Pushing the team to its limit...or abuse?

Originally posted by quackquack
I guess there is a difference of opinion. You and Leach think there is nothing wrong with putting someone in a dark room for three hours as punishment. I agree with the James family and the University. The fact that he could quit does not even change the fact that it is false imprisnment. Can my boss throw me in a dark closet and say if you don't l ...[text shortened]... havior is appropriate you really are not prepared to be integrated into our modern society.

You know, there is a point everyone seems to be forgetting here. James was a scholarship athlete. As such, he is "technically" getting paid to play in the form of having all of his coursework costs covered. There are certain rules and guidelines, both written and unwritten that go along with this "contract". James could have quit any time he wanted. His Daddy certainly has the money to pay for his kid to go to college. He wanted the exposure that Leach's offense could provide for his son as a stepping stone to the NFL. If his kid doesn't play, he doesn't get exposure. There is a certain amount of collusion going on between Craig James and the TT hierarchy. That pissed Leach off, no doubt and probably made Leach want to further resist playing the kid in a battle of wills between "the coach" and "the parent". Adam James was the impetus of the problem and the target of the solution. He whined about his "unfair rebukes" and his Daddy pleaded his "son's"case. The TT hierarchy used the episode as a means to an end, kicking Leach out. They got retribution on Leach, and saved some money in the process....possibly. There is no side in this that isn't guilty of some infraction and I believe they all deserve each other.

Originally posted by quackquack
A guy has a concussion and they are punishing him by making sure he stands for three hours (they removed all furnature and kept a guard outside the foor). This is simply not appropriate medical treatment. The fact that no one else was ever punished this way shows that he was not treated like others.
James is a complainer? Was Martin Luther King Jr a ...[text shortened]... hibilitating head injury forcing him to make life changing decisions is even more impermissible.

The punishment wasn't being put in a dark room, that part was standard procedure.
From what I've read about the case, it was standard operating procedure to send
players with mild concussions to the weight room and to dim or turn out the lights as
a treatment for the concussion. The punishment (I don't deny it was punishment of
some kind) was the particular rooms that the was sent to.

What I'd like to discuss on a larger scale is why one room (the media room and
equipment shed that James was sent to) can be considered abusive and even
unlawful by some of you but another room (the weight room or whatever other room
all the other players with concussions were sent) is considered okay. Would it suck
to sit in a room all by yourself instead of being in the weight room or the locker
room? Sure, but that's the point of the punishment. The issue I'd like to pursue is
why some people think this punishment crossed lines of abusiveness and
unlawfulness.

Why can one room be considered abusive and unlawful and another not? The size?
The temperature? The colors of the wall? The ceiling height? Why?

The rhetoric is very interesting too. James says he was "locked" in a "closet" with
"guards" posted. You are using this same language. But James wasn't locked and it
wasn't in a closet and it seems a mighty stretch to say that athletics trainers
monitoring him are "guards." What if James said it this way -- "I was placed in a
dark room to lessen the effects of the concussion and there were medical personnel
standing outside monitoring me."

At this point, is seems that James lied about being "locked" and being in a "closet" --
as far as the guard label he gave the trainers, we can debate for awhile about the
wide-ranging meaning of a "guard."

The issue you seem to have is the being locked and having guards. I would agree
with you that if the facts come out and the head trainer takes back his statement that
contradicted James' complaint and the truth was that he actually was locked in a
closet then that is pretty clearly crossing the line. But as it stands, the only way the
coach deviated from standard procedures was to send James to different rooms than
usual.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
You know, there is a point everyone seems to be forgetting here. James was a scholarship athlete. As such, he is "technically" getting paid to play in the form of having all of his coursework costs covered. There are certain rules and guidelines, both written and unwritten that go along with this "contract". James could have quit any time he wanted. His ...[text shortened]... that isn't guilty of some infraction and I believe they all deserve each other.

Well said. I agree that there is no "not guilty" side.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Works both ways. He signed a four year deal that he was perpetually trying to change.

If they wanted to sue him for breech of contract, that's the way it goes. There is a right way of doing it and a wrong way. Offering him more money, just to plan to fire him when his team isn't have a possible MNC season (last year after beating Texas) is not the right way.

The guy has a right to ask for more money. They aren't just going to give it to him. If he has a legal way out of the contract to coach for another school, then there's nothing wrong with re-negotiating contracts.

Originally posted by Eladar
If they wanted to sue him for breech of contract, that's the way it goes. There is a right way of doing it and a wrong way. Offering him more money, just to plan to fire him when his team isn't have a possible MNC season (last year after beating Texas) is not the right way.

The guy has a right to ask for more money. They aren't just going to give it to ...[text shortened]... tract to coach for another school, then there's nothing wrong with re-negotiating contracts.

Don't you agree that it is negotiating in bad faith if you even broach the topic of a contract change, and you threaten to leave repeatedly? Of course it is. Neither side is guiltless. Please don't forget that TT rolled out the carpet to him with the job in the first place. He has shown no loyalty and has been a power monger of sorts. Why is it that you think he is entitled to ethical treatment in return? It is business on both sides. I remember quite well how long it took Leach to agree to this last contract. You cannot tell me that a man with a law degree can't read a contract and can't negotiate unethically. Believe me, Leach can do both, as can the TT hierarchy.

I wouldn't do it, but he does. If you don't like it, let him go!

But public opinion wouldn't let the Tech people simply say good bye, not the the year he was having. Instead of facing the masses and doing things the right way, the Tech people decided to sign him to a contract they never intended to live up to in the first place.

This is the way it is in college football. Good coaches get pay raises so that they'll stay at the school. Usually, the schools make the agreements in good faith. Winning football programs bring in a lot of money. Tech is in danger of falling below OSU year in and year out, fighting it out with A&M and Baylor to see how the bottom of the conference is going to look.