Greg Auman, St Petersburg Times, Take On The

VideoEagle · November 20, 2010

You just can't fix stupid...

It says Leavitt's firing will cost him $9.5 million, the value of his contract through 2014. Even if it is determined he was fired "with cause," his contract says that he is due $375,000, not the $66,000 USF gave him the day he was fired, the suit says.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/mar/15/151954/leavitt-files-lawsuit-against-usf-foundation/

Well, according to the sentence above, if Leavitt was fired with cause then his attorney's contend his contract reads that he is due $375,000. The State of Florida says if he was fired with cause he is due only $66,000. It appears there are two issues with regard to the suit and one with regard to North Texas. With regard to the suit, was there cause to fire Leavitt and if Leavitt is determined to have been fired with cause, what is the correct interpretation of the of the final payment for a firing with cause. While these are very important questions to Leavitt (and his attorneys who stand to make money on this), it is immaterial to hiring the next Head Football Coach at North Texas.

With regard to North Texas, the question is how much weight do we place on the bad publicity hiring Leavitt will generate. To assert there is NO bad publicity is ridiculous. Several previous poster who are in management or executive positions have pointed out they would not hire a person who sued their former employer. I work in television and suing your former employer is far from common, but certainly not unheard of. Except in very, very exceptional circumstances, no one involved in such a suit is hired until the suit has completely ended. The exceptions are almost always because the suits involve politics - not office politics but real Democrats and Republicans. For example, Dan Rather got hired by HDNet while suing CBS. I can't think of any case where someone accused of work place bias or threatening a subordinate was hired until the suit was settled successfully for the plaintiff. If the defense wins, the plaintiff finds a new career.

Why hire a head ache when there are candidates who don't bring problems to your doorstep? Even if they are not as good at the job, the offset of their job performance is all the bad publicity they bring.

I think NT should interview Leavitt and find out the progress of the lawsuit. Then weigh the negatives he brings against a very good coaching record.

Edited November 20, 2010 by VideoEagle

eulessismore · November 20, 2010

I respectfully think you are wrong here, sir.

Leavitt's lawsuit claims that he was fired without cause, which is why he is seeking 7 some odd million dollars in compensation. It would be worth the attorney's fees to sue for $350,000.

Why do we even care if he is sueing USF? It doesn't affect his ability to coach, recruit, or build a program. I would be far more concerned if he laid down and let USF run over him.

Here's what I'm starting to think based on having done a few Internet searches about Leavitt, is that he may have a desirable attribute for a college football head coach, to delegate to his assistants. However, he doesn't seem known as someone who has the "salesmanship" (for lack of a better word) qualities that RV mentioned as one of the qualifications he was looking for when he came on the Barbershop Podcast at the start of this whole thing. Of course, I've also heard that as one of Coach Fran's downfalls at Alabama, was his lack of wanting to go out and schmooze with the kinds of folk that put the big money into Alabama Football. Canales does seem to have that; it would be interesting to hear more about Mickey Matthews; just the places he has coached and the success he has had makes him sound like someone I'd want to listen to. So, regardless of what happened with Leavitt at South Florida, or the status of his lawsuit against them, can he get past that to be successful as a head football coach and chief salesperson of the UNT Football Program? We must win, but winning in and of itself won't be enough if we want to step up to where we're consistently filling that stadium and causing realistic talk about adding on to it, not to mention getting into a conference where we have rivals within the state of Texas that we play every year.

Edited November 20, 2010 by eulessismore

MizzouTigers · November 20, 2010

With regard to North Texas, the question is how much weight do we place on the bad publicity hiring Leavitt will generate. To assert there is NO bad publicity is ridiculous.

How could it be worse than the bad publicity UNT has generated for the last umpteen years? Winning will generate good publicity. You do want to win, don't you? You do want your program to be respected and not the butt of jokes, don't you?

Hiring Leavitt will generate a few headlines and then be forgotten in a few weeks. What will be remembered will be his domination of the Sun Belt Conference.

MizzouTigers · November 20, 2010

Me calling Leavitt an idiot for not settling is different than you repeatedly calling me an idiot. Leavitt's not here. You and I are, and your repeated attempts to make this personal have been reported to the moderators. Grow up.

As for my numbers being fictional, I said the issue was $375,000 vs. $66,000 for a with-cause firing and you backed me up with your own link.

It's pointless to open a closed mind.

VideoEagle · November 20, 2010

How could it be worse than the bad publicity UNT has generated for the last umpteen years? Winning will generate good publicity. You do want to win, don't you? You do want your program to be respected and not the butt of jokes, don't you?

Hiring Leavitt will generate a few headlines and then be forgotten in a few weeks. What will be remembered will be his domination of the Sun Belt Conference.

Winning WILL generate good publicity eventually. The next coach can't win a game till September, 2011. RV will be answering questions about hiring a coach that until a court rules otherwise was fired for covering up an investigation into mistreating a player. We need to sell stadium seats and stadium naming rights. And what if he loses the first couple of games, which is a very distinct possibiiity. Now you have losing compounded with a bad reputation.

Why buy the additional head aches when we don't have to answer embarrassing questions about our hires when people like MIckey Matthews or Canales or others don't bring those problems. There is no guarantee that Leavitt would be more successful than any similar coach but there is a certainly hiring him would bring problems.

What could be worse publicity? Cover ups of any kind for one. This isn't St. Louis. We are a LOT bigger media market. Both the Morning News and the Star Telegram have won pulitzer prizes for reporting. Bad stories don't just go away here. Rather people are hounded out of their jobs. Just as our losing record is mentioned in every article, Leavitt's lawsuit will be noted over and over and over again. The best way to move up out of the Denton Record Chronicle to the Morning News is to get a great story and run with it forever.

MootPoint · November 20, 2010

Figured I might as well throw in my 0.02 on this one. I've got an inkling of how this will turn out, but I'll leave that for Cerebus to guess at;) But, just some general thoughts, as it appears most people have kind of made up their minds on this one.

1) If his attorneys are taking this case on contingency, I would point out that most attorneys do not take cases on contingency unless they feel like they have a pretty good chance of being successful. Basically, because if they're not successful, they will have wasted (at this point eight months+ of their time pursuing this case) a lot of time and expense for no return. The better option (if this case were "weak") would be to pursue "paying" cases during that entire time period and not pursue this case.

2) Additionally, all this banter about guilt/innocence/"official reports"/etc seems meaningless to me. An official report from one party, including USF here, is about as compelling to me as Leavitt's own "official report." Neither deserves any more credence than the other imho. The truth is we really don't know what happened, who is more "credible" or "believable" and why Leavitt is currently out of a job. A jury trial doesn't "prove" or "disprove" what occurred; all it will find is whether USF "breached" their contract with Leavitt. USF could be fully correct about their version of the events, but still have "breached" their contract.

3) A lot of times, with employment related cases, it's not about what's "reasonable" or acting "practically"; the parties are "emotional" about the fact that they are "right" or that they were "screwed" somehow. Both sides may honestly feel they are in the right and that's what makes these types of cases tougher. After all, who wants to "settle" knowing that you're giving up something you never should have lost out on to begin with? That's why other types of cases that include say, an insurance company, are resolved so much more easily. In that case, the insurance company isn't looking at a case emotionally; it's just dollars and cents to them and what's the best "business" decision.

4) As far as him having baggage by being involved in this lawsuit, I have mixed thoughts. Yes, I agree it is baggage, but I also don't think someone should be penalized for pursuing their rights or trying to vindicate themselves if they feel they have been wronged. It's the just get on with your life path vs. the I want to be vindicated/I don't want these guys to ever screw someone else over like this and they need to be taught a lesson path.

5) Regardless, I doubt this case will ever go to trial; it will be settled, probably with a confidentiality/non-disclosure clause and somebody will be driving around in either a Lexus or an Aston Martin (and that will tell me how it finally ended up).

Cheers. :ph34r:

Edited November 20, 2010 by MootPoint

gangrene · November 20, 2010

As for my numbers being fictional, I said the issue was $375,000 vs. $66,000 for a with-cause firing and you backed me up with your own link.

Leavitt's contract was good through 2014. If it is determined he was fired without cause, he's entitled to 75% of his contract through 2014, so this lawsuit is about a lot more than $309,000. In addition, I don't believe he's even been paid the $66K nor would have likely accepted that payment for fear it would indicate agreement with the terms of dismissal. Please read the following paragraphs from Leavitt's contract closely as this, in addition to trying to reclaim any semblance of his former reputation, is why Leavitt is suing USF:

c. Termination by the University Without Cause.

If the University terminates this Agreement without cause, Coach agrees to use reasonable efforts to obtain a similar football related position between the date of termination and the term the contract would otherwise have concluded. If the University terminates this Agreement in accordance with Paragraph 8.a, Coach will receive seventy-five percent (75%) of the compensation due to him under Article
6 and Article 7 of the Agreement less the amount of any compensation (to include salary and fringe benefits) Coach earns as a result of subsequent employment in a football related
position from the date of such subsequent employment, which will be construed as the date Coach begins providing services to a subsequent employer or the effective date of any
employment contract, whichever is sooner, to the conclusion of the term of this Agreement. In no event will Coach receive more than the compensation due to him under the remaining
term of this Agreement as provided for in Article 4. Any payments due to Coach under this Paragraph will be made at seventy five (75%) of the adjusted base rate of pay, as provided in Article 6 and 7, at the time of termination and will not be increased or adjusted after the time of termination. Payments will be made to Coach over the term remaining under this Agreement and will not be accelerated except at the option of the University. All payments made under this Paragraph will be in full and complete satisfaction and settlement of any and
all claims or disputes between Coach and the University or Foundation related to Coach's employment pursuant to this Agreement.

d. Termination by the University With Cause. If the University terminates this Agreement in accordance with Paragraph 8.c or otherwise:

(1) Coach will be paid one-twelfth of his adjusted base rate of pay, as provided in Article 6, at the time of termination;
(2) No other forms of compensation or benefits will be due and payable under this Agreement, except that Coach will retain any rights to any other employee benefits as provided by any state or federal requirements.

rcade · November 20, 2010

Leavitt's contract was good through 2014. If it is determined he was fired without cause, he's entitled to 75% of his contract through 2014, so this lawsuit is about a lot more than $309,000.

Only if you believe there's a chance he will prove he was fired without cause.

Even then, the money he is owed is minus anything he earns in another football job through 2014. So let's figure on Leavitt getting a head coaching job for $750,000 a year, which is the low end of what he could command based on his success at USF. That's $3 million.

What would you rather have as Jim Leavitt -- a small chance at $7 million from a protracted lawsuit fight that keeps you out of work through 2014, or a $3 million contract from another school and a chance to put the USF mess in the rear view mirror?

Edited November 20, 2010 by rcade

gangrene · November 21, 2010

Only if you believe there's a chance he will prove he was fired without cause.

And why do you think he is suing?

Even then, the money he is owed is minus anything he earns in another football job through 2014. So let's figure on Leavitt getting a head coaching job for $750,000 a year, which is the low end of what he could command based on his success at USF. That's $3 million.

What would you rather have as Jim Leavitt -- a small chance at $7 million from a protracted lawsuit fight that keeps you out of work through 2014, or a $3 million contract from another school and a chance to put the USF mess in the rear view mirror?

Where did you get $375,000 from anyway? He was contracted to earn $850,000 in 2009, $900,000 in 2010. 75% of that is $635,000 and $675,000, respectively. Had he not been fired, he would have earned a minimum of $5.85 million, without incentives, for the term of his contract through 2014. So 75% of that is $4,378,000 - that's, basically, the amount for which he's suing. I don't know who you think is going to offer him $3 million a year...with or without the USF lawsuit. In fact, I don't know that he'd command that much if this whole incident had never occurred.

As a proponent of hiring Jim Leavitt for HC at North Texas, I hope he does win his lawsuit because I think we'd be able to afford him and let USF make up the difference between 75% of what they were paying him and what we'd be able to pay him.

MizzouTigers · November 21, 2010

Winning WILL generate good publicity eventually. The next coach can't win a game till September, 2011. RV will be answering questions about hiring a coach that until a court rules otherwise was fired for covering up an investigation into mistreating a player.

There was no investigation, so there was no cover up of something that never happened. Why do you insist on repeating the lie?

MizzouTigers · November 21, 2010

Only if you believe there's a chance he will prove he was fired without cause.

Even then, the money he is owed is minus anything he earns in another football job through 2014. So let's figure on Leavitt getting a head coaching job for $750,000 a year, which is the low end of what he could command based on his success at USF. That's $3 million.

What would you rather have as Jim Leavitt -- a small chance at $7 million from a protracted lawsuit fight that keeps you out of work through 2014, or a $3 million contract from another school and a chance to put the USF mess in the rear view mirror?

Let me see if I can help you with simple math...

1,800,000.00 - $750,000.00 = $1,050,000.00 X 5 years = $5,250,000.00.

And in the process of winning this lawsuit it proves Doug Woolard had an agenda and smeared Leavitt to get out of paying his contract.

MizzouTigers · November 21, 2010

Figured I might as well throw in my 0.02 on this one. I've got an inkling of how this will turn out, but I'll leave that for Cerebus to guess at;) But, just some general thoughts, as it appears most people have kind of made up their minds on this one.

1) If his attorneys are taking this case on contingency, I would point out that most attorneys do not take cases on contingency unless they feel like they have a pretty good chance of being successful. Basically, because if they're not successful, they will have wasted (at this point eight months+ of their time pursuing this case) a lot of time and expense for no return. The better option (if this case were "weak") would be to pursue "paying" cases during that entire time period and not pursue this case.

2) Additionally, all this banter about guilt/innocence/"official reports"/etc seems meaningless to me. An official report from one party, including USF here, is about as compelling to me as Leavitt's own "official report." Neither deserves any more credence than the other imho. The truth is we really don't know what happened, who is more "credible" or "believable" and why Leavitt is currently out of a job. A jury trial doesn't "prove" or "disprove" what occurred; all it will find is whether USF "breached" their contract with Leavitt. USF could be fully correct about their version of the events, but still have "breached" their contract.

3) A lot of times, with employment related cases, it's not about what's "reasonable" or acting "practically"; the parties are "emotional" about the fact that they are "right" or that they were "screwed" somehow. Both sides may honestly feel they are in the right and that's what makes these types of cases tougher. After all, who wants to "settle" knowing that you're giving up something you never should have lost out on to begin with? That's why other types of cases that include say, an insurance company, are resolved so much more easily. In that case, the insurance company isn't looking at a case emotionally; it's just dollars and cents to them and what's the best "business" decision.

4) As far as him having baggage by being involved in this lawsuit, I have mixed thoughts. Yes, I agree it is baggage, but I also don't think someone should be penalized for pursuing their rights or trying to vindicate themselves if they feel they have been wronged. It's the just get on with your life path vs. the I want to be vindicated/I don't want these guys to ever screw someone else over like this and they need to be taught a lesson path.

5) Regardless, I doubt this case will ever go to trial; it will be settled, probably with a confidentiality/non-disclosure clause and somebody will be driving around in either a Lexus or an Aston Martin (and that will tell me how it finally ended up).

Cheers.

Don't be so sure it won't go to court. Doug Woolard is now trying to CYA with Florida Taxpayer money. He had his chance to settle, but refused.

Not only is Wil Florin taking Leavitt's case on a contingency, but he is taking it at half the usual percentage.

Leavitt's contract calls for a pre-termination hearing which USF denied him claiming it was an emergency situation because January 8th was getting close to signing day.

MizzouTigers · November 21, 2010

And why do you think he is suing?

Where did you get $375,000 from anyway? He was contracted to earn $850,000 in 2009, $900,000 in 2010. 75% of that is $635,000 and $675,000, respectively. Had he not been fired, he would have earned a minimum of $5.85 million, without incentives, for the term of his contract through 2014. So 75% of that is $4,378,000 - that's, basically, the amount for which he's suing. I don't know who you think is going to offer him $3 million a year...with or without the USF lawsuit. In fact, I don't know that he'd command that much if this whole incident had never occurred.

As a proponent of hiring Jim Leavitt for HC at North Texas, I hope he does win his lawsuit because I think we'd be able to afford him and let USF make up the difference between 75% of what they were paying him and what we'd be able to pay him.

His full salary/compensation was $1.8 million per year. The $66,666 per month was just his base salary from USF.

eulessismore · November 21, 2010

I'm really starting to wonder why people at North Texas should be expected to care all that much about Jim Leavitt's financials. I'm ok with us considering whether his legals are outweighed by his coaching record, but isn't that something that people we're paying to vet candidates can take into consideration? I mean, our local high school coach said it pretty well, I think: "Colleges are not charities". I haven't really figured out why we should be conducting pity parties for candidates who may or may not have been done wrong. Face it: life isn't fair, and people at UNT shouldn't be trying to make it that way over something that happened half a continent away.

rcade · November 21, 2010

Where did you get $375,000 from anyway?

That's 10 percent of the full contract, according to Mizzou's link. If he's fired with cause, he's only eligible to receive 10 percent of the deal.

I don't know who you think is going to offer him $3 million a year...with or without the USF lawsuit.

That's not what I said. $3 million over the four years he's still covered by the USF contract ($750,000 a year).

Edited November 21, 2010 by rcade

Green Dozer · November 21, 2010

Here's what I'm starting to think based on having done a few Internet searches about Leavitt, is that he may have a desirable attribute for a college football head coach, to delegate to his assistants. However, he doesn't seem known as someone who has the "salesmanship" (for lack of a better word) qualities that RV mentioned as one of the qualifications he was looking for when he came on the Barbershop Podcast at the start of this whole thing. Of course, I've also heard that as one of Coach Fran's downfalls at Alabama, was his lack of wanting to go out and schmooze with the kinds of folk that put the big money into Alabama Football. Canales does seem to have that; it would be interesting to hear more about Mickey Matthews; just the places he has coached and the success he has had makes him sound like someone I'd want to listen to. So, regardless of what happened with Leavitt at South Florida, or the status of his lawsuit against them, can he get past that to be successful as a head football coach and chief salesperson of the UNT Football Program? We must win, but winning in and of itself won't be enough if we want to step up to where we're consistently filling that stadium and causing realistic talk about adding on to it, not to mention getting into a conference where we have rivals within the state of Texas that we play every year.

Not being smart, but he had to be a pretty good salesman to do what he did at USF.

rcade · November 21, 2010

And in the process of winning this lawsuit it proves Doug Woolard had an agenda and smeared Leavitt to get out of paying his contract.

Since you're so determined to defend Leavitt, how about answering these questions based on my read of the USF investigative report. I'd like to get the take of somebody who had law school students as roommates during the '70s.

1. Why did two USF players say they saw Leavitt grab Joel Miller by the throat with one hand and slap or strike him with the other?

2. Why did one of those two players call Leavitt's actions an assault and the other say that Miller said to him afterwards, "Did you see that shit? Did you see what he did to me?"

3. Why did two other USF players (who were not eyewitnesses) say they were told by Miller that Leavitt grabbed his throat and slapped him?

4. Why did several players say that Miller told them he was warned afterwards by Leavitt to be careful because he was the "most powerful person in the building"?

5. Why did Miller's former high school coach say he was told by Miller that the incident occurred exactly as it was reported by AOL FanHouse, which wrote that Leavitt "grabbed a player by the throat and struck him twice in the face during halftime"?

And finally ...

6. If Leavitt did nothing wrong and he's being smeared, why would such a large number of people lie to USF investigators?

GrayEagle · November 21, 2010

Since you're so determined to defend Leavitt, how about answering these questions based on my read of the USF investigative report. I'd like to get the take of somebody who had law school students as roommates during the '70s.

1. Why did two USF players say they saw Leavitt grab Joel Miller by the throat with one hand and slap or strike him with the other?

2. Why did one of those two players call Leavitt's actions an assault and the other say that Miller said to him afterwards, "Did you see that shit? Did you see what he did to me?"

3. Why did two other USF players (who were not eyewitnesses) say they were told by Miller that Leavitt grabbed his throat and slapped him?

4. Why did several players say that Miller told them he was warned afterwards by Leavitt to be careful because he was the "most powerful person in the building"?

5. Why did Miller's former high school coach say he was told by Miller that the incident occurred exactly as it was reported by AOL FanHouse, which wrote that Leavitt "grabbed a player by the throat and struck him twice in the face during halftime"?

And finally ...

6. If Leavitt did nothing wrong and he's being smeared, why would such a large number of people lie to USF investigators?

If you read them all there's plenty of lying on both sides because someone's not telling the truth.

You are looking from the USF side only. They tell you what they want you to hear and suppress any information that would cloud their decision. If you've ever dealt with any government entity... federal, state or local, then you will know how they can stonewall you, suppress information detrimental to their case, and drag their feet about ever going to court.

Leavitt's lawsuit would get at the truth but it could be years, if ever, before that comes to trial.

rcade · November 21, 2010

You are looking from the USF side only. They tell you what they want you to hear and suppress any information that would cloud their decision. If you've ever dealt with any government entity... federal, state or local, then you will know how they can stonewall you, suppress information detrimental to their case, and drag their feet about ever going to court.

I'm not looking from the USF side only. I would like to believe Leavitt did nothing wrong. But for that to be true, too many people have to be lying.

I think Leavitt grabbed Miller and slapped him, which is assault if you make a big deal out of it and would get a coach fired.

But I also think that it happens sometimes in locker rooms and most of the time the players and coaches keep it to themselves for the good of the program.

MizzouTigers · November 21, 2010

That's 10 percent of the full contract, according to Mizzou's link. If he's fired with cause, he's only eligible to receive 10 percent of the deal.

That's not what I said. $3 million over the four years he's still covered by the USF contract ($750,000 a year).

Where do you get all this misinformation? 10%??? What are you talking about?

He still has 5 years on his contract of $1.8 million per year. I tried to simplify the math for you as much as I could and you just don't get it.

MizzouTigers · November 21, 2010

Since you're so determined to defend Leavitt, how about answering these questions based on my read of the USF investigative report. I'd like to get the take of somebody who had law school students as roommates during the '70s.

1. Why did two USF players say they saw Leavitt grab Joel Miller by the throat with one hand and slap or strike him with the other?

Two disgruntled players vs several other players, a Florida State Trooper (now an FBI Agent), the strength coach, a player's father/volunteer coach. What about all those folks?

2. Why did one of those two players call Leavitt's actions an assault and the other say that Miller said to him afterwards, "Did you see that shit? Did you see what he did to me?"

Those same two disgruntled players that were 50 feet away?

3. Why did two other USF players (who were not eyewitnesses) say they were told by Miller that Leavitt grabbed his throat and slapped him?

You sure are hung up on only two players who weren't even alleged victims. What about the State Trooper? Hmmm?

4. Why did several players say that Miller told them he was warned afterwards by Leavitt to be careful because he was the "most powerful person in the building"?

Huh?? Link?

5. Why did Miller's former high school coach say he was told by Miller that the incident occurred exactly as it was reported by AOL FanHouse, which wrote that Leavitt "grabbed a player by the throat and struck him twice in the face during halftime"?

Link?

And finally ...

6. If Leavitt did nothing wrong and he's being smeared, why would such a large number of people lie to USF investigators?

Are you or are you related to Doug Woolard?

Which large number? Do you mean all the ones that say it didn't happen or didn't happen as alleged by two disgruntled players that were 50 feet across the room? You really need to do some Googling and get the facts straight rather than continue to just make shit up.

Edited November 21, 2010 by MizzouTigers

VideoEagle · November 21, 2010

There was no investigation, so there was no cover up of something that never happened. Why do you insist on repeating the lie?

First of all, I'm not repeating a lie. I'm repeating what was in that huge set of documents to which TFLF posted a link. THAT was the investigation to which I refer. I did read that mess and it appears to me USF has dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's in their dismissal.

I will disagree with Moot on one point - taking a case on contingency doesn't always mean you think you can win. It often means you have enough to get the other side to settle. As our corporate lawyers have told me right or wrong is not important in lawsuits. What matters is the risk involved in going before a jury and difference you have to pay to end that risk for both sides. Once a case is actually filed, the USF AD has only minimal input into the handling of the case. The university's attorneys or the outside council they have engaged will have far more input.

That said, I don't care how the case ends, until it ends Jim Leavitt comes with more baggage than most other candidates. That is simply a fact.

I notice when anyone cites facts, MizzuTigers calls them "ignorant," "close minded" or my case "a lier." I understand Leavitt is your buddy and you will write anything at all to campaign for him, calling people names will only make your case harder to win.

MizzouTigers · November 21, 2010

I notice when anyone cites facts, MizzuTigers calls them "ignorant," "close minded" or my case "a lier." I understand Leavitt is your buddy and you will write anything at all to campaign for him, calling people names will only make your case harder to win.

First of all, they ain't facts. Second of all, who did I call a liar?

VideoEagle · November 21, 2010

First of all, they ain't facts. Second of all, who did I call a liar?

They aren't facts? As surly as the sun comes up in the East, Jim Leavitt comes with more baggage than most of the head coaching candidates that have been discussed. That is a fact. You might not like it, but that doesn't change it from being a fact.

And several post back you called me a liar for repeating what was in the report. I know you disagree with the report, but was just repeating what was in the report. It is a fact the report accuses Leavitt of trying to cover up the investigation. That's how it actually reads, thus it is a fact that it accuses him.

I pointed out several posts back that the media in DFW will not let go of this. You didn't dispute that, instead you accused me of lying. As I wrote before and you didn't dispute, this is will come up in every meeting he has with every group of Kiwanis, Rotary, alumni and every one else as the first question for months and months because it will be repeated in the paper over and over again.

Why add the the already difficult job of selling the program at NT by bringing in someone who will first have to explain why he was fired over and over before he can start selling the program? Other candidates don't have that handicap.

Sure, interview him and find out more. But factor in this handicap when comparing him to any other candidate.