10 comments TMQ: Gregg Smells An NFL Conspiracy and Comments On Mike Leach

Gregg Easterbrook has decided in his TMQ this week to take on the Adam James situation and he also suspects there is a conspiracy that got the Jets in the playoffs. I still haven't figured out why Gregg refers to TMQ in the 3rd person like he isn't the one writing it or TMQ is a separate entity from him. Either way, TMQ will be taking a few months off soon so we had better enjoy/not enjoy it while we can. Let's see what Gregg wants to second guess this week.

What sinister international conspiracy put the Jets into the playoffs? Must have been a pretty good conspiracy, able to arrange for the Indianapolis Colts to surrender midgame in Week 16, then for the Cincinnati Bengals to roll over and play dead in Week 17.

One part of the conspiracy was the Colts deciding they valued keeping their players healthy over making sure the team had momentum and a perfect season entering the playoffs. The other part of the conspiracy was the Bengals looking horrible on Sunday Night Football against a very hungry Jets team that played the best it could play to ensure they make the playoffs. Even though the Bengals said they came out to try and win the game Sunday night, I have a feeling they sort of gave up at one point and didn't want to show the Jets defense and offense too much of what they will want to do this upcoming week in the playoff game. I think once the Bengals started losing in the beginning of the game, they made the game plan a little more vanilla.

Everyone is talking about Arizona didn't show Green Bay anything, but isn't it possible the Bengals said they would come out and play the game as hard as they could, but in actuality they were planning on doing their best with a limited playbook in an effort not to show the Jets too much? I think this could be the case.

The conspiracy was so effective, even Rex Ryan did not know of its existence -- two weeks ago, he said the Jets were "obviously out of the playoffs." That's what the conspiracy wanted us to think!

I love it when Gregg talks tongue in cheek...actually I don't. My eyes start to hurt towards the end of doing his weekly TMQ, so I wish he would just fill it with his typical partially incorrect second guessing and not tongue in cheek jokes.

In other football news, the playoffs are upon us. Though this is the moment the entire NFL season supposedly is all about -- determining who makes that Super Bowl thing you might have heard about -- paradoxically, at this point every season, interest begins to decline.

This is the point where I would ask Gregg to provide some information as to how the interest in the NFL declines. Unfortunately I can ask all that I want and I won't get any type of statistical evidence of this. A normal journalist would at least throw a few Nielson ratings at me for regular season games versus playoff games to prove his point, but Gregg is not a normal journalist. He likes to make blanket statements that have no evidential backing.

Now for 20 teams -- two-thirds of the NFL's fan base -- there is no next week. In Cleveland, Oakland, St. Louis, Tampa, Washington, D.C., and many other places, attention is already turning to coaching melodramas and potential draft choices, though it will be many months before such things matter, if they ever matter at all.

This absolutely does not mean that interest in the NFL begins to decline. Under the theory that only a team's fan base is interested in what happens after their team is eliminated from the playoffs, very few people would watch the Super Bowl since it consists of only 2 teams and therefore 2 fan bases. Obviously a lot of people watch the Super Bowl and the NFC/AFC Championship games so I don't think Gregg's "declining interest" theory holds water.

I wonder if this is how Gregg's initial discussions went with ESPN to write TMQ:

(ESPN executive) "Gregg just write about the NFL games of the week and second guess in your own off-kilter fashion the decisions the coaches made. Just keep doing what you are doing and throw in some other stuff you want to talk about."

(Gregg Easterbrook smoking a pipe) "But dear sir, I have no interest in the NFL and really have no idea why coaches make the decisions they make...really I don't understand the game."

(ESPN executive) "You don't need to know about the NFL or football to write for us. Have you ever seen a football game?"

(Easterbrook) "I coach my son's football team."

(ESPN executive) "Perfect, you now have more exposure to the NFL than nearly half of the columnists we hire to write about the NFL. Just write like you do...but be sure to make blanket claims that have no evidential backing. It captures readers' interest and brainwashes them into believing what we say. How do you think it is possible that viewers think that Chris Berman is funny? We brainwashed the public by hiring idiot ex-athletes to do commentary, so when Berman speaks, it sounds creative and inspired."

(Easterbrook) "So you want me to write about a sport I don't know much about and make claims that have no evidential backing, and even if they did have evidential backing don't provide any regardless. The readers will enjoy this?"

(ESPN executive) "Enjoy it? They will love it. We write or say something and people believe it. The problem lies in if you try to provide some evidential backing for your claims. Just say something and then move on, don't let it linger or try to provide one iota of evidence to prove your point."

(Easterbrook) "Well, I think interest in the NFL declines as the playoffs start."

(ESPN executive) "That's crazy sounding! Perfect! Be sure you include that in your columns."

Since this action might have been addressed by a public apology, TMQ suspects it was a last straw -- that Leach had done other odd things behind the scenes, and Texas Tech had had enough.

Gregg summed it up pretty well here. I am surprised ESPN didn't force Gregg to say Craig James is a genius or personally vouch for him as part of the plan to make sure James and his family are seen as credible.

The lesser question is, if these allegations are true, why did Adam James consent? James is 21 years old. He could simply have said to Leach, "You're nuts," and walked away. The answer here is likely that James feared Leach would toss him off the team unless he followed any instruction from his coach, however inappropriate.

Which doesn't explain why Adam James had never really followed what Mike Leach requested of him previously. In fact, James was famous amongst the Texas Tech team for not wanting to work out or do what the coaching staff wanted him to do. From what I have read and heard Adam James pretty much tried to defy Mike Leach when possible. Why would he all of a sudden become afraid to follow the coach's orders?

College coaches often hold too much sway over athletes -- especially scholarship athletes, who know that being tossed from a team has dire financial consequences. NCAA scholarships are renewed on a semester-by-semester basis, so if you're no longer part of the team, the money flow stops.

The problem with this theory? This doesn't apply to Adam James. His father is wealthy and could afford to put him through school even if he lost his scholarship.

It's hard to believe that Tech administrators had no inkling something was amiss in the football office. Where was chancellor Kent Hance before this embarrassment happened?

Counting the money the school received as income from a successful college football program and then telling the trustees how well he was doing as chancellor. That's what Hance was doing prior to this embarrassment.

The larger question is why football coaches think they should punish players. I don't mean telling players who weren't paying attention to do grass drills -- no one questions that sort of decision.

That's the crux of the problem. Adam James felt he was punished while Mike Leach said he just had the trainers put him in a cold, dark room. Didn't I talk about this at length yesterday? The disagreement is over whether this was a punishment or an attempt to make sure Adam James stayed out of the light and heat.

I mean, why do football coaches want to punish players in the first place -- not prepare them, but punish them? Isn't this behavior a character defect on the part of the coach?

In a weird way the coaches are preparing the players for the world. If an employee showed up to work and didn't do what his employer asked or always had excuses and he/she obviously isn't prepared for having a job in the work place, he/she would be fired. So Mike Leach is teaching responsibility and accountability to a team through sports to use in the real world. If I showed up for work and announced I didn't want to work or had a reason why I couldn't work on a regular basis (as Adam James reportedly did), I would be punished at work. So Leach is theoretically preparing his players by punishing them.

Gregg talks more about Adam James later. God only knows why he feels the need to split up the discussion into two parts, but he does.

And in stylistic news, TMQ's immutable law holds: Cold Coach = Victory. With a kickoff temperature of 20 degrees Fahrenheit at the New Jersey facility to be demolished, Jersey/B coach Rex Ryan wore a sweatshirt, sweater and regular gloves; Cincinnati coach Marvin Lewis was dressed for a Denali ascent in a heavy parka, snowmobile gloves and balaclava.

I also have the law: Team with something to gain from winning a game = Victory over team with nothing to gain from winning a game. I think my theory holds true a little more in this situation.

Stats of the Week No. 1: The Colts and Saints opened the season on a combined 27-0 streak, and closed the season on a combined 0-5 streak.

Stats of the Week No. 4: The Giants opened the season 5-0, then went 3-8.

Stats of the Week No. 7: After 4-7 Carolina switched to undrafted Matt Moore at quarterback, the Panthers went 4-1 the remainder of the season, including wins over the NFC's first and second seeds.

There were also wins over a #1 seeded team on an 0-3 streak (that didn't play its starters most of the game), a team on (as stated above) 3-8 streak, and a team that won 2 games this year. So, it's not like they beat the 1st and 2nd seeds in the NFC at their very best. This is a bit of a misleading statistic.

Dallas is playing solid defense with conventional sets, rarely blitzing, which is a good sign.

Dallas is rarely blitzing over the past couple games? I don't even know if this is true or not. I am pretty sure they run a 3-4 defense. Does that mean they are rushing 3 people on every down? Or does Gregg not count one of the LB's rushing the passer as blitzing? These are the things I would like to ask Gregg. Also, I don't know why rarely blitzing is a good sign.

There's no point in second-guessing Bill Belichick's decision to play starters against the Texans. Belichick wanted to win the third seed, the third seed was worth winning, and Welker has been hit so many times before -- why worry about a few more hits?

Exactly. When a player has been hit as much as Wes Welker has been hit, we can't say for sure that one more hit is going to put him out for the season. It's always a possibility, but teams can't play football in fear of injuries occurring.

What would their chances be if they hadn't traded away Richard Seymour and Ellis Hobbs? In exchange for these players, the Flying Elvii received Oakland's first-round draft choice in 2011, reserve O-lineman Rich Ohrnberger and long snapper Jake Ingram. Seymour was so-so in 2009, and Hobbs was placed on injured reserve by Philadelphia in November. Long-term, New England may be better off, owing to those transactions. Right now, if the trades had not been made, the Patriots would look much stronger going into the postseason.

So the Patriots would look STRONGER right now if they had a player who played above average this year and a player who was on IR for half the year still on the roster? I can buy the Seymour argument (though the 1st round draft pick is going to benefit the Patriots down the road because the Raiders stink), but how the hell would having Ellis Hobbs taking up a roster spot at the beginning of the year and eventually landing on IR make the Patriots a stronger team in the postseason? Gregg realizes Hobbs could not have played for the entire playoffs and the Patriots would likely have to find a player to replace Hobbs, right? He also realizes Hobbs would most likely have taken up a roster spot for a player that now has a full season of experience to take into the playoffs because Hobbs wasn't on the roster all year, right?

The Texans have become fun to watch. But trailing 10-7 in the second quarter, Houston reached third-and-goal on the New England 1-yard line and went incompletion, incompletion. You don't belong in the playoffs if you can't rush for a single yard at the goal line.

The Texans won that game. Regardless of how they looked on third and fourth down (they went for it on fourth down, weren't the football gods supposed to be smiling?), they won the game. If the Texans beat the Patriots to go 9-7 then they may potentially deserve to be in the playoffs, regardless of whether they can rush the ball in the end zone on the goal line.

Unified Field Theory of Creep:

James Brady reports, "My wife and I went to our northeast-Ohio Lowe's the week before Christmas and what did our eyes find in the aisle at the front of the store? Lowe's already had the Burpee seed display out. According to the packaging on the seeds, they should not be planted in northeast Ohio until April."

You can take the seeds and store them in this contraption called a "garage" (Adam James doesn't know what one is either, so don't feel bad...rim shot!) and then plant the seeds when it is April. It is not really that odd for a store to sell a product that can't be planted until the spring. Stores sell lawnmowers year-round even though many people can not or do not mow their grass in the winter. I get the "creep" thing Gregg does and it sometimes has its merits, but Lowe's selling seeds in January that can't be planted until April is not "creep" since normal human beings may purchase the seeds, not complain about when they can plant them, and then store the seeds.

The Packers head into the contest on a 7-1 run, with the sole loss coming against the Steelers on that game's final play. The Cardinals are completely under the radar, just as they were when last year's playoffs began.

The Cardinals are under the radar except for the fact everyone says the Cardinals are under the radar and has predicted the Cardinals may go on another run this year in the playoffs...so other than this, the Cardinals are under the radar.

Now here are some guidelines created by Gregg to help prevent more concussions in football. I told you he talked about the Adam James situation later in his column.

First step: Mandatory coach training in symptom recognition for heat stroke and concussions. It's astonishing this is not already universal.

I absolutely agree. Though it may be hard for only the head coach to recognize the symptoms, all coaches should be able to recognize them.

Second step: Colleges require a neutral monitor present at practice, state high school associations require a parent or teacher present at practice.

Not a bad idea, but I don't know what kind of neutral monitor a college could find. It couldn't be someone who works for the school for example...and what kind of authority would this person have? Would a parent watching football practice in high school have the authority to do something if the coach mistreated a player? Or would the parent tell the principal or school board and they would take action (hopefully). I would need to know more about the logistics of this before I could say it is a good idea.

Third step: Mandate use of professional society safety guidelines such as this one, especially guidelines regarding young people and concussions and heat -- teens are more prone to concussions and heat illness than adults -- and then make coaches who violate the guidelines legally liable.

Legally liable? I am always nervous when a suggestion to a problem is to bring more lawyers into the discussion. I don't know if legally liable is the solution, simply because a student may have heat illness and not show any outward signs or not report the signs. This is possible and I don't know opening up certain legal liability for the head coach is the solution to fix this problem. It sounds nice to make coaches legally liable in theory.

Buffalo note: The Bills completed their third consecutive sold-out season. That's 73,967 tickets sold per game for three years despite a weak western New York economy and a Bills club that was 20-28 in that span. Jacksonville and San Diego can only dream of having local support as strong as is enjoyed by the Bills.

So naturally the NFL is having Buffalo play some of its home games in Toronto as a big "up yours" to the fan base.

Of course I may be reading these attendance numbers incorrectly, but it shows the average Bills attendance was 70,128 which was at 95.9% capacity. So they sold out but I would really count the support among those who showed up for the games. Even if the Bills sold that many tickets they had a few no-shows that need to be accounted for as well. The support in Buffalo is not bad, but the no-shows have to count when determining Bills support in Buffalo wouldn't they?

Now Bowling Green leads 42-41 -- an Idaho singleton kick sends the game to overtime, and a deuce wins the contest. You know what TMQ would do! Announcers called it a "huge gamble" when Idaho coach Robb Akey went for the win.

It was a huge gamble because playing for overtime would have been the much safer bet. Maybe it wasn't a "huge" gamble, but it was a pretty big gamble.

But actually it was playing the percentages -- going to overtime is at best a 50/50 proposition, whereas one gain of 3 yards means victory.

That's actually one of the worst comparisons of playing the percentages I have ever seen. Gregg includes one actual percentage and then a statement that includes no percentages. Again, I will ask...how does ESPN let him write crap like this? There are no percentages being compared.

It's like me saying, "Being offered $1,000,000 to shoot yourself in the face with a gun that has 3 bullets in a chamber that holds 6 bullets is at best a 50/50 proposition, whereas jumping out of an airplane at 20,000 feet without a parachute instead means you immediately get the money!"

A good comparison of the odds would be where Gregg actually gives the odds of converting a two point conversion and comparing it to a 50/50 proposition. Maybe that's too much work for Gregg and he didn't want to do it, but comparing these two figures using the odds of converting a two point conversion with a team's odds of winning in overtime would come out with a much better comparison.

Go win the game! The play was sweet, too, with plenty of misdirection, which is essential on goal-line downs. A shift turned an apparent strong-left formation into a tight end and tight wide receiver on the right; then a second tight end came in motion right; the tailback ran into the right flat waving for the ball, causing the safety to come up; two of the three receivers on the right cut left, the third started right and then spun back left, and was unguarded when the conversion pass arrived. The play is here.

All that writing just to state what happened. Bowling Green seems to have been running a zone and no one guarded the back of the end zone and left a man wide open over the middle. It's easier to just say this.

On the night, Bowling Green averaged 7.5 yards per offensive snap. Had they gone for it on fourth-and-inches, the final result might have been very different.

Gregg continues to boldly ignore the fact it is useless to compare how much yardage Bowling Green got on the average offensive snap since it was fourth-and-inches. The proper measure to use in this situation would be to use Bowling Green's conversion ratio on fourth-and-less-than-one during the season to make this call.

Tactics Note: Bowling Green rushed only two on the play, with four seconds remaining, that became the 16-yard touchdown to bring Idaho within one.

I am always confused by Gregg's thinking. So Gregg doesn't think Bowling Green should have blitzed, because blitzing is never good, but he also doesn't think Bowling Green should have rushed two people. So rushing three or four people at the quarterback would have been the only correct way to run the defense here?

Gregg also talks about in this very TMQ column about how Kansas City was faking an all-out blitz and that helped them make an interception. I just wonder how a person who doesn't like blitzing, thinks faking a blitz is a good idea? Just from a realistic perspective...If a team NEVER blitzed, which is what Gregg essentially advocates, faking a blitz would never work. So Gregg's Utopian world of never blitzing couldn't work out because teams would know his team doesn't blitz so they wouldn't fall for any fakes regarding blitzing. I hope I didn't confuse you because this makes sense in my head.

Then Gregg begins to question "Avatar" with his typical act of questioning the authenticity of the movie. If you go see a movie about blue beings who live on a habitable planet that has a mineral humans who are capable of having avatars want for some reason (I haven't seen the movie), is it really necessary to question the authenticity of the movie? Isn't it pretty well understood the movie is fictitious?

If I were a military man or woman, I would find "Avatar" insulting. With one exception, the helicopter pilot played by Michelle Rodriguez -- her character is twice referred to as a Marine, suggesting the military personnel are regular military, not mercenaries -- all the people in fatigues are brainless sadists. They want to kill, kill, kill the innocent. They can't wait to begin the next atrocity. It's true that the U.S. military has conducted atrocities, in Vietnam and during the Plains Indians wars. But slaughter of the innocent is rare in U.S. military annals. In "Avatar," it's the norm. The bloodthirsty military personnel readily comply with the colonel's orders to gun down natives. No one questions him -- though in martial law, a soldier not only may but must refuse an illegal order.

Yes, because if there is one thing Hollywood has done well prior to "Avatar" is accurately and correctly portray the United States military. Up until this point, everything has not exactly been spot-on.

Films that criticize the military for its faults are one thing: When did watching depictions of U.S. soldiers dying become a form of fun?

You want the Sarah Palin answer, Howard Dean answer or the moderate answer? Two of which are incorrect?

Sarah Palin answer: Because Hollywood hates everyday Americans and especially hates the military.

Howard Dean answer: Because our military has been responsible for more human deaths over the last 200 years than any other military force in the world.

Moderate answer: Hollywood is uncreative and thinks the military is an all-knowing group who wants to rule the world. The industry doesn't get why someone would join the military and just assumes people will join up to kill other people in cold blood.

Eric Bilinski of Fort Wayne, Ind., notes the Russian space agency is contemplating a mission to test changing the course of an asteroid. The rock in question is extremely unlikely to strike Earth, making it a good choice for testing, and could not approach Earth until 2036. Bilinski writes, "File that under Armageddon Creep."

Obviously if Russia is going to change the course of the asteroid that possibly could be headed towards Earth, they need to make this a last minute decision.

"In section 3.C.4, covering supplemental compensation, Texas Tech agreed to pay $25,000 if his football team achieves a 65 percent graduation rate. Texas Tech under Leach is relatively high in graduation rates for football-factory schools, high enough to win Leach his bonus -- so, this incentive worked...Leach gets an extra $100,000 if the Red Raiders win eight conference games, an extra $250,000 for winning the national championship. Thus if 'put your money where your mouth is' reveals Texas Tech priorities, the school cares four times as much about a winning season, and 10 times as much about a national championship, as it does about academics."

No, Texas Tech cares 4 times as much about compensating the head football coach for the football team having a winning season as they do about compensating the coach for the player's academics. There is a small difference, but it is important to note the players on the Texas Tech football team do not encompass the entire student body of Texas Tech so the concern Texas Tech shows to compensate the football coach in regard to academics doesn't reflect the school's entire concern overall of academics. It's a bit unfair to base Texas Tech's concern for academics on how they compensate the head football coach in his contract for graduating a certain percentage of players.

You had to feel for the Cincinnati players. First weasel coach Brian Kelly walks out on them on the eve of the school's biggest-ever bowl appearance -- please, for your personal safety, do not stand between Kelly and a wad of cash. Then assistant weasel Jeff Quinn, who said he would coach the Sugar Bowl in Kelly's stead, also accepted another job a few days before the contest. Why didn't Quinn have the dignity to leave and hand the reigns so someone who wanted to coach the Bearcats?

Here's another instance where Gregg shows a bold disregard for actual facts. Quinn wanted the Cincinnati Bearcat head coaching position, but was beaten out for the spot by Butch Jones, so then Quinn took a job with another school AFTER he didn't get the Bearcat position. Why should Gregg let facts get in the way of his argument that Quinn was a weasel coach? Quinn coached the Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl because he actually wanted to keep the commitment he made to the players, not because he was a weasel and didn't want the job.

The Bearcats did hand the reins (not reigns) over to a coach who WANTED to coach the Bearcats, he just didn't get hired for the job. Of course Gregg and his dipshit ESPN editor completely ignored this point. I guess it is too hard to even search their own site for information about this. What's the point of getting facts right when you can just guess and no one calls you on what you type?

I would just like to also add that even though Urban Meyer isn't a weasel coach under Gregg's definition of the term, he has left Bowling Green for more money at Utah and then he left Utah for more money at the University of Florida. I am sure in some people's eyes that is sort of weasel-y. His team won the Sugar Bowl handily, so Gregg's "weasel coaches get punished by the football gods" theory sort of takes another blow here.

What did the Cincinnati players do to deserve not one but two weasel coaches?

They did nothing, which is exactly why they got one weasel coach, Brian Kelly. Nothing annoys me more than when a sportswriter is absolutely wrong about a fact like this. It's fine to be critical of a coach, but at least know for certain you are in the right when criticizing the coach. It takes 2 minutes of research to find out Butch Jones got the Cincinnati job over Jeff Quinn, who was more than willing to take the job. Therefore it is incorrect to say Quinn didn't want the Bearcats job and to call him a weasel coach.

When people ask me why I have a problem with Gregg Easterbrook, I always tell them it is because I don't mind his second guessing, I just don't like that he second guesses and doesn't always know what he is talking about. How does his editor not catch some of these mistakes?

24 comments Jay Mariotti Smells Chum In The Water, Becomes ESPN's Mouthpiece

Jay Mariotti of course had to give his take on the Mike Leach and Texas Tech situation. I am writing about it today. You may ask why I am giving my opinion on it a week after the story broke. Well, the reason I am doing that is the same reason Jay Mariotti sucks for hearing about the story and immediately jumping the gun and instead of waiting for all the information to come in, then decides Mike Leach is guilty of all charges and is completely 100% in the wrong. It's what I call reactive journalism and I really can't stand it. Regardless of whether Leach was wrong or not, Mariotti just got one bit of information and popped out a column, which I think is a bit presumptive.

Reactive journalism is when a journalist gives a comment on a story developing and takes a hard stance one way without getting all of the facts first or waiting for all the facts to be brought out. Don't get me wrong, Mike Leach is very much in the wrong here, there's no doubt about that, but I don't believe he is the only person in this story that has been wrong. The bottom line: Don't condemn someone or pretend you know all the facts about a story the instant the story breaks.

(For instance, Jay Mariotti doesn't mention the Texas Tech administration doesn't like Mike Leach because of last year's contract negotiations. )

Of course Jay Mariotti is in no way familiar with this rule. If he gets a chance to come down on someone in the sports world he will do it with malice and as quickly as possible.

If you've wondered why there's an intense focus on concussions, why the NFL finally dumped the medical specialists who said head injuries don't pose long-term health dangers, why NFL players no longer can return to a game if they suffer even the slightest concussion and why one Democrat in Congress has compared this growing crisis to the deception of "tobacco companies pre-1990s'' -- well, America, meet Mike Leach.

We finally have our culprit for concussions in football. Concussions in the NFL and college football are all Mike Leach's fault. Every single last one of them.

First, let me put a disclaimer out there for what I am writing today. I do not think it is acceptable to lock an athlete in a garage or punish that athlete for not playing with a concussion. Obviously this is unacceptable and any coach that does this deserves to be fired. My point is that we have no idea if the accusations by the James family are true or not. Leach didn't force him to play with a concussion, he had been fed up with James' behavior in the past and his methods of sitting James for practice are questionable. The accusations certainly seem to be true, but excuse me if I don't trust ESPN to tell the whole story when they employ the victim's father and have a interest in showing Adam and Craig James are not in the wrong in any fashion. I can't pretend Mike Leach isn't an asshole, because he is, but I find it interesting the only major sports network that is still sticking with this story 100% (by sticking with this story 100% I mean they are reporting every little development) is ESPN.

The other major sites have moved past it. Meanwhile ESPN keeps uncovering evidence that current Texas Tech players didn't like Mike Leach. There is even a story about how Adam James will be welcome back to the team and how the trainer who put James in the closet (that was the size of a one car garage) didn't like doing it, but of course he did it anyway. This is the same trainer who contradicted James account of what happened originally. ESPN did give Mike Leach an interview though, so kudos to them for that.

There was barely a mention on the ESPN site about how CBSSportsline.com received emails from current and ex-Texas Tech players and coaches in support of Mike Leach. Leach is in the wrong, no doubt, but I also believe Texas Tech wanted to get rid of him because he is a pain in the ass and this gave them a chance to do so. The emails I linked earlier prove they didn't exactly like having him around. ESPN has stayed on top of the story simply because they don't want to fire Craig James and need to make him look credible to keep calling college football games for ESPN.

This article Jay Mariotti has written is not good. He should have just done what Gregg Doyel (who is no stranger to ripping people) did and let the story come out a little bit and write this article. It blames everyone. Sure, that sounds like a cop-out to just blame everyone involved in the situation, but there is also a lot of truth to it. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence neither Craig or Adam James liked the playing time Adam was receiving and plenty of evidence the contract negotiations with Leach left a bitter taste in the school's mouth last year. There is more to this story than an electrical closet/garage and a concussion. Someone needs to tell Jay Mariotti it is possible to write an interesting and meaningful column without choosing a side and putting that side with the full blame for a situation.

As long as creepy thugs such as the Texas Tech football coach exist, no amount of discourse, reform and legislation is enough.

Mike Leach is a weird guy. He loves pirates and just overall seems like a royal asshole, but after all we have found out about Adam James and the real circumstances around his "punishment" doesn't it seem a bit much to call Leach a "creepy thug?" (Contrary to ESPN's opinion, not everyone at Texas Tech liked Adam James) Maybe he is 25% creepy, but a thug? These are the type of statements that have caused Ozzie Guillen to call Jay Mariotti slurs and challenge him to a fight.

You personally I just think Mike Leach is just a victim of the "Crabtree Curse" Gregg Easterbrook always talks about. If you even get around Michael Crabtree, it ruins your life.

I am sure many of you have read the emails sent to Dennis Dodd of CBSSportsline defending Mike Leach. Granted, these are letters from Leach's coaches, current players, and ex-players so there may be a certain amount of bias in the letters because they like the guy...but isn't that the point? These people didn't have to write or say ANYTHING and they took the time out to write and tell what kind of person they thought Mike Leach was, as well as what kind of person they thought Adam James was. The easiest thing for these individuals who wrote in is to keep their mouth shut and see how the situation plays out. I believe ESPN's reporting shows some bias.

There were players who were happy that Mike Leach was gone from the team and there was one player quoted on ESPN as saying he was happy Leach was gone. This article on ESPN (what a shock) details some of the things Texas Tech players said about Leach that were negative and how he treated his players. Wes Welker said his experiences with Leach were positive. Would Wes Welker ever lie?????

Personally, I think Mike Leach has gone overboard at times with criticizing his players. Not everything he has said in the past is appropriate, so I won't defend him for that. I just want to see some fair coverage come out of this. Players are tough on their players and curse at them, I just don't get why video of Mike Leach cursing at Adam James is news to anyone who has played sports. Is Mike Leach a bully? Probably, but in the realm of the world outside of football I would say 90% of head coaches are bullies in college football. That doesn't make it right of course.

Part of me can't help but be a little jaded and find it interesting that the only sports site of the Big 4 (CBSSportsline, CNNSI, FoxSports, and ESPN) that was able to find and interview many players who didn't like Leach was ESPN...who just so happens to employ Adam James' father as an analyst. Other sports outlets have reported on the incident obviously, but no other network has had as much front page information and developments as ESPN. Sure, you could say they are just doing their job and reporting sports news, but I have to say ESPN isn't always the best at reporting sports news and developments when all the facts aren't known (i.e. Ben Roethlisberger legal situation at the beginning of the NFL year).

ESPN wouldn't by chance have any personal interest in making sure Craig James and his family aren't discredited would they? It severely hurts Craig James credibility as a college football analyst if it is eventually shown his son exaggerated the claims, got a prominent D-I head coach fired, and basically put himself in the middle of a situation where he didn't have all the facts. ESPN wants Mike Leach to be the bad guy here in my mind. Mike Leach has also done a lot to make himself be the bad guy here, so it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Sure, Adam James is Craig James' son and he wants to protect his son, but he also knows he is a high profile individual in college football. I can't and won't fault him for that. The problem lies in the fact he can't put himself in situations with those coaches he covers to look like his personal life is going to cross over negatively with his business life. I am sure Mike Leach was tough on players, football coaches tend to be that way, but if the claims were exaggerated that's a problem for Craig James. Calling the room Adam James was placed in an electrical closet when it was as big as a one car garage is a bit of an exaggeration. I can't fault Craig James for defending his son but he had just better be sure he has all the facts correct. I am not sure he did that.

When an athlete sustains a head injury of any sort, a coach should have the educated sensibility to drop all other priorities and concentrate fully on that player's well-being.

What is Mike Leach supposed to say? He is supposed to say, "One of my 100 football players has a mild concussion? He is a 5th string receiver who plays sparingly? Let's cancel practice and not focus on the bowl game that will potentially bring in a ton of money to the school and make sure he is going to be fine!" All Leach can do is have a trainer check this player out, which is what he did...obviously his methods were questionable in getting James out of the sun.

It would be nice if Mike Leach could personally tend to each and every player that gets hurt, but this is not realistic. Realistically a coach has almost 100 other players he has to tend to as well to make sure they win the bowl game, boosters who want a bowl game win, and other football-related things to do. That's why Mike Leach and Texas Tech has a training staff, to take care of injuries (even head injuries) and allow the coach to worry about coaching the football game. So it's not realistic for Mike Leach to drop everything and focus completely on Adam James and his concussion.

In the case of Adam James, a redshirt sophomore receiver, Leach reportedly doubted that he had suffered a concussion during a Dec. 16 practice and thought he was just another player disgruntled about playing time. Even though James had been examined a day later and told not to practice after being diagnosed with a concussion and an elevated heart rate, Leach wasn't a caring, compassionate soul about it. Actually, he came off as a warped and sinister ogre when, according to sources who spoke to ESPN and the Associated Press, he told a university trainer to move James into a secluded room -- "to the darkest place, to clean out the equipment and to make sure that he could not sit or lean. He was confined for three hours." If James tried to leave the area, a source told the AP, he would be kicked off the team at once.

Obviously if this is all found out to be true, then Mike Leach is an asshole and deserved to be fired. At this point, Mariotti decided to come to his conclusion without hearing any part of the other side of the story. Of course Jay Mariotti had a deadline to meet and didn't have time to report what Mike Leach said about the situation. I mean, and really, why would Mariotti wait for both sides of the story to come out before condemning Mike Leach?

According to the New York Times and Dennis Dodd (what Dodd wrote is in bold italics) this is what Mike Leach said he told the trainers to do with Adam James:

If what Mike Leach said was true in the New York Times on Friday, then what we all thought two days ago is a mirage. Leach and other sources claim that the coach did not, in fact, mistreat Adam James. Leach said only that he did not know where the player was taken and that he ordered only that James be taken "out of the light."

Regardless of which side is actually true, I think Jay Mariotti should have waited until Mike Leach decided to speak before condemning Leach. Or he could have at least acknowledged he is only listening to one side of the story. Of course he doesn't do that. What Mariotti fails to understand is that Mike Leach is not a doctor and was coaching football practice. He probably told the team doctor to take care of James and get him out of the sunlight if he has a concussion. Some sources say Leach said exactly this, while other sources say Leach gave specific instructions as to where to put James.

Pincock stated on Saturday that he didn't agree with Leach putting James in the one car garage that he placed him in. If Leach did order Pincock to put him in that location then he is in the wrong, but it's still Pincock's story against Leach's...and Pincock has sort of changed his story between what Leach's lawyer said and what the affidavit Pincock signed claimed. Either way Leach delegated this responsibility and wasn't personally responsible for shoving a player in an electrical closet. That it shouldn't make a huge difference, but still.

Leach is supported by head trainer Steve Pincock and a team doctor.

So who are these "sources" ESPN and the AP have? It's obviously not one of the team doctors or the head trainer. I have a weird feeling the same players who came out and spoke out against Mike Leach are the same ones who are ESPN and the AP's "sources" on this situation. Pincock, through Leach's lawyer already agreed with Leach's story, but now he says he didn't agree with the punishment and hasn't seen another player treated like that before or since that time. I am not even sure what to believe in regard to what he says. Leach's camp has him saying one thing and then after Leach gets fired, he slightly changes his story.

The Lubbock Avalanche Journal reported that the room was a shed and that Leach forced James to stand in it for two hours during practice.

That's awesome and informative. Unfortunately the actual people who put James there had a different take on the situation...or seemed to originally.

In this article Pincock says the first place Adam James was placed was an equipment garage and the second place he was placed in a media room, which did have an electrical closet, but James wasn't supposed to go in there. It turns out he did go in there at some point and shoot some video eventually put up on YouTube.

So unless there is a big conspiracy to discredit Adam James even after Mike Leach has been fired, we have conflicting accounts on what happened. Stuff like this is why I hate reactive journalism. Jay Mariotti doesn't even mention there could be another side to this story, or even acknowledge what he is writing isn't stone cold fact. There are semi-conflicting accounts on what Pincock was told to do and even if he was told to put James in that one car garage/electrical closet, did he HAVE to do it? We have James who said he was put in the closet, Pincock who said he wasn't put in the closet but says Leach ordered the player to be put somewhere dark to make him miserable and Leach's account where he told Pincock to put in a dark place, but was not specific. I am not sure how on December 29th Mariotti could have taken one account and found it to be the truth.

Two days later, Leach allegedly told a trainer to place James "in the darkest, tightest spot. It was in an electrical closet, again, with a guard posted outside." Know what comes to mind? The movie "Midnight Express," the true story of an American who was tortured for years inside a Turkish prison after trying to smuggle drugs through an airport.

Really? Jay Mariotti has just compared Americans being tortured in a Turkish prison to a football player allegedly being put in an electrical closet/one car garage. Maybe this is a bit of an extreme and overdramatic analogy?

I realize West Texas is far removed from modern civilization, filled with flying dust and tumbleweeds,

I bet they don't even have Starbucks and don't drive hybrid cars either. BARBARIANS!

a place that embraced and revered Bob Knight after he was fired for roughing up young people at Indiana.

Why would you embrace and revere someone who turned the basketball program and around was accused of absolutely zero NCAA violations or instances where he roughed up players? Shouldn't everyone be judged and never forgiven for wrong acts they committed a few years ago even if they never do it again? Jay Mariotti seems to think so.

According to Ted Liggett, Leach's attorney, James embellished the severity of his head injury. Liggett called it a "mild concussion,'' telling the AP, "I believe that [James] was a disgruntled student-athlete that, like many, were not happy with playing time.''

This is another part of the story that Mariotti sort of skips over. The fact Mike Leach, and other coaches on the team, had difficulty with Adam James in getting him to play through injuries (not a concussion) and generally act like he gave a shit out on the field. It is on record that James was not happy with his playing time, so I am sure both parties have some harsh feelings towards each other because of this.

To deal with the "mild concussion,'' Liggett says James "was placed in an equipment room as it was much cooler and darker" than the practice field "after a doctor had examined him and returned him to the field." He was required to spend one to two hours in seclusion, not three, said Liggett, who added that ice was made available to James while a trainer stood guard outside the room. On the later date, Liggett said James was ordered to stay in a "press room with air-conditioning and a stationary bike he could use.''

I believe it was also a doctor that said James had a "mild concussion" so I am not sure why that term is in parenthesis. It may be an exact quote but its also a fact in this case. I think this may be the one aspect of this situation that has been generally agreed upon, so there is no need to question the validity of it. James had a mild concussion. I am pretty sure this is a fact.

I am not a doctor and I have no idea what the proper procedures after a player has had a concussion are, but I am pretty sure keeping a player out of the sun and not in the heat (since James also had an elevated heart rate) is about the best many schools can do for a player. Even with a concussion, I don't think a college football player will be sent home to play Playstation 3 and hang out with his friends. If Adam James wants to be on the football team, he can't expect to leave the football facility, even if he is injured, while his teammates practice. As far as getting James out of the light, I think this was a good move. Again, the way he was gotten out of the light was questionable.

Oh, and we're supposed to feel better now, assuming the explanation is true in any sense? If anyone should be placed in solitary confinement and wrapped in a straitjacket under lock and key, it's Leach. What a friggin' lunatic.

Yes, we are supposed to feel better if the explanation is true because it pretty much refutes the allegations the James family has made in regard to how Adam James concussion was handled. It feels like a pretty bizarre way to handle a concussion, but I am not a doctor so I have no idea how a concussion should be handled.

I got a concussion in the 6th grade playing basketball and blacked out on the floor of a bathroom. I was sent back into my classroom with the lights turned off and no air conditioning while everyone else played basketball. Then I went about my day as a 6th grader. I wanted to be in a dark closet with no one around because my head hurt and the world was spinning. I am not saying this was the right remedy for Adam James, but after having a concussion the darkness was my friend. I am not saying this was the solution for Adam James or he should have been locked up like he was, but the lack of light can't hurt a concussion.

My point is that as far as I know there isn't a foolproof way to deal with a concussion, so putting a player in the dark out of the heat sounds to a non-professional doctor like me like something I wouldn't have minded at the time if I had a concussion. Of course if I hated the coach who put me there then I would be pissed.

Word hasn't reached Leach, evidently, that concussions can kill athletes of all ages. Or cause dementia and other cognitive decline. Or lead people to depression and suicidal thoughts. Since when did Leach become a licensed doctor and determine concussions can be treated in a dark room?

I am pretty sure the head trainer and team doctor put him in that room. I don't know much about this situation, but if either them thought this was a terrible idea would they have done it? Even if Mike Leach said to do this? I know Pincock said he did as he was told, but if the dark would have made James' concussion worse I don't think Pincock would have done it. So we can't say Leach was an asshole because he did something to worsen James' concussion. Since the trainer and doctor are licensed professionals I would like to think they wouldn't have put him in a dark room if this was a terrible idea.

Is this situation really involve a concussion issue? I don't feel like it is, so I am not sure why Mariotti is trying to turn it into one.

The way Leach reacted is the traditional, macho, grunt/snort response that ignores an enlightened ongoing campaign about how head injuries damage athletes later in life.

Maybe he should have handled the situation differently, but I don't think the way James was treated would have caused his concussion to be worse. If Leach had made James play football on the field both days, then maybe I would get on the "blame Mike Leach" train. It's hard to do that when you listen to all the conflicting evidence going back and forth. At least for me it is.

James' story becomes more credible upon learning his father is Craig James, the former SMU and Patriots star, who now works as an ESPN analyst.

How the hell does his story become more credible because of this? If James parents worked in a mill or were school teachers would his story have been LESS credible? Sons of ESPN analysts can lie and exaggerate just as much as everyone else's children can. In fact, Adam James may have been more likely to exaggerate his claims knowing his dad had the ability to do something about his problem with Mike Leach. I am just throwing that out there.

I've covered Craig James' football career and know what he stands for. I don't believe for an instant that his son is a crybaby hypochondriac seeking more playing time.

So basically Jay Mariotti is defending his co-worker and friend. Unfortunately there are other football players and coaches (current and former of both) on the Texas Tech team that know the situation better than Jay Mariotti who say Adam James wanted more playing time and wanted to sit out practices with injuries and that is where all this stems from. Again, that doesn't make it right, but it's pretty clear both the Leach and James parties had had enough of each other at this point.

Dennis Dodd said this:

I received two calls this week from people I trust saying James had bothered coaches and that he had tried to leverage his influence at the network to get his son playing time. Big Daddy James had become a royal pain in the you-know-what.

I thought from the beginning it was borderline unethical that friends and co-workers of James were reporting this story. It had that "railroad" smell to it from the beginning with James being portrayed as the protective parent.

Can we consider Jay Mariotti as one of these "friends" and "co-workers?" If so, then what Mariotti is writing isn't even journalism but a biased one-sided account in an effort to discredit a prominent college football head coach. I am pretty sure that is not what he is supposed to do as a sports journalist. Of course calling Mariotti a journalist is a stretch anyway.

To the contrary, James is a concerned father who was brave enough to expose Leach's medieval tactics.

Maybe this is the "railroad" smell Dennis Dodd was talking about.

Leach has been especially nutty, ripping his players for being too close to "their fat little girlfriends'' after an October loss to Texas A&M. He suspended a starting offensive lineman for violating unspecified team rules

What? He attempted to implement and enforce team rules? What a nut-job! Mike Leach is a crazy person for holding his players to team rules and standards he has set.

and banned the Twitter craze after a linebacker, Marion Williams, Tweeted about why the players were in a meeting room when "the head coach can't even be on time.''

Mike Leach banned Twitter? I don't know how a rational person could believe this isn't something only the criminally insane would do. Who bans Twitter, especially when a player uses Twitter to say negative things about the coach. Mike Leach is crazy!

It should surprise no one that Leach will use the legal process in an attempt to coach the Red Raiders in the bowl game.

I know. I hate our legal system that allows people who are accused of crimes or who have some other legal issue they want resolved to get heard in a timely fashion. What's this "due process" bullshit attorneys are always trying to shove down everyone's throat?

"There's much, much more than meets the eye,'' Liggett argued in the Lubbock newspaper. "The diagnosing doctor has signed a note stating that Adam James was in no way injured by the actions coach Leach took. In fact, he was better off in the building than he would have been outside.''

What, Fred Flintstone's cave wasn't available?

It's pretty clear Jay Mariotti has no idea what the specific remedy for a concussion is or is willing to suggest what a better method of dealing with Adam James' concussion would have been. Mariotti just blindly knows Mike Leach is in the wrong. He knows this because he knows Craig James. This doctor's note should pretty much take care of any concussion concerns Jay Mariotti has, but of course it doesn't.

No, the sword has one edge. And it can be fatal, sooner or later, only exacerbated by the presence of too many cruel and disturbed coaches.

I like how Jay Mariotti is turning this into a concussion issue to say that Mike Leach was in the wrong (rather than an issue of mistreating a student/athlete by locking him in a closet), even though Mike Leach didn't do anything that would have made James' concussion worse. If the allegations are true, then yes he was out of line in putting James in the electrical closet/one car garage, but he didn't make James concussion WORSE, so Mariotti's preaching about how Leach made James' concussion worse falls on deaf ears. Locking a player in an electrical closet is inhumane, if true, and Mike Leach should have been fired or at least harshly reprimanded, but he didn't make James concussion worse.

I will end with a good thought by Dennis Dodd:

The fact that Leach would not "apologize" to the James family didn’t make sense from the beginning. If Adam’s treatment was so heinous, why would a simple apology make Big Daddy go away?

Interesting. So the way Mike Leach reportedly treated Adam James was so terrible that Craig James and his family felt compelled to report it to Texas Tech officials, but it wasn't so bad that a simple apology would have fixed it? That doesn't make sense to me. If James' treatment was so bad as to get Leach fired, how would an apology been enough to make up for it?

Who really knows which side is telling the truth? My point is that before he writes columns criticizing Mike Leach for mistreating his players, Jay Mariotti has a journalistic responsibility to his readers (who all hate him, so it may not matter) to at least pay attention to the other side of the story. Rather than just reacting to the first thing he heard about the story and trying to turn this into a issue where Mike Leach made Adam James' concussion worse.

Was Mike Leach wrong for his treatment of Adam James? Yes, probably. The fact Mike Leach thought Adam James was lazy and probably took it out on him sometimes is not irrelevant, but neither is the fact the Texas Tech administration did not like Leach and the James family wanted Adam to get more playing time. I think all of these things had something to do with this incident. Leach was in the wrong, but Mariotti should not come down on Leach until he knew the whole story. The whole story is a little more balanced than was presented in this column.