Someone explain the Mike Leach thing...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
The contract Leach submitted even included the clause about the $1.5M penalty for interviewing for another job without notifying the Tech AD, but Tech is insisting on including the penalty for interviewing for another job without the AD's approval, which he says he wouldn't withhold. Another interesting thing is that even after hte 11-2 season, neither contract calls for a raise. Something's not right about this whole situation. </p>
You pretty much tell them that the compensation is fine, but you want to a.) be able to interview for jobs when one opens up with out the fear of owing TTech money and being fired on the spot, and b.) Control the rights to your own image,voice and name.
And they say "Thanks, but no thanks"... something's definitely afoot.
And they say "Thanks, but no thanks"... something's definitely afoot.
anyone with half a brain that keeps up with sports immediately thought of what schools would let go of their current coaches to get Leach in February.
I would sell, but its certainly not preposterous.
And please reply properly if you are going to call someone a dumbass.
I would sell, but its certainly not preposterous.
And please reply properly if you are going to call someone a dumbass.
Mullen, while unproven may very well translate to the same level of success Leach would have here. I would imagine Leach's name here alone would probably garner more interest from big time recruits.
I say Sell at $3 mill and buy at $2 mill.
I say Sell at $3 mill and buy at $2 mill.
Myers and Coach Knight are old buddies, and Myers thinks the way Knight would in this situation. That is not good for Texas Tech.
I think TT is just tired of Leach being interviewed for every open BCS spot, and kind of like the Louisville AD, with Petrino, just tired of dealing with it.
Personally, I think the job of the AD is to deal with it. You have a successful coach, your job as AD is to keep him happy, and give him the opportunity to be successful.
I think TT is just tired of Leach being interviewed for every open BCS spot, and kind of like the Louisville AD, with Petrino, just tired of dealing with it.
Personally, I think the job of the AD is to deal with it. You have a successful coach, your job as AD is to keep him happy, and give him the opportunity to be successful.
I agree that Leach's spread can struggle against athletic defenses, but the guy has a track record of success, and has at times been successful against decent defenses.
Are you saying two months ago if your choices were Mullen or Leach, you take Mullen?
Are you saying two months ago if your choices were Mullen or Leach, you take Mullen?
I have no idea what type of defense Mullen is going to run, and I don't think he has actually been on the defensive side of the ball as far as coaching, but I agree that Leach's defenses usually aren't good.
I don't think Leach is a superior coach, but the guy can get you to a bowl game. I think he can recruit decent enough and can scheme well enough to beat teams that are equally talented. The guy's offense can work against teams that have average D-lines. If you can't put pressure on the QB with your front four, you are in trouble.
If I had to pick an offense and an offense alone, based on not having Tebow, I would rather have TT's offense. They simply roll up points and yards against decent to good competition. They put up 40+ against Texas this year, and Texas' defense wasn't terrible.
I don't think Leach is a superior coach, but the guy can get you to a bowl game. I think he can recruit decent enough and can scheme well enough to beat teams that are equally talented. The guy's offense can work against teams that have average D-lines. If you can't put pressure on the QB with your front four, you are in trouble.
If I had to pick an offense and an offense alone, based on not having Tebow, I would rather have TT's offense. They simply roll up points and yards against decent to good competition. They put up 40+ against Texas this year, and Texas' defense wasn't terrible.
I really don't know that you can blame Leach's defense on him. I would think that two things contribute to their weakness on D, 1) their inability to attract a quality DC to coach in Lubbock, and 2) their inability to recruit superb athletes.
They've obviously landed a few big time athletes on offense, but for the most part, they don't recruit overwhelmingly well, due in large part to being a mid-level football program in the middle of nowhere.
If Leach were to be given a job at a school where it is easier to recruit, and a job where he could attract a decent DC, then he'd win a whole lot. A lot of coaches, and I'm pretty sure Leach is one of them, will only focus on one side of the ball and hire someone else to handle the other side. Leach is an offensive coach, so he spends his time with the offense. I'm sure he has very little input on the defense. Same could be said for Croom. Were his defenses decent at MSU? Sure, but it wasn't because he knew a lick about defense. It's because he had quality coaches on defense and was able to bring in some decent defensive talent.
And I'll bet Mullen has very little to do with your defense. He coached at UF, but his defense will likely look nothing like the defense at UF, unless his DC just happens to run a similar scheme.
And yes, Leach's scheme would work in the SEC. It may not put up 45 points per game like it does in the Big 12, but he'd put up 30+ every year, which is good enough to win a ton of games if you can hire a quality DC and recruit decent defensive talent.
They've obviously landed a few big time athletes on offense, but for the most part, they don't recruit overwhelmingly well, due in large part to being a mid-level football program in the middle of nowhere.
If Leach were to be given a job at a school where it is easier to recruit, and a job where he could attract a decent DC, then he'd win a whole lot. A lot of coaches, and I'm pretty sure Leach is one of them, will only focus on one side of the ball and hire someone else to handle the other side. Leach is an offensive coach, so he spends his time with the offense. I'm sure he has very little input on the defense. Same could be said for Croom. Were his defenses decent at MSU? Sure, but it wasn't because he knew a lick about defense. It's because he had quality coaches on defense and was able to bring in some decent defensive talent.
And I'll bet Mullen has very little to do with your defense. He coached at UF, but his defense will likely look nothing like the defense at UF, unless his DC just happens to run a similar scheme.
And yes, Leach's scheme would work in the SEC. It may not put up 45 points per game like it does in the Big 12, but he'd put up 30+ every year, which is good enough to win a ton of games if you can hire a quality DC and recruit decent defensive talent.
Everything that team does is his responsibility. The reason their defense sucks isn't because you can't recruit defensive players or a defensive coach there (although paradoxically, you somehow CAN recruit offensive players and offensive coaches there), it's because Leach is perfectly content to have a ****** defense. Give him a year or 2 in the SEC and he wouldn't even be putting 30 points per game on the board (at least not in conference games).
Edit to add: His last 2 games against SEC teams, he put up 34 (aided by a couple of gift TDs) and 10 points.
Edit to add: His last 2 games against SEC teams, he put up 34 (aided by a couple of gift TDs) and 10 points.
set records at UK....thats right freakin kentucky while in the sec...dont know how you can say it wouldnt work when the only thing you have to compare it to is his ACTUAL time in the sec and it most certainly did..."thrived" as coach would say. Would it next year? Who knows....
And before you bring up the argument that he didn't have anything to do with Kentucky's defenses those years, I'll point out that he gave uo over 30 ppg vs. Big 12 offenses this year and gave up 47 to the only SEC offense he faced (an offense that only scored 28 ppg vs SEC defenses - 23 ppg before the MSU game).
I understand not being able to agree to terms.... but for Tech to be seriously considering firing a coach that just finished a 11-2 season because he won't agree to an extension?? That's the most insane thing I've ever heard. I mean, he's got 2 years left on the existing contract. If the Tech AD doesn't like the guy, let him coach 2 more years and leave on his own.
But firing a guy because he refuses to accept a new contract (when the current one still has 2 years left)?? That's like me getting fired because I turn down a raise. I can only imagine how outraged Tech fans must be.
But firing a guy because he refuses to accept a new contract (when the current one still has 2 years left)?? That's like me getting fired because I turn down a raise. I can only imagine how outraged Tech fans must be.