By your leave, Senator

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

Try understanding the facts and the timeline before jumping in the deep end of the pool, son.

If you understood irony, you wold be laughing at this with the rest of us.

 

Wow, take a break for the holiday and I miss all this.

 

First off, don't call me son. And I'm sorry to inform you that despite your delusions there is no deep end to kiddie pools. Though you specialize in shoveling the same repetitive quotes over and over ad nauseam, it doesn't impress me nor I suspect many others. It simply gets tiring and I suspect that is your primary intent.

 

As far as understanding facts and timelines, you also seem to lack proper understanding. This article I cited, now over 6 months old, was the last major decision involving the complaints of this lawsuit. In that article Mike Leach mostly got shown the door for 10 of his 11 charges (or whatever you want to call them). The only item left is whether or not he was legitimately fired for breaching his contract.

 

Since then, oral arguments for appellate trial was set for October. Then Mike Leach decides to file lawsuit against ESPN and comm. company in Nov. while also releasing depositions of Adam James and draft letter from TT pres. fining him $60,000 for the incident.

 

It appears to me that Leach is attempting to argue that the Craig James helped force his firing (else he simply would have been fined) and that Adam James' testimony has significant inconsistancies (which it does because I did read it). The $60,000 fine was the "true" action but James and others forced the firing instead.

 

Allow me to quote another historical article from the spring. Article: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=10651373

 

quote: An attorney for the school, Dan Perkins, said Tech wanted to resolve the complaint brought by the player's father, former NFL player Craig James. He said Tech officials tried to get Leach to agree to a list of how players needed to be treated when injured and to have him write an apology letter.

"Why give him the opportunity if the goal is to fire him?" Perkins argued. "Who could have known that Mike Leach would put Adam James in a shed?"

 

I would also remind you that Steve Pinncock the trainer was ordered by Leach to lock James in the equipment shed and that Leach referred to Adam James in an expletive, vindictive ridden statement. Leach also agreed with these statements in his deposition. There are historical AP articles over at ESPN which confirm this.

 

So to summarize:

 

-Leach has admitted he punished and vindictively spoke about Adam James to the trainer Steve Pinncock

-Leach has had most of his arguments thrown out of court already

-While there are significant holes in Adam James's story the fact that Leach enacted a vindictive, inappropriate punishment for the type of injury seems to be a fact, as confirmed by Leach

-Texas Tech gave Leach the opportunity to sign a generalized letter about how he should treat his injured players and a chance to write an apology to James and Leach refused.

 

Leach refused to sign and apologize so he was fired.

 

Leach's main contentions lately fixate on Adam James' testimony and the $60,000 draft letter. Texas Tech's letter/apology invalidates the draft letter, the establishment of Leach's punishment and the vindictiveness renders Adam James' deposition almost irrelevant to this central issue.

 

I also find it interesting that his appeal isn't even finished yet and Leach is turning his attention to trying to blame ESPN. In true lawyer fashion, it's more about following the money than clearing his name. If all this fails, I'd guess the James family is next up. Kind of makes me wonder how that appeals process is going....

 

Lastly, I find it hilarious that you think Dicky Grigg is afraid he'll lose this in court. Seriously, what lawyer, if he feared he would lose in court would talk about settling it in public? You settle those as quietly as possible, because if you can't than it would certainly look bad in court.

 

In my opinion Dicky Grigg has no fear of losing and is publicly offering to settle because the lawsuit at this point is a waste of time and legal fees for Texas Tech.

 

Well, we'll see.... Good luck Mike Leach.

 

Great summary! None of these facts will deter "The Senator", even though he's all about the facts.

 

Don't risk further brain injury, Senator-stay down.

[The Senator]

Wow, take a break for the holiday and I miss all this.

First off, don't call me son. And I'm sorry to inform you that despite your delusions there is no deep end to kiddie pools. Though you specialize in shoveling the same repetitive quotes over and over ad nauseam, it doesn't impress me nor I suspect many others. It simply gets tiring and I suspect that is your primary intent.

Yes, you're right - I should not have referred to you as ' son ' - that was condescending, and I apologize. It's just that the arument and rationale in your initial post seemed young, immature, and uninformed - much like they do in this, your latest proffer. But I will refrain from calling you that in the future, young man.

 

 

As far as understanding facts and timelines, you also seem to lack proper understanding. This article I cited, now over 6 months old, was the last major decision involving the complaints of this lawsuit. In that article Mike Leach mostly got shown the door for 10 of his 11 charges (or whatever you want to call them). The only item left is whether or not he was legitimately fired for breaching his contract.

 

Yes, there is that small matter!

 

(That just happens to be the foundation of Leach's entire action against Texas Tech - everything else is just his lawyer's ' piling on ', as attorneys are sometimes wont to do. )

 

 

Since then, oral arguments for appellate trial was set for October. Then Mike Leach decides to file lawsuit against ESPN and comm. company in Nov. while also releasing depositions of Adam James and draft letter from TT pres. fining him $60,000 for the incident.

 

It appears to me that Leach is attempting to argue that the Craig James helped force his firing (else he simply would have been fined) and that Adam James' testimony has significant inconsistancies (which it does because I did read it). The $60,000 fine was the "true" action but James and others forced the firing instead.

 

Allow me to quote another historical article from the spring. Article: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=10651373

 

quote: An attorney for the school, Dan Perkins, said Tech wanted to resolve the complaint brought by the player's father, former NFL player Craig James. He said Tech officials tried to get Leach to agree to a list of how players needed to be treated when injured and to have him write an apology letter.

"Why give him the opportunity if the goal is to fire him?" Perkins argued. "Who could have known that Mike Leach would put Adam James in a shed?"

 

I would also remind you that Steve Pinncock the trainer was ordered by Leach to lock James in the equipment shed and that Leach referred to Adam James in an expletive, vindictive ridden statement. Leach also agreed with these statements in his deposition. There are historical AP articles over at ESPN which confirm this.

 

Yes, this is where your statement begin to meander in multiple directions, in an attempt to support a poorly conceived argument, and why is I consider it the product of a young mind. None of what you cite as ' facts' are supported by the voluminous depositions - the very depositions which now gave Leach the impetus to expand his action and include Craig James, ESPN, and Swiftboat Communications.

 

 

So to summarize:

 

-Leach has admitted he punished and vindictively spoke about Adam James to the trainer Steve Pinncock

-Leach has had most of his arguments thrown out of court already

-While there are significant holes in Adam James's story the fact that Leach enacted a vindictive, inappropriate punishment for the type of injury seems to be a fact, as confirmed by Leach

-Texas Tech gave Leach the opportunity to sign a generalized letter about how he should treat his injured players and a chance to write an apology to James and Leach refused.

 

Leach refused to sign and apologize so he was fired.

 

Leach's main contentions lately fixate on Adam James' testimony and the $60,000 draft letter. Texas Tech's letter/apology invalidates the draft letter, the establishment of Leach's punishment and the vindictiveness renders Adam James' deposition almost irrelevant to this central issue.

A proverbial ' house of cards ' that collapses quickly unto itself at the very outset of your précis, as aboslutely none of what you proffer as a ' summary ' is in any way factual, as I previously stated.

 

 

I also find it interesting that his appeal isn't even finished yet and Leach is turning his attention to trying to blame ESPN. In true lawyer fashion, it's more about following the money than clearing his name. If all this fails, I'd guess the James family is next up. Kind of makes me wonder how that appeals process is going....

 

Lastly, I find it hilarious that you think Dicky Grigg is afraid he'll lose this in court. Seriously, what lawyer, if he feared he would lose in court would talk about settling it in public? You settle those as quietly as possible, because if you can't than it would certainly look bad in court.

 

In my opinion Dicky Grigg has no fear of losing and is publicly offering to settle because the lawsuit at this point is a waste of time and legal fees for Texas Tech.

 

Well, we'll see.... Good luck Mike Leach.

Yes we will. You have ' staked ' your young ground, and I have made my complete disagreement quite clear. The upcoming weeks will prove who's in the kiddie pool without his flotation device.

Edited November 29, 2010 by The Senator

[GaryPinC]

Yes, you're right - I should not have referred to you as ' son ' - that was condescending, and I apologize. It's just that the arument and rationale in your initial post seemed young, immature, and uninformed - much like they do in this, your latest proffer. But I will refrain from calling you that in the future, young man.

 

 

 

 

Yes, there is that small matter!

 

(That just happens to be the foundation of Leach's entire action against Texas Tech - everything else is just his lawyer's ' piling on ', as attorneys are sometimes wont to do. )

 

 

 

 

Yes, this is where your statement begin to meander in multiple directions, in an attempt to support a poorly conceived argument, and why is I consider it the product of a young mind. None of what you cite as ' facts' are supported by the voluminous depositions - the very depositions which now gave Leach the impetus to expand his action and include Craig James, ESPN, and Swiftboat Communications.

 

 

 

A proverbial ' house of cards ' that collapses quickly unto itself at the very outset of your précis, as aboslutely none of what you proffer as a ' summary ' is in any way factual, as I previously stated.

 

 

 

Yes we will. You have ' staked ' your young ground, and I have made my complete disagreement quite clear. The upcoming weeks will prove who's in the kiddie pool without his flotation device.

 

That we can certainly agree on, and your bombastic replies certainly illuminate the hypocrisy of your self-perceived wisdom and maturity.

 

Oh, here's the ESPN story on Leach admitting to telling the trainer to put James in the shed :

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4989556 quote:

 

The school released a profanity-laden sentence Grigg said had been Leach's instruction to trainer Steve Pincock at that time, and that Leach admitted to saying in his sworn testimony Friday.

 

 

Oh, and here's a link to most of the depositions from March: http://www.doubletnation.com/2010/5/6/1460333/leach-and-james-fire-back-world

 

Leach's deposition is pretty interesting. It seemed to me that TT simply wanted Leach to sign the procedural letter and write some type of "regret the situation" letter to the James family to close the incident but Leach refused. That guy has some real conspiracy issues but no surprises there. At the end it discusses his contract which at the time of firing TT still owes him 400k per year (1.2 M tot) and possibly the 800k bonus which it sounds like TT intends to honor.

 

It also supports my assertion on why Grigg wants to settle. TT will pay 1.2-2.0 million regardless of the final outcome. If Leach can stick a wrongful termination on them then maybe they pay more.

[Mr. WEO]

That we can certainly agree on, and your bombastic replies certainly illuminate the hypocrisy of your self-perceived wisdom and maturity.

 

Oh, here's the ESPN story on Leach admitting to telling the trainer to put James in the shed :

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4989556 quote:

 

The school released a profanity-laden sentence Grigg said had been Leach's instruction to trainer Steve Pincock at that time, and that Leach admitted to saying in his sworn testimony Friday.

 

 

Oh, and here's a link to most of the depositions from March: http://www.doubletnation.com/2010/5/6/1460333/leach-and-james-fire-back-world

 

Leach's deposition is pretty interesting. It seemed to me that TT simply wanted Leach to sign the procedural letter and write some type of "regret the situation" letter to the James family to close the incident but Leach refused. That guy has some real conspiracy issues but no surprises there. At the end it discusses his contract which at the time of firing TT still owes him 400k per year (1.2 M tot) and possibly the 800k bonus which it sounds like TT intends to honor.

 

It also supports my assertion on why Grigg wants to settle. TT will pay 1.2-2.0 million regardless of the final outcome. If Leach can stick a wrongful termination on them then maybe they pay more.

TT would be crazy not to settle. I'm sure they're thinking about 12 UFO-spotting cornpone Texas Tech fans sitting on that jury. No way they would get a fair shake in that venue, no matter the merits of Leach's case.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Mr. WEO

[Cynical]

Yes, the difference here is that Texas Tech DOES want to settle - obviously they think their position has weakened over the past few months.

 

No, it's not obvious they think their position has weakened.

For all you know, TT may have concluded it will be cheaper to settle the case out of court than it will be defending the case in court.

 

Just 4 months ago, Dicky Grigg, Texas Tech’s lawyer, said:

 

"Mike Leach would have you believe that this was part of some great conspiracy going back to when the contract was signed last February. That is ridiculous, and is just a desperate attempt to distract you from the plain and simple truth. He would still be the coach at Texas Tech today but for the fact that he made a terrible decision when he irresponsibly placed a student-athlete with a brain concussion in small dark rooms for over two hours on two separate occasions. He breached his contract and was terminated as a result of his bad decisions, his insubordination and his refusal to help resolve this situation."

 

 

Leach/Liggitt countered with:

 

Leach's attorney, Ted Liggett, said Friday he wants the case to go to trial and that the damages Leach would be seeking aren't yet determined. "It would be reckless of me to hazard a guess at that now other than to say that figure is getting bigger every day," he said. "Every day that Mike is out of work ... raises the damages model."

 

“We’ll go to trial in a heartbeat, and we’re excited about it,” Leach said in a telephone interview this week. “Beside the obvious fact we’ll be made whole by the contract and the facts prove that, it will also provide a public opportunity to clear my name.”

 

McBride couldn't wait to go to trial either. 100% sure they would win. They had the proof. Millions of lines of code.

 

The only difference I see at present is that McBride completely underestimated IBM, and TT is no IBM.

 

And this past weak, TT attorney Grigg seems to have softened his earlier statement considerably (more like a 180-degree turnaround):

 

“It takes two to settle. I think that this thing would be better for both sides to get it over with and move on.”

 

Nothing in that statement that contradicts or reverses TT's position from 4 months ago.

 

If anything, TT sounds more pragmatic about this issue. If TT can settle for less than it will cost them to defend themselves in court, they're going to try to settle. Bottom line, how much money is it going to take for Leach to end this charade and go away?

[The Dean]

John, I won't try to 'convert' anyone regarding Leach.

 

As I already acknowledged, he's a very polarizing personality and people either like him or can't stand him. I happen to think he's one of the most entertaining figures in college football, but I understand that others don't - that doesn't bother me in the least, nor affect my opinion of those who don't care for him.

 

 

 

I actually found Leach quite amusing for a while. I still do, to a degree. His persistent self-aggrandizing BS along with your crusade here on The Wall is probably what leads many (including me) to find him a bit unbearable.

 

I think he has a shot at recovering his money from the university. But his libel/slander suit against ESPN is without merit, and it will cost him both money and reputation. It has already.

[Cynical]

Ah yes...you're right. And how did that decision to hire Shannon over Leach work out for Ms. Shalala?

 

...Mike Leach pursued the Miami job, and when university president Donna Shalala asked for a reference, Leach listed Donald Trump. When Shalala ignored Trump's letter of recommendation and hired Randy Shannon instead, Trump called. He pretty much called her an apprentice. As it turned out, though, Shannon wasn't even able to make his own players understand what it means to wear the "U," and now he's out of a job, fired after four seasons as head coach.

 

Shannon's coaching record is irrelevant.

The fact Ms. Shalala is still the university president and Leach's reference insulted her is going to be very relevant.

Combine that with the baggage from the lawsuits ... looks like he's got a better chance of "coaching" the U from his armchair than he does coaching the team from the sidelines.

 

Plus this, from Liggett (in his response to the TT lawyer):

"Every day that Mike is out of work ... raises the damages model."

 

Until the case is settled between ML and TT, Leach isn't taking a coaching job anytime soon.

 

Right you are again...

 

Over the past month, I've been told by several sources who have a vested interest in UM that Georgia's Mark Richt and former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach are at the top of UM's wish list. We'll see if that comes to fruition.

 

(Link - Shannon out as coach at UM-Manny Navaro, Miami Herald)

 

1. Never put too much stock into "sources" with a "vested interest". Unless that "source" with a "vested interest" came from within the University, the "source" knows squat. Sources with a vested interest in Alabama stated Spurrier was near the top of its wish list 4 years ago after Shula was fired. Turns out, Spurrier was never contacted by Alabama, was never on it's wish list to begin with, and the "source" with a "vested interest" was Spurrier and his agent. They used the rumor to squeeze more money out of USC.

 

2. Yes, even Leach has something to gain by having his name associated with every college HC opening, even with one he has no shot at. It's called "remaining relevant". He's been out of coaching for a year, and he's embroiled in multiple lawsuits. If he wants a shot at a top tier program once the lawsuits have settled, he needs to keep his name out there, and continue the perception he is still in demand.

 

That's quite easy to do, in fact. Anytime an opening pops up, have friends, family, agent, lawyer, etc ... talk to the media, and use phrases like "Leach was mentioned for the Minnesota position". Of course, it is never revealed who "mentioned" it (probably his agent). And what gives the rumor some credence, most schools will not comment on such rumors. That's because it actually works in their favor. While the media chases the "speculation" rabbit, the university can contact those it really is interested in without the media looking over its shoulder.

 

Now, if only Leach had a close friend with some pull at ' The U ' - probably someone closely connected with their football program would be even better - if that guy was somehow connected with Miami's former success, that might be even more helpful...dang, can't think of anyone like that.

 

Can you?

 

(Maybe this guy?)

 

My guess is he is one of the "sources" with a "vested interest" helping to spread the rumor (See #2 above).

Besides, unless JJ is on the school board or is a major donor to the university, I am willing to bet the U could give a crap what JJ thinks.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Cynical

[The Senator]

I actually found Leach quite amusing for a while. I still do, to a degree. His persistent self-aggrandizing BS along with your crusade here on The Wall is probably what leads many (including me) to find him a bit unbearable.

 

I think he has a shot at recovering his money from the university. But his libel/slander suit against ESPN is without merit, and it will cost him both money and reputation. It has already.

My crusade?

 

So any time YOU get in one of your own silly pissing contests that goes on for pages, you're crusading???

 

Right. I didn't start the thread, Deano, but take another look at the title. And I know Chandler#81 meant it in good-humor and was just starting a dialog but, when the piling on started, was it not expected that I would post a reply or two? Am I not allowed to do so? Don't you think that some were actually trying to entice me to do so???

 

Frankly, I find any accusations of ' crusading ' about anything on TSW to be disingenuous, hypocritical, and self-righteous - and usually coming from folks who either (1) have ' a bone to pick ' with the poster, and/or (2) disagree with and don't like the opinion being proffered. They're also quite frequently from someone usually involved in some small crusade of their own.

 

 

(I see very few accusations - i.e., none - about crusading in the hundreds of threads and thousands of posts regardind St. Andrew )

Edited November 30, 2010 by The Senator

[Chandler#81]

I started the thread because it's news, a follow up to a pretty big story last year and because I think ESPN went over the line allowing James to crucify Leach in a very public forum.

 

Yes, The Senator is a big proponent of ML and we've learned a lot more about Leach through his posting. It even evolved into a campaign for consideration as the Bills new HC -of which I was in favor. Now, that possibility and other offers for D-1 jobs is in limbo due to what I feel is a smear job by James, with ESPN's blessing.

 

I read the article, loved what I saw and noticed it hadn't been mentioned here yet.

 

As many attest, the guy is polarizing. His cred has dropped considerably due to this and he's fighting it with everything he's got -which is substantial armor. We can count on the Senator providing insightful -if somewhat biased- dialog in the battle. Then again, who's posts in this thread aren't somewhat baised?

 

 

 

Intelligent banter is what we're about here. Name calling and personal attacks are what we're trying to remove.

 

Good luck, Mike Leach.

 

Carry on

[The Dean]

My crusade?

 

So any time YOU get in one of your own silly pissing contests that goes on for pages, you're crusading???

 

 

Yes, crusade. Very obvious too, IMO. I may get into a one thread "pissing contest", hell maybe even two. But as far as I know most of my posts don't focus on one particular topic, nor did I ever introduce a link to a particular thread or coach, or use a clip from that one player of coach to make my points, or...hell why am I bothering? It's like arguing with Crayons.

 

You KNOW you've crusaded for Leach. You are proud of it. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[GaryPinC]

TT would be crazy not to settle. I'm sure they're thinking about 12 UFO-spotting cornpone Texas Tech fans sitting on that jury. No way they would get a fair shake in that venue, no matter the merits of Leach's case.

 

Yea, jury selections will be tough down there, but I'd recommend reading Leach's deposition on the doubletnation link I posted above. Texas Tech was just going to slap him on the wrist and not even fine him but Leach was having nothing of that. He's a paranoid egomaniac and if he were more reasonably minded would still be coaching them. I think TT would have backed him up if he had just done what they were asking. In the end, I think a jury will see through his smoke and mirrors to the real root of the conflict.

[The Senator]

Yes, crusade. Very obvious too, IMO. I may get into a one thread "pissing contest", hell maybe even two. But as far as I know most of my posts don't focus on one particular topic, nor did I ever introduce a link to a particular thread or coach, or use a clip from that one player of coach to make my points, or...hell why am I bothering? It's like arguing with Crayons.

 

You KNOW you've crusaded for Leach. You are proud of it. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Yeah, I have. Yeah, I am.

 

In this thread, however, I'm merely a contributor - not on any crusade - just offering my own views on a topic already under discussion.

 

 

 

(Hell, why am I bothering? It's like arguing with a stubborn, self-righteous, know-it-all Sicilian )

 

 

.

Edited November 30, 2010 by The Senator

[JohnC]

My crusade?

 

So any time YOU get in one of your own silly pissing contests that goes on for pages, you're crusading???

 

Your position and my position on ML are diametrically opposed. But from your postings I have learned more about this convuluted legal fiasco. Has my position been altered from the additional information? Yes. I am now more entrenched in my position that Leach is an arrogant, pompous fool who did himself in.

 

Right. I didn't start the thread, Deano, but take another look at the title. And I know Chandler#81 meant it in good-humor and was just starting a dialog but, when the piling on started, was it not expected that I would post a reply or two? Am I not allowed to do so? Don't you think that some were actually trying to entice me to do so???

 

When someone throws a punch at you why is anyone surprised that the response is going to be a punch or two thrown back? Kicking is allowed. But no biting. LOL

[flopagamo]

Trump weighs in: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5870539

[The Senator]

Trump weighs in: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5870539

I'm sure Leach appreciates Trump's support - if not the salary suggestion...

 

At least he has Trump on his side. The tycoon lobbied Miami to hire Leach in 2006, when they ultimately chose Shannon. University officials confirmed the authenticity of Trump's note Wednesday. "You made a big mistake when you did not take my advice and hire Mike Leach of Texas Tech ... and you can now get him for the right price," Trump wrote to Shalala.

 

(With friends like that,... )

 

I wonder if ML's good friend and former 'canes HC Jimmy Johnson has also lobbied on Leach's behalf?

 

 

No question Leach is a good fit for Miami -

 

"I think it’s a perfect fit because I’m in Miami,'' said Leach, who moved his family to Key West, Fla., after Tech fired him last December. "I think it's a perfect fit because of the offense they run and all the skilled players they’ve got at a variety of positions. "Plus, they’re committed to academics, and so am I.''

 

Leach coached at Tech from 2000-'09 where he left as the school's all-time winningest coach (84-43). He also coached the Raiders to a bowl game in all 10 years he was at Tech, and many of his long-time Raider Nation admirers are still upset about his firing.

 

It's absolutely no secret that at Tech, Leach didn't often get the high-profile recruits from the Texas high schools. Many of them instead chose to go to Texas, TCU, Texas A&M, Oklahoma or Oklahoma State. But the ones Leach did get, they helped Tech develop into one of the best offensive machines in the nation. And that is Leach's expertise -- offense.

 

Leach's offenses put the "E' in excitement. Thus, he said he is anxious to see how his teams would fare if he was able to recruit the caliber of athletes that Miami recruits. Leach believes if he can get the Miami job, a national championship lies in his future.

 

(Link - Mike Leach really wants the Miami job)

 

 

It's the only coaching position so far that Leach has openly and aggressively pursued in such a public way (he said next to nothing about the open Minnesota, Indiana, Vanderbilt HC jobs, or the many rumored soon-to-be-open positions).

 

Still, from the ESPN article you cited...

 

As for football, Leach said he doesn't care which conference he winds up in. What matters to him, he said, is to coach a competitive team at a school that backs his emphasis on academics and in a position where there would be stability.

 

 

The Senator sticks by his early prediction (less than an hour after Shannon's firing) that Mike Leach will be the next head football coach of the University of Miami Hurricanes. Until then...

 

Ex-Texas Tech coach Mike Leach using time off to plan his next move

[Cynical]

The Senator sticks by his early prediction (less than an hour after Shannon's firing) that Mike Leach will be the next head football coach of the University of Miami Hurricanes. Until then...

 

The U has already talked to Gruden, and according to this piece:

 

Linky

 

Miami university's short list includes:

 

Miss State Dan Mullen

Stanford Jim Harbaugh

UConn Randy Edsall

Zona's Mike Stoop

Utah Kyle Whittingham

 

 

Hmmm. Don't see Leach's name anywhere on that list.

 

In fact:

For the record: UM will not hire any head coach with any baggage, a Trustee told The Miami Herald -- and that includes Leach and former USF coach Jim Leavitt.

 

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/01/1952273/jon-gruden-wont-commit-to-miami.html#ixzz16vWjyN15

 

You keep dreaming, Senator.

 

But the U isn't the only school that needs a HC. Maybe another school will give him a call:

 

Mike Leach would love to be back on the sideline next season. He says he just hasn't heard from anyone interested in hiring him yet.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5870539

 

Maybe not.

 

Of course, Leach thinks his firing is causing the issue:

 

The fact that he hasn't heard from any schools with openings, "further illustrates the damage" the firing has had on his reputation, Leach said.

 

Couldn't be the lawsuits ...