Mel Tucker beats Fitz yet again

[CatManTrue]

First to file his wrongful termination lawsuit. Which overpaid former head coach will be next?

Tucker tells MSU of wrongful termination lawsuit

Fired football coach Mel Tucker informed Michigan State he is preparing to file a potential wrongful termination lawsuit against the school.

www.espn.com

 

[Frabjous]

With 20/20 hindsight, Schill should have put Pat Fitzgerald on paid administrative leave until the goddam mess got sorted out, or cooled off.

 

[Rebel II]

With 20/20 hindsight, Schill should have put Pat Fitzgerald on paid administrative leave until the goddam mess got sorted out, or cooled off.

Would have been the best way to have handled it!

 

[phatcat]

With 20/20 hindsight, Schill should have put Pat Fitzgerald on paid administrative leave until the goddam mess got sorted out, or cooled off.

Yep. Then they don't have the knee jerk bullshit. Also gave time for Gagg to get back from vacation to properly manage it.

/s in case it isn't obvious

 

[Hungry Jack]

With 20/20 hindsight, Schill should have put Pat Fitzgerald on paid administrative leave until the goddam mess got sorted out, or cooled off.

But Schill is an intrepid legal scholar who is smarter than Einstein and Elon Musk combined

 

[CatManTrue]

With 20/20 hindsight, Schill should have put Pat Fitzgerald on paid administrative leave until the goddam mess got sorted out, or cooled off.

Why? The situation was going to get uglier if he wasn’t fired immediately. Rip the bandaid off.

 

[CatManTrue]

But Schill is an intrepid legal scholar who is smarter than Einstein and Elon Musk combined

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Do better! It sounds like you need some classic Clint to get back on track.

I watched “Edge of Tomorrow” the other day and it got me juiced. Excelsior!

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

With 20/20 hindsight, Schill should have put Pat Fitzgerald on paid administrative leave until the goddam mess got sorted out, or cooled off.

The thing is - what is the most extreme thing Schill could conceivably have done?

Thats what he did.

 

[CatManTrue]

The thing is - what is the most extreme thing Schill could conceivably have done?

Thats what he did.

Schill did what any president would do.

Who else is cheering for Duke right now?

I don’t see an other games thread.

 

[NUCat320]

Schill did what any president would do.

Who else is cheering for Duke right now?

I don’t see an other games thread.

Any president would have read the report before making their initial decision.

 

[MickeyCat]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Do better! It sounds like you need some classic Clint to get back on track.

I watched “Edge of Tomorrow” the other day and it got me juiced. Excelsior!

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.”

Prop comics breathe sigh of relief (using wheezing rubber chickens to imitate relief-sighing).

 

[cattul]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Do better!

Please reconsider your statement, if you wouldn’t mime.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.”

Prop comics breathe sigh of relief (using wheezing rubber chickens to imitate relief-sighing).

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.”​

― Oscar Wilde

He was being sarcastic.

 

[rogerkim]

Any president would have read the report before making their initial decision.

I have tried not to comment that much on this whole situation. But I had to add my thoughts on this facet of the situation- the leadership of President Schill.

In my career, I have played a leadership role for all but probably the first 2-3 years of my career. (I imagine that I am not alone in this regard on this forum.) In one of my previous jobs, I inherited a situation that had been brewing prior to my appointment to the leadership role. On the same day when my title became official, I was briefed of the situation - which would likely involve a disciplinary action that would have to be made within the next week or so. I immediately requested and received the relevant report and took it home to read it that very night. And re-read it. And read it a third time.

While the results of my decision for disciplinary action were no less devastating for my employee than Schill's was for Fitzgerald, an argument could certainly be made that the stakes were considerably lower, if only in terms of the comparative affected salaries. And yet it seems to me that Schull did not recognize the magnitude of the situation and give the decision the appropriate level of consideration. (Whereas I am fairly certain that I gave my situation the proper level of due diligence.)

From everything that has been stated (much by Schill himself) in the aftermath, I arrived at two logical possibilities. Either Schill did not fully read/familiarize himself with the contents of the report prior to making the initial decision to suspend Fitz, or he was fully familiar with the contents of the report and deemed that a two-week suspension was adequate. If the former, I would assert that was a failure to recognize the high-stakes nature of the decision. If the latter, it was a failure to anticipate the reaction to such a decision (and to be prepared to defend/justify/stand by it).

Either way, it was a failure in critical decision making and in recognizing the decision magnitude. Putting aside whether the suspension was the correct decision or whether the subsequent reversal and escalation to termination was the correct call, the way in which Schill appears to have approached the decision-making process was not at a level of competence that I would expect for the president of a major academic institution.

(Ok I'm done)

 

[phatcat]

I have tried not to comment that much on this whole situation. But I had to add my thoughts on this facet of the situation- the leadership of President Schill.

In my career, I have played a leadership role for all but probably the first 2-3 years of my career. (I imagine that I am not alone in this regard on this forum.) In one of my previous jobs, I inherited a situation that had been brewing prior to my appointment to the leadership role. On the same day when my title became official, I was briefed of the situation - which would likely involve a disciplinary action that would have to be made within the next week or so. I immediately requested and received the relevant report and took it home to read it that very night. And re-read it. And read it a third time.

While the results of my decision for disciplinary action were no less devastating for my employee than Schill's was for Fitzgerald, an argument could certainly be made that the stakes were considerably lower, if only in terms of the comparative affected salaries. And yet it seems to me that Schull did not recognize the magnitude of the situation and give the decision the appropriate level of consideration. (Whereas I am fairly certain that I gave my situation the proper level of due diligence.)

From everything that has been stated (much by Schill himself) in the aftermath, I arrived at two logical possibilities. Either Schill did not fully read/familiarize himself with the contents of the report prior to making the initial decision to suspend Fitz, or he was fully familiar with the contents of the report and deemed that a two-week suspension was adequate. If the former, I would assert that was a failure to recognize the high-stakes nature of the decision. If the latter, it was a failure to anticipate the reaction to such a decision (and to be prepared to defend/justify/stand by it).

Either way, it was a failure in critical decision making and in recognizing the decision magnitude. Putting aside whether the suspension was the correct decision or whether the subsequent reversal and escalation to termination was the correct call, the way in which Schill appears to have approached the decision-making process was not at a level of competence that I would expect for the president of a major academic institution.

(Ok I'm done)

Roger, how long was the report you read? Would it have made a difference to you if the report was, say, 500 pages? I'm no Schill apologist, but would have expected my staff to give a thorough briefing if that long. Maybe the did. Maybe Gagg downplayed it. I don't know

 

[Gatabowl]

Roger, how long was the report you read? Would it have made a difference to you if the report was, say, 500 pages? I'm no Schill apologist, but would have expected my staff to give a thorough briefing if that long. Maybe the did. Maybe Gagg downplayed it. I don't know

Wait, you mean someone at NU might downplay bad stuff in a negative report about Pat Fitzgerald and recommend a slap on the wrist punishment?

 

[phatcat]

Wait, you mean someone at NU might downplay bad stuff in a negative report about Pat Fitzgerald and recommend a slap on the wrist punishment?

I think Gagg is useless as tits on a bull and may have reviewed the info poorly

 

[Gatabowl]

I think Gagg is useless as tits on a bull and may have reviewed the info poorly

Oh I was agreeing with you. But I don’t think he reviewed it poorly. I think Gragg’s skill (thirst?) for sweeping stuff under the rug has been well documented and wouldn’t be surprised if he was at the center of the two week suspension. Schill isn’t a sports guy, he was at a major institution and I’d imagine is a delegator. Probably deferred to the expert who he didn’t know is also an idiot.

But we will probably never know.

 

[rogerkim]

Roger, how long was the report you read? Would it have made a difference to you if the report was, say, 500 pages? I'm no Schill apologist, but would have expected my staff to give a thorough briefing if that long. Maybe the did. Maybe Gagg downplayed it. I don't know

It was probably half a ream, so about 250 pages or so.

My point in the comparison is that in terms of my role as a leader and Schill in his, these were both high-stakes decisions that potentially involved disciplinary action against an employee. My approach to it was to listen to the people briefing me for their overall summary, but to "trust and verify". I would not have been comfortable making a decision of that nature relying solely on an executive summary, especially as a newcomer to the situation and with limited experience with the other staff members involved.

I think Schill was in a similar position, given his relatively short time in the presidency role and what I assume was a limited prior experience/interactions with Gragg. If he didn't read the report himself and relied primarily on Gragg's briefing, I still think that's a failure of decision-making, since he is trusting Gragg's recommendation with limited past experience. Had they both been in their respective roles for many years, with trust built up over time, I think that might have been a little more acceptable, but I would still expect that such for a high-stakes decision, Schill should have had more familiarity with the report before making the call. (again, this is assumes the first scenario in my original post)

 

[hdhntr1]

But Schill is an intrepid legal scholar who is smarter than Einstein and Elon Musk combined

Or thinks he is

 

[hdhntr1]

I have tried not to comment that much on this whole situation. But I had to add my thoughts on this facet of the situation- the leadership of President Schill.

In my career, I have played a leadership role for all but probably the first 2-3 years of my career. (I imagine that I am not alone in this regard on this forum.) In one of my previous jobs, I inherited a situation that had been brewing prior to my appointment to the leadership role. On the same day when my title became official, I was briefed of the situation - which would likely involve a disciplinary action that would have to be made within the next week or so. I immediately requested and received the relevant report and took it home to read it that very night. And re-read it. And read it a third time.

While the results of my decision for disciplinary action were no less devastating for my employee than Schill's was for Fitzgerald, an argument could certainly be made that the stakes were considerably lower, if only in terms of the comparative affected salaries. And yet it seems to me that Schull did not recognize the magnitude of the situation and give the decision the appropriate level of consideration. (Whereas I am fairly certain that I gave my situation the proper level of due diligence.)

From everything that has been stated (much by Schill himself) in the aftermath, I arrived at two logical possibilities. Either Schill did not fully read/familiarize himself with the contents of the report prior to making the initial decision to suspend Fitz, or he was fully familiar with the contents of the report and deemed that a two-week suspension was adequate. If the former, I would assert that was a failure to recognize the high-stakes nature of the decision. If the latter, it was a failure to anticipate the reaction to such a decision (and to be prepared to defend/justify/stand by it).

Either way, it was a failure in critical decision making and in recognizing the decision magnitude. Putting aside whether the suspension was the correct decision or whether the subsequent reversal and escalation to termination was the correct call, the way in which Schill appears to have approached the decision-making process was not at a level of competence that I would expect for the president of a major academic institution.

(Ok I'm done)

I would suggest that your action was likely more private and less likely to destroy the persons reputation and career at the same time. Plus the damage it did to the program. That makes his actions even harder to justify