MooreTrucker said:Rodney Ruxin said:
Jesus Christ, for THAT??? We really have left the reservation. This is ****oo for coco puffs world stuff.
No not for that. That's just cover for the real reasons.
Pissing off a big donor and having most if not all of his team turn against him. There's other stuff but it's peripheral.Rodney Ruxin said:MooreTrucker said:Rodney Ruxin said:
Jesus Christ, for THAT??? We really have left the reservation. This is ****oo for coco puffs world stuff.
No not for that. That's just cover for the real reasons.
I haven't read the whole thread and I'm a couple bourbons deep, what is the real reason?
TXAggie2011 said:Adams' contract (https://247sports.com/college/texas-tech/Gallery/Texas-Tech-basketball-Mark-Adams-Red-Raiders-head-coach-contract-164542167/) like most these days, has a broad section about supporting athletes, not doing anything to harm reputations or bring embarrassment, upholding social mores, etc., etc., etc. and, like most contracts, explicitly says it doesn't matter if something is criminal or not.91AggieLawyer said:TXAggie2011 said:I'm not sure they were cool with the rest. But obviously this crossed their line.CactusThomas said:
Crazy how they have this ****** bag who cheats on his wife with his brother's widow and spits on his players but they're cool with that.
They suspend him for quoting the Bible and claim that its racist.
You're an idiot if you think you can talk about slaves obeying their master and all will be well with your team that's almost entirely Black. I don't care if it's from the Bible. That's just stupid.
And from what has been reported, he didn't even try to acknowledge why that might have been problematic. He just dug in his heels.
It may or may not have been stupid, but it almost certainly isn't a violation of his contract. At least not the player incident. Since it wasn't a criminal accusation, the suspension, in my opinion, likely wasn't appropriate.
With that said, I haven't read the contract so I won't comment about the whole sister-in-law thing with respect to any morality or moral turpitude clause (the alleged incident may still be unsubstantiated anyway). However, I'd be surprised if that would trigger anything either, especially if he could show tech ignoring similar incidents in the past on other coaches -- and I'm sure he knows where some bodies are buried.
I have no doubt that they reached a financial settlement.
I'm pretty sure he stepped down after coming to some financial agreement. As I'm sure you know as an attorney, that does not mean the suspension wasn't warranted or that Tech could not have straight up fired him with cause.
My point wasn't whether he violated the contract or not, just that he was an idiot if he thought he wasn't inviting trouble
Faustus said:TXAggie2011 said:Adams' contract (https://247sports.com/college/texas-tech/Gallery/Texas-Tech-basketball-Mark-Adams-Red-Raiders-head-coach-contract-164542167/) like most these days, has a broad section about supporting athletes, not doing anything to harm reputations or bring embarrassment, upholding social mores, etc., etc., etc. and, like most contracts, explicitly says it doesn't matter if something is criminal or not.91AggieLawyer said:TXAggie2011 said:I'm not sure they were cool with the rest. But obviously this crossed their line.CactusThomas said:
Crazy how they have this ****** bag who cheats on his wife with his brother's widow and spits on his players but they're cool with that.
They suspend him for quoting the Bible and claim that its racist.
You're an idiot if you think you can talk about slaves obeying their master and all will be well with your team that's almost entirely Black. I don't care if it's from the Bible. That's just stupid.
And from what has been reported, he didn't even try to acknowledge why that might have been problematic. He just dug in his heels.
It may or may not have been stupid, but it almost certainly isn't a violation of his contract. At least not the player incident. Since it wasn't a criminal accusation, the suspension, in my opinion, likely wasn't appropriate.
With that said, I haven't read the contract so I won't comment about the whole sister-in-law thing with respect to any morality or moral turpitude clause (the alleged incident may still be unsubstantiated anyway). However, I'd be surprised if that would trigger anything either, especially if he could show tech ignoring similar incidents in the past on other coaches -- and I'm sure he knows where some bodies are buried.
I have no doubt that they reached a financial settlement.
I'm pretty sure he stepped down after coming to some financial agreement. As I'm sure you know as an attorney, that does not mean the suspension wasn't warranted or that Tech could not have straight up fired him with cause.
My point wasn't whether he violated the contract or not, just that he was an idiot if he thought he wasn't inviting trouble
Going forward Tech will insist on a no slave reference clause for the coaches. Live and learn.
Faustus said:
He would have been back next year but for it.
Faustus said:
I don't think they were going to eat the $7 million to fire him a year after extending him and reaching the sweet 16 even though they might have wanted to. That is until this incident allowed them to suspend him and negotiate his buyout.
