Thursday, December 31, 2009

Thank you, Dallas Morning News

I cast some pretty harsh judgment on Texas Tech yesterday, basically saying that the school was looking to fire Mike Leach because of some internal dispute and would have done so regardless of the outcome of the Adam James investigation. I didn't have any proof, of course ... but I do now.

The Dallas Morning News dug into last year's contract dispute and gained access to all the relevant internal emails, and the results are verrrrry interesting. It was obvious at the time that the negotiations were contentious, but some of the comments from the board of regents and the school chancellor really shed light on just how uninterested the school was in retaining Leach as coach. The most telling email, sent on January 9, 2009, included this prophetic remark:
I hope he doesn't sign, that gives us a full year to find another coach after we fire him after next season and pay off the remaining year on his contract.
O RLY??? I'm not claiming that Texas Tech has been plotting his termination for the past 11 months, but the fact that it was already under consideration way before the recent allegations of player mistreatment says a lot.

It's also extremely amusing how deluded the Texas Tech administration is regarding Leach's ability and the, um, "appeal" of coaching in Lubbock:
I promise you our prospects for getting a better coach are much higher than Mike's prospects of getting another job.
Sure they are. This one's pretty ridiculous too:
I know about all the "courting" of other schools, but I know, you know, and Mike knows there are only 10 or 12 better jobs in the country, and, you would only say better because of recruiting possibilities because of tradition.
I can think of about 30 better jobs off the top of my head, including some that aren't even in a BCS conference -- and the only reason there aren't more is because of what Mike Leach has done over the past decade.

But I guess the school administrators are pretty confident that they can find someone better than Leach. We'll find out.

No comments: