Did Fired USF Head Coach Jim Leavitt Really Overstep a Boundary?

[Brad]

Glad to see a fresh thought and not regurgitated fanhouse reporting...remember my post regarding Joel attending Leavitt's camp since he was 10 years old, giving up a schollie at The Citadel to walk on to Leavitt's team?  It's a similar perspective from a former college football player

Did Fired USF Head Coach Jim Leavitt Really Overstep a Boundary?

by Rob Lunn on Jan 11, 2010 1:56:27 PM

Jim Leavitt When I first read that USF head coach Jim Leavitt had been fired, my initial reaction was, "It's about time." But after the dust settled, and my bias against USF started to wane, I began to dissect the situation and much to my chagrin, I felt -- dare I say -- sympathetic.

Was this really me, the hater of the master grunter himself, possibly seeing his point of view? It was.  And here's why.

After 13 seasons and the only coach USF has ever known, Leavitt had a level of familiarity and security that few others in the college football ranks have ever enjoyed. While the details of the incident in which he reportedly struck a player are not completely clear, the end result is: he was fired. But you have to ask yourself why, after 13 years, would this suddenly happen?

According to reports, the player whom Leavitt allegedly struck was one with whom Leavitt had a prior relationship. The mark of a good coach is treating all his players fairly, but not necessarily treating each one the same. Good coaches have intuition about which players they can (metaphorically) push, which ones are self-motivated and which players will respond or shut down when faced with a verbal assault.

I genuinely believe that while his actions, if true, are reprehensible and certainly grounds for dismissal, it may be simply a case of misreading a player -- as in Leavitt felt a level of comfort and overstepped a boundary. A boundary that existed to the player, but not to coach Leavitt.

I'm sure I'd be singing a different tune if it was my son or daughter that was struck, but to go out and think that Leavitt's act was that of a mad man unable to control his emotions is false. Fire him for hitting a player? Absolutely. But at least try to see his side of it.

Restraint might not be his strong suit and he probably should have exercised more of it. But, in the heat of the moment and in the bubble of college football, the rules of normal, functioning society don't usually apply. If you behaved the way you do on a football field in the real world, there wouldn't be 15-yard flags, there would be 50-year prison sentences. I am simply arguing that it may have been a clouding of judgment, an overlapping of two worlds.

We are looking at the actions of Leavitt through the critical lens of society, not a football locker room.

Of course I'm not addressing the fact that Leavitt reportedly tried to interfere with the investigation and was effectively stonewalling reporters and USF administrators. You should never hit a player, but I'd be lying if I said that, as a former player, I couldn't understand how this happened. Because -- and I hate to say it -- I can.

USF has already ruled on the issue, but before the court of public opinion decides to make Jim Leavitt the poster boy for what's wrong with sports today, just know that these situations always lend themselves to time and circumstance. In many cases, as in this one, hindsight might not always be 20-20.

---

About the Author

Rob Lunn graduated from the University of Connecticut, where he was a defensive tackle for the Huskies. He played professional football for the Carinthian Black Lions in Austria. In addition to his contributions to NESN.com, Lunn contributes to The Official Blog of Chris Cooley and Deadspin.

---

Link

[BobbyBull]

Fresh Tought?  Blind leading the blind. 

You either think he hit the kid or not.  If you think he didn't, then he probably shouldn't have lost his job.  If you think he hit the kid, then you are in outer space if you think they shouldn't have fired him.

That's the only question that matters.  Did he put his hand on the kids neck and slap him twice, or not?  If he did, fire him.  If he didn't, he got screwed.

You can't hit your players.  This isn't Navy Seal training.  This is freakin football. 

[Brad]

Fresh Tought?  Blind leading the blind. 

You either think he hit the kid or not.  If you think he didn't, then he probably shouldn't have lost his job.  If you think he hit the kid, then you are in outer space if you think they shouldn't have fired him.

That's the only question that matters.  Did he put his hand on the kids neck and slap him twice, or not?  If he did, fire him.  If he didn't, he got screwed.

Once again Bobby it's clear you didn't or can't read the article.

[redfisher78]

Fresh Tought?  Blind leading the blind. 

You either think he hit the kid or not.  If you think he didn't, then he probably shouldn't have lost his job.  If you think he hit the kid, then you are in outer space if you think they shouldn't have fired him.

That's the only question that matters.  Did he put his hand on the kids neck and slap him twice, or not?  If he did, fire him.  If he didn't, he got screwed.

Once again Bobby it's clear you didn't or can't read the article.

Wow, personal insults are the rule not the exception around here lately

[Brad]

Fresh Tought?  Blind leading the blind. 

You either think he hit the kid or not.  If you think he didn't, then he probably shouldn't have lost his job.  If you think he hit the kid, then you are in outer space if you think they shouldn't have fired him.

That's the only question that matters.  Did he put his hand on the kids neck and slap him twice, or not?  If he did, fire him.  If he didn't, he got screwed.

Once again Bobby it's clear you didn't or can't read the article.

Wow, personal insults are the rule not the exception around here lately

Apparently you commented without reading too.  The author states "I genuinely believe that while his actions, if true, are reprehensible and certainly grounds for dismissal.."

You guys are striking out for no reason.  Read up.

[Grateful Dad]

When you have all the facts, you have half the story.  Context is almost as important as what happened, perhaps equally important when deciding the course of action to take.  Life is not usually  black and white, though that is the only way some people can deal with it.  And it is NEVER black and white when dealing with human behavior.

So much goes on during and after an investigation that sideline spectators, unable to restrain the judgments that they must make, speak from ignorance, not knowledge.  That doesn't, however, slow them down.  The posters on this board, unless they were in the locker room and watching the alleged event, will NEVER KNOW what happened.  We only have a report generated by a process that we had no oversight on and therefore cannot vouch for its veracity.

I haven't posted with an orientation toward either side as I would rather remain silent than speak from ignorance.  

[usf97]

Well based on reports,  what is clear is that Leavitt obviously did overstep a Boundary that Ben and Joel had for him. Jim’s main fault is that he did not acknowledge/realize that he had overstepped that boundary.

Had he realized it immediately, he could have addressed the team about it after the Louisville game and it would have been dropped, much like the K-State basketball coach did the other night.

Since CJL did not realize he had crossed a boundary, Ben and Joel gave him an opportunity to address it in a private meeting but apparently that did not go as the players had hoped.

That is when Pandora’s box was opened and we are where we are today. It truly is an unfortunate situation.

[Matt]

from what i gather...and hopefully this doesnt cause brad to call me illiterate, but the author seems like he is saying that leavitt might of thought it would be ok for him to grab and smack miller like that because of the relationship they had.  Or that, its football that kind of stuff happens.

regardless of the relationship and the 10 years of leavitt camp, the walk-on status, etc.  obviously something happened and i think if leavitt would of handled it upfront and with honesty then he would probably still be our coach.

as it is, he didnt do that.  he thought he could sweep it under the rug.  i could handle him getting a little too phyiscal in the heat of the moment but to behave the way he did after the fact is not the type of behavior i would like to see in our head coach.

[GaUSFBull]

from what i gather...and hopefully this doesnt cause brad to call me illiterate, but the author seems like he is saying that leavitt might of thought it would be ok for him to grab and smack miller like that because of the relationship they had.  Or that, its football that kind of stuff happens.

regardless of the relationship and the 10 years of leavitt camp, the walk-on status, etc.  obviously something happened and i think if leavitt would of handled it upfront and with honesty then he would probably still be our coach.

as it is, he didnt do that.  he thought he could sweep it under the rug.  i could handle him getting a little too phyiscal in the heat of the moment but to behave the way he did after the fact is not the type of behavior i would like to see in our head coach.

:clap    I think you drove the nail home with one swing of the hammer. 

[Brad]

from what i gather...and hopefully this doesnt cause brad to call me illiterate, but the author seems like he is saying that leavitt might of thought it would be ok for him to grab and smack miller like that because of the relationship they had.  Or that, its football that kind of stuff happens.

regardless of the relationship and the 10 years of leavitt camp, the walk-on status, etc.  obviously something happened and i think if leavitt would of handled it upfront and with honesty then he would probably still be our coach.

as it is, he didnt do that.  he thought he could sweep it under the rug.  i could handle him getting a little too phyiscal in the heat of the moment but to behave the way he did after the fact is not the type of behavior i would like to see in our head coach.

:clap    I think you drove the nail home with one swing of the hammer. 

He might have drove it completely through the 2 X 4.  :

It's a posted article with little commentary added by me to set up exactly a point I made a while back - that Joel was a little different than most players and that could have led to Leavitt treating him differently than he'd treated other kids.  Not necessarily that it would be okay for him to smack him as Matt tries to drive home, but that he interacted with him without thinking about it at all.

I did not say that meant nothing happened.

I did not say that meant he wasn't wrong.

I did not say that meant he could sweep it under the rug.

I did not say the "after the fact" behavior was what we wanted in a head coach.

The partisanship on this issue is fierce.  As well educated men, I'd think we'd be open to the perspective of Mr. Lunn, a former football player at UConn.