Talk:Mike Leach (American football coach)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Bob Stoops on Mike Leach

When Bob Stoops was defensive coordinator under Steve Spurrier at the University of Florida he said that he was always impressed with how much trouble his defenses had with the University of Kentucky's offense and that is why he immediately hired Mike Leach when he got the head coaching position at the University of Oklahoma--sorry no reference.192.88.165.35 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you happen across a ref, add the info here or to the article itself. →Wordbuilder 14:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

...sure where to add it but here is a ref http://www.ussa.edu/news/2005/10/22/leach.asp 192.88.165.35 23:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

UCLA Rumors

This does not belong on the page. There is absolutely nothing to verify the rumors. This section needs to be deleted. Ja860231 (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How about that Houston Chronicle article that is linked to in the article to verify the rumors? ––Bender235 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the very fact that they are rumors make them unencyclopedic? Is it appropriate to add to Wikipedia everything published in a newspaper? Are rumors good for the article, in particular, and for Wikipedia, in general? I say no. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But this is not a story made up by some newspaper journalist. This is some serious talking, ongoing. Like Les Miles to Michigan. Even if it turns out that Leach won't leave Texas Tech (because UCLA won't fire Dorrell, or whatever reason), the very fact that there were rumors ongoing whole season long is "encyclopedic". Like those rumored talks between Bobby Petrino and several schools during his Louisville days. You have to mention it because it's part of the "history" of his Louisville stint. Just like the UCLA rumors with Mike Leach's Texas Tech years. ––Bender235 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So, it has long-lasting importance? For instance, ten years from now is anyone going to find the following statement notable, "In 2007, there were rumors that Leach was possibly being considered for the head coaching position at UCLA, but he stayed at Tech for another decade."? Not saying he'll stay at Tech but, if he does, the rumors are not notable. If he goes to UCLA, the rumors still are not notable, though the actual hiring would be. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They're nothing but rumors. Rumors DO NOT belong on Wikipedia. Not only that, but I know Mike Leach and he's perfectly happy living in Lubbock and does NOT plan on going anywhere for at least 3 years! He's going to make an average of $2.3 million over the next 3 years at Tech, money that UCLA cannot afford! They've always been cheapos and they would never pay Leach that kind of money!

Requesting that the UCLA/Coaching Rumors section be deleted, please.Ja860231 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no "serious talking, ongoing", there is only speculation. Please remove rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.252.50 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 November 2007

You guys must be blind. That Leach-to-UCLA thing is swirling around for weeks. TSN's Tom Dienhart wrote today: "If UCLA dumps Karl Dorrell, I keep hearing Texas Tech Mike Leach will get a long look. And I hear he'd love the job." ––Bender235 17:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not one who argued they weren't published, I just argued that they're not encyclopedic. Also, please avoid wording that can be construed as a personal attack. Thank you. →Wordbuilder 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to reach a consensus here — how about only including rumors that are verified by reliable sources, and removing them once there is an official announcement about whether he is going to stay or leave? As far as whether these rumors should be included, please read the second half of this discussion I wrote in the Tommy Tuberville article and let me know what you guys think. In that article, I added verified rumors about Tuberville being a possible coaching candidate at Texas A&M, but I was fine when the rumors were removed afterwards when it was announced that he was not one of the candidates and when Mike Sherman was finally hired. After all, as Wordbuilder mentioned, a person reading the article 10 years from now would hardly be interested about these rumors. Besides, I am sure rumors have been going on in the past when schools were looking for new head coaches, and I don't think people actually care about those now. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Now the Los Angeles Times reports that Dorrell is out and Leach is among the three candidates considered for the job (the others being Chris Petersen and Steve Mariucci). Is this finally a rumor worth to be noted in this Wikipedia article? ––Bender235 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think it would be fine to mention this in the article but not as a "rumor". Simply saying something along the lines of Leach being one of the top three candidates for the job would be fine. Perhaps add it to the final paragraph before "2007 Texas vs. Texas Tech controversy". I don't know that it is significant enough at this point to warrant its own section. →Wordbuilder 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's been 13 years now and we can finally come to the conclusion that the rumors were, in fact, not notable and no one cares he was considered for a school he didn't go to.

Pirates comment

Where the hell did the comment about the pirates go? That was cited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.160.72 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noted the lack of mention of his like of pirates (heavily cited, just google his name and "pirates"). If someone removed a cited line, then it should be immediately restored. --32.158.47.12 (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the fact. And, as I recall, the cited passage had other issues that led to its removal. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done The pirate interest was not in the article at all, and I couldn't find it in the history (though I didn't look hard). It's back now in the personal section, cited from ESPN and the NYT. As the ESPN source[1] points out, "...pirates are what made Leach famous among college football fans", so it does merit inclusion in this article. Wine Guy Talk 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't edit this page because I'm not "confirmed"

Someone please update the page with the fact that Leach is no longer the coach of Texas Tech. "He WAS the Head Coach..." should be how the first paragraph reads. I'd fix it myself, but the semi-protection got me.--Bradaphraser (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[2] is the source for information on his firing.--Bradaphraser (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here here on the not confirmed part! Can someone else notice that there are three schools and two coaches "respectively." This is an improper use of the term respectively because the two sides do not balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.177.168 (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done He was OC at two different schools under one head coach, Hal Mumme, hence the confusion. I reworded to make this more clear (I hope). Wine Guy Talk 00:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Firing Section

I noticed that a significant portion of the Firing section has been removed and condensed down. I feel this section is now a little bit too sparse and doesn't describe an, arguably, significant even in Leach's career. But I wanted to get some feedback from other editors so that we do not start an edit war. Do we feel that the old content was irrelevant or not appropriate for the article? If not, what do we need to prune the section at little bit before re-adding it to the article? Any feedback is appreciated. EDIT: The changes in question can be viewed here: [3] —Voltin ^(T|C) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. As far as I could determine, the deleted content was properly sourced, accurately summarized the cited sources, and was reasonably neutral. This material has now been deleted three times by User: Pontificate823, who has not made any other edits on Wikipedia and who has not provided an edit summary or other explanation for these edits. (It was also deleted several times before that by other editors.) The brief replacement content inserted by Pontificate823 does not appear to me to satisfy WP:NPOV: it tells only Leach's version of events and omits significant details that are described in reliable sources. With respect to the ongoing litigation, the replacement content is inaccurate: it omits significant details that favor the University (including the fact that all but one of Leach's claims has been dismissed, and that both sides have taken steps to appeal, not just the University), and it makes several assertions that are not precisely supported by the cited sources (claiming that the court found the University to have engaged in "egregious" conduct, and stating that the court found that Leach is entitled to a jury trial--the sources just say that the case is being permitted to continue). --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I undid the latest removal by Pontificate823 (talk · contribs) before seeing this discussion. The material should remain unless someone can give a compelling reason to remove it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think we leave it as it is right now (with the old content of the contested section intact) until Pontificate823 (talk · contribs) or somebody else can provide a compelling reason otherwise. —Voltin ^(T|C) 17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Pontificate823 (talk · contribs) has once again reverted that section. I am going to revert his changes, but I do not want to start an WP:EW, so if he reverts again we may have an administrator handle the situation. —Voltin ^(T|C) 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. The repeated removals are disruptive. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pontificate823 has reverted again[4] and then IP editor 75.111.52.3 added some text.[5] Although this latter edit came with an edit summary that said it was intended to add "both sides of the story", it appears to me that the resulting version is still heavily biased in Leach's favor, and does not fairly reflect the University's position or the content of the reliable sources cited in earlier versions. I would appreciate other opinions as to the neutrality and accuracy of the current version.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have returned the article to the state it was in a few days ago. Adding new information from additional reliable sources would be OK, but removing well-referenced material is unacceptable. --Jayron32 06:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Pontificate823 (talk · contribs) reverted it again. Since he does not seem willing to discuss these changes and I feel that we have reached a consensus that the well-referenced material should stay, I think we have no choice but to involve an admin. —Voltin ^(T|C) 13:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reported Pontificate823 (talk · contribs) to wp:AN3.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of reporting it, Arxiloxos. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletions by 208.180.216.57

Rather than responding in edit histories to IP editor 208.180.216.57's series of deletions beginning at 16:07, 23 July 2010, I am responding to them one by one here on the talk page. It appears to me that the challenged material is accurate and appropriate. Opinions are invited.

(→Firing: the source does not hold proposition that leach said james was faking)

This is an explicit quote from several sources[6][7]

(→Firing: this statement sourced by anonymous source of espn is irresponsible as craig james works for espn)

I do not believe this is an acceptable ground for removal.

(→Firing: removed sensationalistic statement by one witness who also changed his affidavit according to reports, unnecessarily negative onleach)

This content was properly sourced and attributed,and important to the story.

(→Firing: it is widely known that it is not a shed, it was a medical training garage)

Sources called it a "shed".[8] Find another source that says "garage" and we can add it.

(→Firing: there is no source on abnormally high heart rate, where did this come from and why is it necessary)

Sources explicitly mention heart rate.[9]

(→Firing: added that Leach was owed big money had he not been fired--this is mainstream fact and important to balanced perspective re serious allegations against him)

The edit that accompanied this edit summary misrepresented the cited source, which does NOT say that the money was due the next day, but rather on February 15. I am not opposed to adding an accurate reference to the amount of money in dispute in an appropriate place--perhaps in the part that describes the ongoing litigation.

(→Firing: removed "Leach refused to do so." this is not cited and is untrue. it adds nothing and smears leach to potential employers)

There are multiple sources that say Leach "refused to apologize"[10][11] but I don't think it's essential, and I am not opposed to omitting this.

--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the above:

I agree that the sources back up that statement. I did notice that the statment did not have an explicit citation (e.g. a ref tag) attached to it. Maybe we should cite that statement with one or both of the sources you cited.
While I understand the anon editor's point, I agree that article holds for WP:V. I think it would be irresponsible of us to determine if a quote from ESPN is valid or not.
Again WP:V holds, so it should be included. It might be worth the research to see if his affidavit was changed. (I honestly don't remember if it was.) But even if it was, both accounts should be included, considering they are matters of record.
One of the trainers did say it was a sports med garage. From the source: "However,Pincock said James was initially placed in a 'sports medicine garage, there is no lock on this building.'" [12] We have a conflict of sources, but I think the confusion comes from that fact that earlier reports called it a shed and then later reports (revealed?) that it was a sports medicine garage.
Agreed.
I have found a source that I think describes what the editor was trying to include. [13] I think that we should say some to the effect of Leach claims the university owes him $1.7 million. The source does also explain that Leach would have been eligible for a "tenure bonus" of $800,000 had he been employed with Tech up to Dec 31. I don't think that editor meant to say that he would have been paid that the next day, just that he was eligible for it. I think that overall this information needs to be included, but the version that was added suffers from NPOV issues.
There are mixed reports saying that he refused to apologize, and that he was never given the option to apologize. We can either omit it or say that Tech claims that Leach refused and Leach claims that he was never asked. I can find some sources if you would like.

Those are my opinions, I hope that help. —Voltin ^(T|C) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

His book

Can't believe there's nothing in here about his book, which has been very favorably reviewed and has received almost unquestioning praise from most sportradio hosts. They act as if he's been vindicated (by his own book). 74.178.230.234 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Information about the book would be an appropriate addition. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mike Leach (American football coach). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mike Leach (American football coach). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090305083242/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/2008/football/ncaa/12/05/mike-leach.ap/index.html?eref=si_ncaaf to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/ncaa/12/05/mike-leach.ap/index.html?eref=si_ncaaf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mike Leach (American football coach). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090226073508/http://www.redraiders.com:80/stories/010208/foo_010208008.shtml to http://www.redraiders.com/stories/010208/foo_010208008.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mike Leach (American football coach)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Information that how Mike Leach has molded this program into a solid club with just 2 or 3-star recruits should be posted.

Though Leach may not be a great recruiter like Mack Brown, he is a great coach.

Substituted at 01:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Leach (American football coach). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)