Good News: Leavitt Is Interested

[Harry]

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/archives/2010/10/leavitt-is-interested.html

[Pen Yan Fan]

Leavitt is the perfect candidate for this job. Only UNT could screw this up.

[Green Mean]

Leavitt is the perfect candidate for this job. Only UNT could screw this up.

This.

[Rudy]

Leavitt is the perfect candidate for this job. Only UNT could screw this up.

Dear God I actually agree with you. Does anyone else hear trumpets in the sky?

[Side Show Joe]

Leavitt is the perfect candidate for this job. Only UNT could screw this up.

I still like Fran, because he has won everywhere he has coached, has the Texas recruiting ties, and name recognition we need to turn this thing around, but if we end up with Leavitt I'd be very happy. Leavitt has already done everything we would be asking him to do. He has proved he can build a program with limited resources, and develop a strong fan base. This is great news.

[gangrene]

[akriesman]

Best news of the day !

[Green Nightmare]

there is a god

seriously hire him

this is who we need right now

[Rudy]

So Leavitt IS interested in the NT job, despite Chico being here. Canales was one of the "witnesses" to the "incident" at USF. If Leavitt had something to hide or had done something wrong, wouldn't he want to stay as far away as possible from any school that has a connection to the "incident" and could blackball or give him a negative reference?

Hmmmmm...

[Rudy]

there is a god

seriously hire him

this is who we need right now

Maybe Haikaus

Will prompt RV

To call Jim.

[eulessismore]

So Leavitt IS interested in the NT job, despite Chico being here. Canales was one of the "witnesses" to the "incident" at USF. If Leavitt had something to hide or had done something wrong, wouldn't he want to stay as far away as possible from any school that has a connection to the "incident" and could blackball or give him a negative reference?

Hmmmmm...

I think a more complete reading of the documents posted by The Fake Lonnie Finch this would lead to the conclusion that Canales was NOT a "witness" to the "incident". The following is from the report conducted by the University of South Florida:

"Coach Mike Canales was also interviewed. It was discovered that he was not in the

locker room at the time the event at issue occurred. At halftime, he enters the locker area only to

use a “white board” to speak to offensive position Student Athletes about second half plans. But

Canales said that at a “tailgate” which is attended by assistant coaches after games at Raymond

James, “someone” said that Coach Leavitt had “gotten after somebody in the locker room.”

15

Later he heard from Coach Franks that Student Athlete A had spoken to Leavitt and Canales

thought the matter had been resolved. Canales also reported that after the publication of the

FanHouse piece, both Student Athlete A and Student Athlete B came to him separately and said

they were sorry for everything that “this” has caused. Canales said he told the Student Athletes

to just tell the truth and everything will be okay."

The above (in quotes) is the only part of that report in which I saw Canales name mentioned. If there is some other part of those documents that says otherwise, please point it out.

Edited October 23, 2010 by eulessismore

[good_ken]

So Leavitt IS interested in the NT job, despite Chico being here. Canales was one of the "witnesses" to the "incident" at USF. If Leavitt had something to hide or had done something wrong, wouldn't he want to stay as far away as possible from any school that has a connection to the "incident" and could blackball or give him a negative reference?

Hmmmmm...

So there is a person on staff who can be used as a personnel reference for someone interested in coaching here. Sounds like a perfect opportunity for RV to get a 2nd perspective on a candidate.

[Rudy]

I think a more complete reading of the documents posted by The Fake Lonnie Finch this would lead to the conclusion that Canales was NOT a "witness" to the "incident". The following is from the report conducted by the University of South Florida:

"Coach Mike Canales was also interviewed. It was discovered that he was not in the

locker room at the time the event at issue occurred. At halftime, he enters the locker area only to

use a “white board” to speak to offensive position Student Athletes about second half plans. But

Canales said that at a “tailgate” which is attended by assistant coaches after games at Raymond

James, “someone” said that Coach Leavitt had “gotten after somebody in the locker room.”

15

Later he heard from Coach Franks that Student Athlete A had spoken to Leavitt and Canales

thought the matter had been resolved. Canales also reported that after the publication of the

FanHouse piece, both Student Athlete A and Student Athlete B came to him separately and said

they were sorry for everything that “this” has caused. Canales said he told the Student Athletes

to just tell the truth and everything will be okay."

The above (in quotes) is the only part of that report in which I saw Canales name mentioned. If there is some other part of those documents that says otherwise, please point it out.

Well, at the end in the appendix, they listed all of the coaches as witnesses. Even if he wasn't, I would still be hesitant to go someplace where there was someone who was on my staff at the time, if I had done something wrong.

[eulessismore]

Well, at the end in the appendix, they listed all of the coaches as witnesses. Even if he wasn't, I would still be hesitant to go someplace where there was someone who was on my staff at the time, if I had done something wrong.

They also listed the player's father, who was not in the locker room at the time, and Trooper Hypes, who informed them that he was on vacation that day, so was nowhere near the locker room. I'm no lawyer, or otherwise qualified about legal matters, but the term "witness" as used in the report does not appear to require someone to see or even be at the location of the incident. Unless otherwise persuaded, I'm like TFLF, just not seeing that hiring Leavitt without at least some indication of when there might be closure in the pending lawsuit. I do think there is a problem in civil, as compared to criminal law, in that there's no "speedy trial" requirements (that I know of anyway).

Anyway, I'm fairly certain that (1.) President Rawlins has to approve this hire and (2.) The Board of Regents has to approve the proposed increased compensation increases for a head coach and assistants. No matter how free a hand Rawlins gives RV in the HC hire, getting that increase to pay a coach with these kinds of unresolved legal issues seems like it would be an uphill battle.

[Rudy]

They also listed the player's father, who was not in the locker room at the time, and Trooper Hypes, who informed them that he was on vacation that day, so was nowhere near the locker room. I'm no lawyer, or otherwise qualified about legal matters, but the term "witness" as used in the report does not appear to require someone to see or even be at the location of the incident. Unless otherwise persuaded, I'm like TFLF, just not seeing that hiring Leavitt without at least some indication of when there might be closure in the pending lawsuit. I do think there is a problem in civil, as compared to criminal law, in that there's no "speedy trial" requirements (that I know of anyway).

Anyway, I'm fairly certain that (1.) President Rawlins has to approve this hire and (2.) The Board of Regents has to approve the proposed increased compensation increases for a head coach and assistants. No matter how free a hand Rawlins gives RV in the HC hire, getting that increase to pay a coach with these kinds of unresolved legal issues seems like it would be an uphill battle.

I think you are right. They use "witness" to describe the Trooper, the coaches, the "victim" and they mention several student athletes as witnesses, even though they were only told about the incident. My original use of the term witness was in response to Video Eagle in another thread where he mentioned there were 20 witnesses, which is why I put it in quotations.

I think this little discussion we just had helps to show that the report and the incident were overblown, if not outright BS so USF didn't have to pay Leavitt.

[akriesman]

Personally, I don't care about the first incident. I DO care about there being another incident. If Leavitt is deemed to be a good fit for our university right now, I am all for giving him another chance if RV believes in him after their meeting.

The only reason that we are even getting a chance to consider Leavitt for the job, is because of the alleged incident. Otherwise, Leavitt would probably be coaching a top-20 BCS team right now. Is this the gift horse that we have missed out on all these years ?

[All About UNT]

My only worry was the money with Leavitt....but after seeing how Fran can't land the last two positions he applied for in the 350k-500k region...that has to be in the thought process of Leavitt. If Fran was scorned for his mistakes and has issues seeking employment.....then will he follow down the same road? Would a 500-600k job make more than enough sense for Leavitt to commit to? I would say so.

Edited October 24, 2010 by All About UNT

[FirefightnRick]

This is fantastic news in two different ways. One, we know he is interested. And two, the University of North Texas and those who will be making this decision knows that we know he is interested.

Rick

[eulessismore]

I think you are right. They use "witness" to describe the Trooper, the coaches, the "victim" and they mention several student athletes as witnesses, even though they were only told about the incident. My original use of the term witness was in response to Video Eagle in another thread where he mentioned there were 20 witnesses, which is why I put it in quotations.

I think this little discussion we just had helps to show that the report and the incident were overblown, if not outright BS so USF didn't have to pay Leavitt.

I'll have to agree that they use the term "witness" in a way that is different from my general understanding of its meaning, but even in criminal law, there is the use of "expert witnesses" who don't see "the incident". It's hard to be impressed with the quality of the "report", but I just don't think supporters of UNT Football would be realistic in dismissing the potential problems that hiring Leavitt poses as insignificant. I'm kind of taking the view of someone here who mentioned that a second chance is best to be given after the original problem is resolved.

One thing that did come out in the report that I had been wondering about (although his listing as a "witness" confuses the issue, but only slightly) was whether Canales was actually there at the time the "incident" occurred. I now conclude that everything indicates he was not. I had heard somewhere that the other USF coaches not retained by Skip Holtz have not been hired to comparable positions, and wonder now if their proximity to said "incident" may be a reason for that. It sounds like, at the minimum, assuming this goes to trial, that they would likely be called as witnesses.

[MDH]

Mark me down for season tickets x 2 if we hire Leavitt.

[NT80]

This is fantastic news in two different ways. One, we know he is interested. And two, the University of North Texas and those who will be making this decision knows that we know he is interested.

Rick

Leavitt being interested in the UNT job adds credibility that quality candidates can be attracted to our program.

Some recruits and fans will see interested candidates as a sort of verification; recognition from outsiders of our place on the foodchain. A "you are who you can attract" mentality.

This is good!

[LoveMG]

leavitt would bring the experience we need for rebuilding. we should bring him in for an interview and see what rv thinks.

[forevereagle]

Maybe Haikaus

Will prompt RV

To call Jim.

Maybe, but we would need to write one first.

[Rudy]

Maybe, but we would need to write one first.

Hey, I slept during writing class.

[GreenMachine]

The number one cheerleader for Leavitt right now should be Canales. I believe that RV was clear in the experience needed for our next HC candidate. Canales doesn't have the experience. If most HC's come in and bring in their own staff, Canales needs Leavitt here to have a better chance of keeping a job. Come on Canales, talk up Leavitt to RV.

Edited October 24, 2010 by GreenMachine