology was appropriate, Hance also advised Leach that he would call Leach after the board meeting. Hance never called Leach. According to Ms. Bingham, Defendants Turner and Anders had resolved to fire Leach for cause during their meeting on December 22nd. The Tech Defendants admit that they never gave Leach the 10 business day notice of an opportunity to cure as allowed by his contract because they wanted to terminate Leach and avoid payment."

Leach didn't sue until a week later, so it's impossible to argue that his decision to do so played any part in the decision to terminate whatsoever. Again, there's no mention of it in the termination letter, and Hance even fessed up to it in the deposition after months of this horseshit, "if you sue your boss, it's not gonna turn out well" falderal.

And there's a reason that he said that, too: Texas Tech was not permitted to fire Leach out of retaliation. You'll notice in that same link, it explicitly states:

"Among other things, the TTU Operating Procedures ("OP") provide that an employee aggrieved by an employment decision of the University may appeal that decision through a grievance proceeding without fear that the University will retaliate. Moreover, the University expressly acknowledged that the purpose of these policies and procedures was to ensure that University employees received the due process to which they are entitled:

It is the policy of TTU/TTUS to ensure due process and to seek fair, just, and prompt resolution of complaints and grievances by non-faculty employees arising from the employ relationship with TTU/TTUS.

OP 70:10.1.c (emphasis added) (Ex. 2). Operating procedure 70.31:11 specifically provides that

Any employee of the university may present complaints and grievances without retaliatory action being taken against him/her in accordance with the policy governing appeals and grievances."

Hell, even Bailey was asked essentially the same question that Hance was asked, and he too answered "yes." He had to because he understood the policies of the University full well and to answer "no" would be a commission of perjury. 

Texas Tech's whole argument about this is like a giant, rotten onion that began rotting from the inside: just keep peeling those layers and it just continues to look worse. 

Edited December 16, 2021 by hpslugga

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

I already did. I'll quote myself

For some reason, Texas Tech's webmasters have felt the need to scrub these depositions off the website from which I originally got them: 

https://www.vivathematadors.com/platform/amp/2010/5/6/1460333/leach-and-james-fire-back-world

You'll notice that the guy has a link (which are all from Texas Tech's website) to pretty much everyone's deposition, but if you click on them, they just time out. And it's not just Hance; it's everyone. That's...handy.

But it doesn't even matter because that statement I quoted was corroborated by Charlotte Bingham.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/351139/Leach_4th_Amended_Petition.pdf

"Defendant Hance called Leach to advise him that some members of the Board of Regents wanted to fire Leach over the complaints made by Craig James. Hance also advised Leach that they were going to take some kind of disciplinary action against Leach, though Hance could not articulate what Leach had done wrong. Hance indicated he wanted to fine Leach up to $100,000 and demanded a letter of apology from Leach. When Leach reiterated that he had not done anything wrong and did not believe an apology was appropriate, Hance also advised Leach that he would call Leach after the board meeting. Hance never called Leach. According to Ms. Bingham, Defendants Turner and Anders had resolved to fire Leach for cause during their meeting on December 22nd. The Tech Defendants admit that they never gave Leach the 10 business day notice of an opportunity to cure as allowed by his contract because they wanted to terminate Leach and avoid payment."

Leach didn't sue until a week later, so it's impossible to argue that his decision to do so played any part in the decision to terminate whatsoever. Again, there's no mention of it in the termination letter, and Hance even fessed up to it in the deposition after months of this horseshit, "if you sue your boss, it's not gonna turn out well" falderal.

And there's a reason that he said that, too: Texas Tech was not permitted to fire Leach out of retaliation. You'll notice in that same link, it explicitly states:

"Among other things, the TTU Operating Procedures ("OP") provide that an employee aggrieved by an employment decision of the University may appeal that decision through a grievance proceeding without fear that the University will retaliate. Moreover, the University expressly acknowledged that the purpose of these policies and procedures was to ensure that University employees received the due process to which they are entitled:

It is the policy of TTU/TTUS to ensure due process and to seek fair, just, and prompt resolution of complaints and grievances by non-faculty employees arising from the employ relationship with TTU/TTUS.

OP 70:10.1.c (emphasis added) (Ex. 2). Operating procedure 70.31:11 specifically provides that

Any employee of the university may present complaints and grievances without retaliatory action being taken against him/her in accordance with the policy governing appeals and grievances."

Hell, even Bailey was asked essentially the same question that Hance was asked, and he too answered "yes." He had to because he understood the policies of the University full well and to answer "no" would be a commission of perjury. 

This is what we call a bitch slap.  And I have no dog in this fight.  

[MIkeHoncho 1894]

1 hour ago, Steel Shank said:

 

1,2,3.....

1,2....

1,2,3....

 

repeat until I'm dead. 

[Satchel 6908]

6 hours ago, Dirk X West said:

I don't think it's so much about "pulling your head out", which to me implies a lack of intelligence (maybe you mean it in a different way), as it is about looking at the situation with a modicum of objectivity.  (For me, the truth is Leach was <10% of the problem - but was part of it - and the admin and GOB guys who made it happen were >90% of the problem.)

Instead, most Tech fans' reactions landed closer to the two extremes of either "he fucked over my school so fuck him" or "Tech fired my coach so fuck Texas Tech for all of eternity! I hope Tech never wins another football game!"  And that's because too many Tech fans are thin skinned and hypersensitive and tend to quickly circle the wagons to defend their position as soon as things get difficult.  We're probably not the only fanbase like this, but we're collectively definitely like this.

The saddest part of all this - besides, of course, the last decade of shit football we've been served up - is that while the GOBs back in the '00s definitely got scared that the football program would start to get too big for them to control anymore, the current GOBs are ready to pay a fortune to get us back where we were as of 2009.  Maybe they wouldn't be so determined if football hasn't been so bad for so long (with all the negatives that come along with being bad at football, besides just watching the futility on the field), but it just sucks that we had a coincidence of petty, small minded leadership at the same time that we could have invested in the future and built on 2008 instead of blowing it all up.

How many Tech fans understand that Tech could have been a competitive version of Oklahoma State had they just left well enough alone?

[Frank Gallagher 97]

If Hance and the powers that be at Tech wanted to part ways with Leach because of his attitude and demeanor then by all means inform him that you do not intend to renew the contract and fulfill the remaining obligations.  That's how a professional organization would conduct itself.  Hance led Tech was not a professional organization.  He/they tried to get cute and it blew up in their faces.  So, fuck Tech.

[Satchel 6908]

38 minutes ago, Frank Gallagher said:

If Hance and the powers that be at Tech wanted to part ways with Leach because of his attitude and demeanor then by all means inform him that you do not intend to renew the contract and fulfill the remaining obligations.  That's how a professional organization would conduct itself.  Hance led Tech was not a professional organization.  He/they tried to get cute and it blew up in their faces.  So, fuck Tech.

The disparate treatment of two of Tech’s winningest coaches is striking. RMK publicly curses out the chancellor in what became a national embarrassment for Tech and he gets a raise. Leach brings positive attention to Tech’s program by being featured on 60 Minutes and he gets fired. Crazy.

[Guadaloopy 10917]

[Uncle Nate 2097]

7 hours ago, hpslugga said:

I already did. I'll quote myself

For some reason, Texas Tech's webmasters have felt the need to scrub these depositions off the website from which I originally got them: 

https://www.vivathematadors.com/platform/amp/2010/5/6/1460333/leach-and-james-fire-back-world

You'll notice that the guy has a link (which are all from Texas Tech's website) to pretty much everyone's deposition, but if you click on them, they just time out. And it's not just Hance; it's everyone. That's...handy.

But it doesn't even matter because that statement I quoted was corroborated by Charlotte Bingham.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/351139/Leach_4th_Amended_Petition.pdf

"Defendant Hance called Leach to advise him that some members of the Board of Regents wanted to fire Leach over the complaints made by Craig James. Hance also advised Leach that they were going to take some kind of disciplinary action against Leach, though Hance could not articulate what Leach had done wrong. Hance indicated he wanted to fine Leach up to $100,000 and demanded a letter of apology from Leach. When Leach reiterated that he had not done anything wrong and did not believe an apology was appropriate, Hance also advised Leach that he would call Leach after the board meeting. Hance never called Leach. According to Ms. Bingham, Defendants Turner and Anders had resolved to fire Leach for cause during their meeting on December 22nd. The Tech Defendants admit that they never gave Leach the 10 business day notice of an opportunity to cure as allowed by his contract because they wanted to terminate Leach and avoid payment."

Leach didn't sue until a week later, so it's impossible to argue that his decision to do so played any part in the decision to terminate whatsoever. Again, there's no mention of it in the termination letter, and Hance even fessed up to it in the deposition after months of this horseshit, "if you sue your boss, it's not gonna turn out well" falderal.

And there's a reason that he said that, too: Texas Tech was not permitted to fire Leach out of retaliation. You'll notice in that same link, it explicitly states:

"Among other things, the TTU Operating Procedures ("OP") provide that an employee aggrieved by an employment decision of the University may appeal that decision through a grievance proceeding without fear that the University will retaliate. Moreover, the University expressly acknowledged that the purpose of these policies and procedures was to ensure that University employees received the due process to which they are entitled:

It is the policy of TTU/TTUS to ensure due process and to seek fair, just, and prompt resolution of complaints and grievances by non-faculty employees arising from the employ relationship with TTU/TTUS.

OP 70:10.1.c (emphasis added) (Ex. 2). Operating procedure 70.31:11 specifically provides that

Any employee of the university may present complaints and grievances without retaliatory action being taken against him/her in accordance with the policy governing appeals and grievances."

Hell, even Bailey was asked essentially the same question that Hance was asked, and he too answered "yes." He had to because he understood the policies of the University full well and to answer "no" would be a commission of perjury. 

Texas Tech's whole argument about this is like a giant, rotten onion that began rotting from the inside: just keep peeling those layers and it just continues to look worse. 

In all that, I do not read an admission by Hance to want to fire Leach. 
 

Again, Leach was offered the money. He turned it down so he could take Tech to court. It blew up in his face.

He.Was.Offered.All.The.Money.

He.Turned.It.Down.

I have first hand knowledge how it went down. You have the internet. 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Uncle Nate

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

In all that, I do not read an admission by Hance to want to fire Leach. 
 

Again, Leach was offered the money. He turned it down so he could take Tech to court. It blew up in his face.

He.Was.Offered.All.The.Money.

He.Turned.It.Down.

I have first hand knowledge how it went down. You have the internet. 

Maybe they should have offered a little more substantially...like making a public statement.  Knowing the way those guys operated, it has a rider requiring Leach to play golf and have BBQ with them every day, or admit to killing the 5 hookers that everyone knows Craig  killed.

Otherwise, it's all made up, imaginary bullshit.  The very definition of "all the money" varies widely.

Tech gets ZERO benefit of the doubt in this ordeal, so there's that aspect too.  It's awfully peculiar how one side of the argument "knows" about this offer.  Prove it.  

Edited December 17, 2021 by slorch

[MontereyMX 847]

20 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

 

guns down asses up!!

[hpslugga 4042]

11 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

In all that, I do not read an admission by Hance to want to fire Leach. 

 

What a shock

11 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

Again, Leach was offered the money. He turned it down so he could take Tech to court. It blew up in his face.

He.Was.Offered.All.The.Money.

He.Turned.It.Down.

I have first hand knowledge how it went down. You have the internet. 

The internet is where I found the documents of the depositions of all the relevant characters of the lawsuit. You claim to have “first hand knowledge,” yet you won’t say who you are and you won’t produce anything. Yet somehow, in your own mind, that means you apparently know more even though all you’ve provided is recycled Kent Hance lies. Again, if you don’t give us a reason to believe you, we have no reason to believe you. 

And yes, Hance absolutely did admit that they (not just he) had made the decision to fire him well before the lawsuit. And it wasn’t just him, either. 

You don’t seem to grasp the significance of Bingham’s revelation. She was saying the exact same thing that Hance said in the deposition. Hance was asked the same question Bailey was asked, and I point Bailey out because his answer to that question is in that amendment that I posted. 

So if Hance said what I said he said, then my assertion was correct: Hance conceded that the decision to terminate was made prior to (and therefore independent of) Leach’s decision to file the TRO. If I’m wrong, and you’re right that the decision to terminate was in retaliation for his filing of the TRO, then you’re saying that all these Tech guys lied in their depositions when they said it wasn’t that AND that they were in violation of their own policies. 

So you either sank the 8-ball in a pocket you didn’t call or you sank the 8-ball in a pocket you did call but the cue ball went into a pocket as well. You lose in either scenario.

As to this offer of the money he’s owed, again what evidence is there of this? Your word? That’s gonna be a tough sell, especially since we know that Leach offered to settle the case and Texas Tech rejected it. https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/college/texas-tech-rejects-mike-leachs-offer-to-settle-suit-college-football/

Edited December 17, 2021 by hpslugga

[LTtxfan 48952]

21 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

 

[BluTechsan 393]

[Steel Shank 9409]

Yes, indeed.

[LTtxfan 48952]

Hope you really suck vs Texas... (otherwise good luck Joshua)

 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

On 12/16/2021 at 2:20 PM, Satchel said:

How many Tech fans understand that Tech could have been a competitive version of Oklahoma State had they just left well enough alone?

It’s interesting you say that.

I remember thinking when Gundy took over, “man… if we could be like Texas Tech that would be great…”. At the time, Tech was the clear next-best program in the Big 12 South after OU/Texas. Getting to their level of winning seemed like a realistic goal. 

Once Gundy started beating them consistently and then especially when Leach left, it felt like our programs just pivoted in opposite directions. Gundy just kept winning and it feels like Tech has been wandering in the wilderness now for a decade.

[Satchel 6908]

28 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

It’s interesting you say that.

I remember thinking when Gundy took over, “man… if we could be like Texas Tech that would be great…”. At the time, Tech was the clear next-best program in the Big 12 South after OU/Texas. Getting to their level of winning seemed like a realistic goal. 

Once Gundy started beating them consistently and then especially when Leach left, it felt like our programs just pivoted in opposite directions. Gundy just kept winning and it feels like Tech has been wandering in the wilderness now for a decade.

That’s exactly my take. They’d never admit it, but the Tech brain trusts made the most colossal mistake ever when they foolishly fired Leach.

[LTtxfan 48952]

1 hour ago, LTtxfan said:

Hope you really suck vs Texas... (otherwise good luck Joshua)

 

 

[LTtxfan 48952]

 

[LTtxfan 48952]