Recruiting Forum Football Talk III

Status
Not open for further replies.
So which opinion are you arguing-- UT hired Glazier to say "fire him" or hired him to run a legitimate investigation? Because there's no guarantee a "legitimate investigation" will support firing with cause and the risk that entails.

The internal investigation already told them what they needed to know. Is the expectation that outside counsel finds something different, or simply adds credibility to the internal findings? I would tend toward the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
So which opinion are you arguing-- UT hired Glazier to say "fire him" or hired him to run a legitimate investigation? Because there's no guarantee a "legitimate investigation" will support firing with cause and the risk that entails.
It's both.

Tennessee wants to fire Jeremy Pruitt because he is not a good football coach. When they got wind of potential NCAA issues, they hired a respected and thorough person (Glazier) to find dirt. When he finds something, anything, they will use it to their advantage.

Pruitt will then sue to argue he should still be paid his full buyout. UT will say "this wasn't our investigation, a third party found all these issues."

The truth will be somewhere in the middle - both parties will settle at some point.
 
Also, I don't believe for a second that someone in the legal/compliance dept leaked to anyone to watch the news coming up or any other suggestive information. That just doesn't happen. no group is more zippered lip
 
Only on VN can we completely hate the thought of Bobo and Friend being on our staff next season and then a few weeks later auburn be seen as doing a great job of hiring assistants while laughing at USCe for losing them.
That happens quite frequently...... it also makes me laugh how we can’t handle actually reasons why this past season was not good but every potential we make every single excuse/reason why they may not have been successful at their last job.
 
The other benefit of hiring outside counsel is that it makes your results more immune from accusations of bias. Plus having a second round of interviews with different interviewers gets you a second bite at the elusive apple in these investigations: lying. In investigations that are employment related, the worst thing you can ever do is lie. That's what gets you the "for cause" more than anything.

While it's not a 100% equivalent scenario, think of Pearl and his case. Pearl's biggest mistake in that investigation was lying. If he would have owned up to the photo and the bbq, he would probably still be running shirtless through TBA.

And Glazier ran that investigation too.
 
No question, UT would welcome the opportunity to fire with cause, if they can make a case. UT clearly has a lower risk tolerance than other schools. So outside counsel will recommend a strategy based on their findings and likely outcomes. As you know, there are other variables-- Pruitt's response being one.

Doubt UT is hoping for the investigation to provide FOR CAUSE firing offenses, since those might also bring on recruiting and other restrictions as penalties. On top of that I don't think there is a candidate out there this pass that excites any of the power group to start over with, big buyouts or not. Anybody heard any of the money guys pushing a candidate? Can it really be going on and not getting out? Bad year to be shopping for someone that projects to definitely go beyond the rotational three year window.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangenSC
Here's the thing: every major program does things that they don't want to get out. Some are worse than others, but there's an implicit agreement that "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." And most of the time, it does. But when one thing gets out, an investigation can uncover a lot more. Few hands are clean.

Firing for cause is difficult... and it can be risky. A school can find grounds and threaten, but coaches can threaten right back. When all parties retain counsel, it becomes a legal game of who blinks first and who has the most to lose. Whatever the outcome, it's generally a costly win.

Thinking that they may have gotten a verbal bottom line on the findings from the law firm's investigation, even if the final draft of the report hasn't been prepared.
 
I think the Fat Albert comment left a lot up to individual interpretation, I don't think it was meant with racist intent but that's the world we live in HOWEVER you have to be smarter than this.
Social media is a cesspool. If you are in the public eye AT ALL, you better have a firm communicating for you.

This is the world we live in with cancel culture. IMO it's truly ruining our society.

Now back to the firing of the Gump...
 
The tweet was inappropriate and definitely should not come from a state employee.... I’m completely fine with him losing his job over a really stupid choice but how did they determine it to be a racist tweet.... the tweet I saw didn’t mention race.... he made fun of her weight and that she didn’t become governor unless their was something else I didn’t see.
 
I think this is a be careful what you wish for case.

If too much of this gets out, Tennessee will be a disaster and none of the coaches will want to touch this place. And players will leave and recruits will bail.

Best case is, keep as much internal as you can, fire and hire quick like Texas and move on and don’t bring it up. Only say what has to be said.

I think it's already the case .
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpringBokVol
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top