Putting a Leach on Leach?

Earlier this week, Texas Tech Mike Leach faced the ultimate indignity - being fired by the Chancellor after discussing player disciplinary issues.  Basically, James Wood, a wide receiver for the Red Raiders, was sidelined with a concussion.  Wood claims that Leach locked him in an electical cabinet in punishment.  Coach Leach claims that Wood was kept in an observation room.  Both people agree on the motive -- Wood wanted to play and Leach did not have medical approval.  Wood complained to the Chancellor, who initially suspended Leach for the bowl game pending the outcome of an investigation.  That investigation, as it turned out, was the Chancellor calling Leach into his office and asking him to justify his treatment of players.

Okay, let's examine this whole issue.  There is absolutely no question about why Wood was held out of a game.  No matter Leach's history, he was following new guidelines from both the NCAA and NFL regarding concussions.  Due to some lawsuits and plenty of recent media coverage, protecting players with concussions is the new "in" thing.  It used to be common for players to come back too soon from concussions.  Pro teams and college athletic departments are being informed of studies showing the detrimental long-term effects that come from repeated head injuries, or stress and trauma experienced by a player who is still suffering from a concussion.  Whether Leach wanted to or not, he was following new directives.

The initial fault, and perhaps most of the fault, clearly falls upon the student.  The student had not been medically cleared to play, yet he wanted to.  We're not sure if Leach did have to exert excessive discipline to keep the student off the field.  I am a college professor, I know how pig-headed and irrational college students can be, and athletes are the worst.  I'm sure Wood felt that he knew better than the coach and the trainers, and thus felt that his rights were being denied.

That likely led to his complaint.  What happened next was an over-reaction by the Chancellor.  Coach Leach has stated that the Chancellor was out to get him, and I'm not sure I'll disagree.  While I don't know if it was a financial issue, as Coach Leach has stated, but the Chancellor automatically assumed that Leach had overstepped his authority.  The entire inquiry by the Chancellor was an attempt to find out how extreme Leach had been treating his players, automatically assuming that Leach was doing something extreme.  The Chancellor may have had reason, if Leach has a history of extreme behavior, but any scientist or researcher will tell you that the Chancellor committed a major error in his investigation -- he already started with an assumption of Leach's guilt, and was interested in the degree of it.  That skews the inquiry, and removes any chance of Leach pleading innocence.  The Chancellor states that Leach was uncooperative, and I'm sure that how it appeared to him.

I'm sure Mike Leach will find a job elsewhere - they did a tremendous job at Lubbock.  The questions that remain are all based in Texas Tech - who will be the new coach, how will this affect the program, and does it open the door to Michigan State to win the Alamo Bowl?  The Red Raiders have a poor record against the Big Ten, and had won only one bowl game before Leach's arrival.  If they win, it'll be due to the playbook and attitudes instilled by Leach.  If they lose, it was a major distraction, and bodes ill for the 2010 season.