Leavitt interview on BHSN

[SANJAY]

I should add, if I was Leavitt's agent and the man told me it wasn't about money, I'd have advised him long ago to drop this suit.  I'd have told Jim to come out, apologize, explaine that he didn't "assault" the guy, but in the course of  trying to motivate the team and in the heat of the momeny he had crossed a line between players and coaches.  I think that is probably pretty close to how it went down anyway, having followed USF football since the beginning, I don't think anyone can doubt Jim's love for his players.  At the same time, once an issue like this makes its way to the President, serious conseequences can't be avoided.

If Jim had come out and done that, I think he would be coaching in big time college football this year.  Given what appears to be his desire to "go down with the ship", to dispute even the most complete of analysis, to argue against even the most absolute of evidence, if I were an AD or even a head coach I would have to think very hard about if I wanted to bring Jim Leavitt on my staff.  Guy steps over the line, realizes it, and apologizes I think we can move forward.  Heck I would have even pushed for USF to keep him on-board.  Guy steps over the line and can't even bring himself to admit it?  I don't think there is a place in most programs for that kind of arogance.

Disagree with this.  Even assuming it is not about the money, he was terminated for cause and that cause was allegedly striking a player.  Admitting that happened, even in the heat of the moment, would make it very difficult, maybe impossible, for him to get hired as a college coach again in our litigious society.  He sues, the case ultimately gets settled (regardless of dollars), and he gets to walk out with a damaged reputation but not as much as in the scenario your painting.  He says something along the lines of "Why would they have settled if I did something wrong?" which is what all plaintiffs say regardless of the veracity of the claims.

[2000bull]

I should add, if I was Leavitt's agent and the man told me it wasn't about money, I'd have advised him long ago to drop this suit.  I'd have told Jim to come out, apologize, explaine that he didn't "assault" the guy, but in the course of  trying to motivate the team and in the heat of the momeny he had crossed a line between players and coaches.  I think that is probably pretty close to how it went down anyway, having followed USF football since the beginning, I don't think anyone can doubt Jim's love for his players.  At the same time, once an issue like this makes its way to the President, serious conseequences can't be avoided.

If Jim had come out and done that, I think he would be coaching in big time college football this year.  Given what appears to be his desire to "go down with the ship", to dispute even the most complete of analysis, to argue against even the most absolute of evidence, if I were an AD or even a head coach I would have to think very hard about if I wanted to bring Jim Leavitt on my staff.  Guy steps over the line, realizes it, and apologizes I think we can move forward.  Heck I would have even pushed for USF to keep him on-board.  Guy steps over the line and can't even bring himself to admit it?  I don't think there is a place in most programs for that kind of arogance.

Disagree with this.  Even assuming it is not about the money, he was terminated for cause and that cause was allegedly striking a player.  Admitting that happened, even in the heat of the moment, would make it very difficult, maybe impossible, for him to get hired as a college coach again in our litigious society.  He sues, the case ultimately gets settled (regardless of dollars), and he gets to walk out with a damaged reputation but not as much as in the scenario your painting.  He says something along the lines of "Why would they have settled if I did something wrong?" which is what all plaintiffs say regardless of the veracity of the claims.

I thought they listed 3 or 4 causes, which were all valid reasons. Wouldn't he have to disprove all of the causes.

Also, isn't what he's requesting considered working documents? Thus, not part of the report?

I'm just asking, but I'll probably called an idiot by an ex-used car sales man.

[SANJAY]

I should add, if I was Leavitt's agent and the man told me it wasn't about money, I'd have advised him long ago to drop this suit.  I'd have told Jim to come out, apologize, explaine that he didn't "assault" the guy, but in the course of  trying to motivate the team and in the heat of the momeny he had crossed a line between players and coaches.  I think that is probably pretty close to how it went down anyway, having followed USF football since the beginning, I don't think anyone can doubt Jim's love for his players.  At the same time, once an issue like this makes its way to the President, serious conseequences can't be avoided.

If Jim had come out and done that, I think he would be coaching in big time college football this year.  Given what appears to be his desire to "go down with the ship", to dispute even the most complete of analysis, to argue against even the most absolute of evidence, if I were an AD or even a head coach I would have to think very hard about if I wanted to bring Jim Leavitt on my staff.  Guy steps over the line, realizes it, and apologizes I think we can move forward.  Heck I would have even pushed for USF to keep him on-board.  Guy steps over the line and can't even bring himself to admit it?  I don't think there is a place in most programs for that kind of arogance.

Disagree with this.  Even assuming it is not about the money, he was terminated for cause and that cause was allegedly striking a player.  Admitting that happened, even in the heat of the moment, would make it very difficult, maybe impossible, for him to get hired as a college coach again in our litigious society.  He sues, the case ultimately gets settled (regardless of dollars), and he gets to walk out with a damaged reputation but not as much as in the scenario your painting.  He says something along the lines of "Why would they have settled if I did something wrong?" which is what all plaintiffs say regardless of the veracity of the claims.

I thought they listed 3 or 4 causes, which were all valid reasons. Wouldn't he have to disprove all of the causes.

Also, isn't what he's requesting considered working documents? Thus, not part of the report?

I'm just asking, but I'll probably called an idiot by an ex-used car sales man.

Not being either a current or former used car salesman, I'll refrain.

The other causes for termination were related to witness contact during the investigation.  Just my recollection and not having the report in front of me.  In any case, all of those findings formed a basis for termination and any one of them would make getting hired again difficult.

As for the "working papers" there was no pending or threatened litigation when the investigation was ongoing.  Now it was clear that if they terminated leavitt that litigation was going to happen, but there is a distinction there in the law, and I am not sure if there is an exemption from the public records law for those types of documents.  Those documents would be different than USF's current litigation counsel interviewing the witnesses on his own and putting together his own version of events as this is clearly litigation related and protected by the attorney work-product privilege. 

Now even if those documents were not subject to disclosure as a public record, they are certainly relevant to the case and would have to be provided to Leavitt and his counsel unless a court found that there was an applicable privilege and did not have to be turned over.  It will be a hotly litigated issue in the case.

[slick1ru2]

I should add, if I was Leavitt's agent and the man told me it wasn't about money, I'd have advised him long ago to drop this suit.  I'd have told Jim to come out, apologize, explaine that he didn't "assault" the guy, but in the course of  trying to motivate the team and in the heat of the momeny he had crossed a line between players and coaches.  I think that is probably pretty close to how it went down anyway, having followed USF football since the beginning, I don't think anyone can doubt Jim's love for his players.  At the same time, once an issue like this makes its way to the President, serious conseequences can't be avoided.

If Jim had come out and done that, I think he would be coaching in big time college football this year.  Given what appears to be his desire to "go down with the ship", to dispute even the most complete of analysis, to argue against even the most absolute of evidence, if I were an AD or even a head coach I would have to think very hard about if I wanted to bring Jim Leavitt on my staff.  Guy steps over the line, realizes it, and apologizes I think we can move forward.  Heck I would have even pushed for USF to keep him on-board.  Guy steps over the line and can't even bring himself to admit it?  I don't think there is a place in most programs for that kind of arogance.

Disagree with this.  Even assuming it is not about the money, he was terminated for cause and that cause was allegedly striking a player.  Admitting that happened, even in the heat of the moment, would make it very difficult, maybe impossible, for him to get hired as a college coach again in our litigious society.  He sues, the case ultimately gets settled (regardless of dollars), and he gets to walk out with a damaged reputation but not as much as in the scenario your painting.  He says something along the lines of "Why would they have settled if I did something wrong?" which is what all plaintiffs say regardless of the veracity of the claims.

I thought they listed 3 or 4 causes, which were all valid reasons. Wouldn't he have to disprove all of the causes.

Also, isn't what he's requesting considered working documents? Thus, not part of the report?

I'm just asking, but I'll probably called an idiot by an ex-used car sales man.

Why would slick call you an idiot?

So says the Troll.

You know Troll, I have been here, posting on this board, much longer then you. I have personal ties to the institution that the board represents. I care about USF athletics. You have no ties and hate USF athletics. Your only goal is here to tell everyone how wonderful Leavitt is and personally attack USF and anyone who disagrees. Does Leavitt know you are here? Has he seen your insulting posts? With friends like you, even Leavitt supporters on the board don't like you. Good job. When the Leavitt case is over, and I really don't care the outcome anymore because it has no effect on USF's football team whatsoever, unless your buddy broke some NCAA rules that come out later. Trolls attack board regulars and are only here to stir the crap. Trolls are always right and insult those that disagree, often with personal attacks. Your'e lucky that the mods are as lenient on this board as they are, many boards would have banished you when your attacks became personal, which was shortly after you arrived. Now you are going to have some long winded retort, with a lame attempt to show how much more intelligent you are then me, maybe steal someone's MENSA card and post it, whatever. And you will say I attack you. Well, you are a Troll by every definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) You take threads off topic, attack people personally, attack board regulars, tell everyone that you are right and they are wrong, etc.. So go ahead, let the Trolling keep going. Maybe you will reach the point that the mods decide its time for you to take a permanent leave of absence. I'm looking forward to that as much as the upcoming football season. And as I put you on IGNORE, I bid your sorry *** farewell. Oh, and I will make sure Leavitt sees these posts where you have made an *** out of yourself and him. 

[Triple B]

And as I put you on IGNORE, 

This really is a great Board feature that I know other boards beg for ..... sad part is, as a moderator, i can't utilize it.

[slick1ru2]

And as I put you on IGNORE, 

This really is a great Board feature that I know other boards beg for ..... sad part is, as a moderator, i can't utilize it.

LOL, now the posts on this board are filled with "This user is currently ignored".  :nutkick

[Triple B]

He can't see that because he's got you on "Ignore" ..... You two are funny.

[2000bull]

He can't see that because he's got you on "Ignore" ..... You two are funny.

:irony  :Duh

[cmhatter]

He can't see that because he's got you on "Ignore" ..... You two are funny.

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut he un-ignores me to see what I posted.

i'll bet you do the same.