Former Texas HC, now assaulter, fired

nrg4isu

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2009
1,896
3,063
113
Springfield, Illinois
Nope. UT cannot open itself up to a lawsuit by making a rash decision. They just can't. So, what did they do?

1.) They instantly suspended Beard, without pay, without access to the team.
2.) They seemed to form some sort of group to investigate this stuff on the side, on their own. This involved their own legal team and the police, I'd imagine.
3.) After spending a few (fairly short, over-holiday) weeks gathering info, they quickly made the decision to let Beard go based on that data.
4.) They apparently gave Beard the option to go peacefully, which he declined. They then followed that up with firing him for cause and then publicly mocking him for it after.

This all adds up to me. They handled it perfectly from a legal liability standpoint, and even retained to viewpoint of a moral high ground for firing him at all.

What possible lawsuit? They had the right to fire him immediately. I agree that they did the right thing by suspending him and then investigating, it's just the timeline of the investigation went on waaay too long. It should have been a couple days, not weeks. There could have been a lawsuit about if the firing was "with cause" or without, but that's still in play regardless. It's up to Beard and his lawyers to decide if they want to go after that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kinch

cycloneG

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2007
15,164
15,227
113
Off the grid
What possible lawsuit? They had the right to fire him immediately. I agree that they did the right thing by suspending him and then investigating, it's just the timeline of the investigation went on waaay too long. It should have been a couple days, not weeks. There could have been a lawsuit about if the firing was "with cause" or without, but that's still in play regardless. It's up to Beard and his lawyers to decide if they want to go after that.

I'm assuming the holidays slowed the investigation down considerably. If this had happened in October, the firing would have been much sooner, probably, maybe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MeowingCows

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
35,796
34,182
113
Iowa
What possible lawsuit? They had the right to fire him immediately. I agree that they did the right thing by suspending him and then investigating, it's just the timeline of the investigation went on waaay too long. It should have been a couple days, not weeks. There could have been a lawsuit about if the firing was "with cause" or without, but that's still in play regardless. It's up to Beard and his lawyers to decide if they want to go after that.
The school wasn't certain they had any right to fire him immediately, which is why they investigated it first. Dot I's and cross T's when there's any chance at all of dealing with lawyers and courts. Clutching about a matter of days versus weeks (over the holidays) is just splitting hairs.
 

chuckd4735

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 29, 2006
28,859
10,628
113
40
Indianola
What possible lawsuit? They had the right to fire him immediately. I agree that they did the right thing by suspending him and then investigating, it's just the timeline of the investigation went on waaay too long. It should have been a couple days, not weeks. There could have been a lawsuit about if the firing was "with cause" or without, but that's still in play regardless. It's up to Beard and his lawyers to decide if they want to go after that.

I don't disagree, but when it comes to legal matters, it never goes as fast as most people think.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,072
37,216
113
Waukee
So does Hunter try and transfer again?

Call up Tennessee or Kansas and see if their offers are still good?
 

qwerty

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 3, 2020
6,264
8,880
113
59
Muscatine, IA
The school wasn't certain they had any right to fire him immediately, which is why they investigated it first. Dot I's and cross T's when there's any chance at all of dealing with lawyers and courts. Clutching about a matter of days versus weeks (over the holidays) is just splitting hairs.
Probably got a tax break by waiting until the new year . . . . . :jimlad::jimlad::jimlad::jimlad:
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,072
37,216
113
Waukee
We didn't have the ability to develop his "basketball skills" further. I doubt he would come back here now.

I honestly wonder if he'd start over Lipsey at this point.

Hunter is a better defender, but only marginally so. Lipsey isn't as quick but he's bigger and stronger. And Lipsey does a much better job of orchestrating the offense as a PG.

Lipsey doesn't score as much, but he's much more efficient about it when he does and, again, does a much better job of avoiding turnovers and getting his teammates involved.
 

Kinch

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2021
3,362
2,940
113
CDC isn't the school legal department and it quite literally is his job to support his coaches. Sure, that's wrong in this case, but it's not like his commentary is a surprise. This is why the legal department went against the ADs messaging. The AD isn't in charge here.

Now, should Texas do something separate about CDCs actions...I personally think so.
I highly doubt CDC's job description is to "support his coaches." I googled a template for AD and I spotted Texas Tech's job description, which is probably a template for most college athletic directors and nowhere does it say that. It says "Manage coaching staff". It also says "maintain compliance" with all state, local national and university rules and regulations. Sure he isn't the legal department, but he is definitely required to know what the University regulations are and reports to the University President. CDC has a fiduciary duty to the UT, not to the coaches, and he failed completely here. An AD doesn't go to the players and coaches and say the things that CDC said. That is not in his job description.
 

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
35,796
34,182
113
Iowa
I highly doubt CDC's job description is to "support his coaches." I googled a template for AD and I spotted Texas Tech's job description, which is probably a template for most college athletic directors and nowhere does it say that. It says "Manage coaching staff". It also says "maintain compliance" with all state, local national and university rules and regulations. Sure he isn't the legal department, but he is definitely required to know what the University regulations are and reports to the University President. CDC has a fiduciary duty to the UT, not to the coaches, and he failed completely here. An AD doesn't go to the players and coaches and say the things that CDC said. That is not in his job description.
You'll have to point me out all of the ADs around college sports that go out of their way to attack their coaches openly instead of support them. Use common sense here. Managing coaching staff is supporting them. Like I said, he's in the wrong, too, and I wonder if UT will get after him as well. CDC could've just been trying to prevent panic...or he could just be a dirtbag. My money would be on the latter.

Either way, the handling of CDC's comments is entirely immaterial to what happened between Beard and UT. They aren't related.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 06_CY

DSMCy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 1, 2013
5,117
6,400
113
West Des Moines
Nope. UT cannot open itself up to a lawsuit by making a rash decision. They just can't. So, what did they do?

1.) They instantly suspended Beard, without pay, without access to the team.
2.) They seemed to form some sort of group to investigate this stuff on the side, on their own. This involved their own legal team and the police, I'd imagine.
3.) After spending a few (fairly short, over-holiday) weeks gathering info, they quickly made the decision to let Beard go based on that data.
4.) They apparently gave Beard the option to go peacefully, which he declined. They then followed that up with firing him for cause and then publicly mocking him for it after.

This all adds up to me. They handled it perfectly from a legal liability standpoint, and even retained to viewpoint of a moral high ground for firing him at all.
I agree, I don't really understand those that are asking why it took so long to fire him.

I will say I'm still skeptical that UT wasn't looking for a way to keep him.
I'm wondering if UT knows something more, or more info is going to come out.
IMO UT would try to do anything they could to punish Beard and keep him as the coach. Suspend him for the rest of this year, make him take some counselling, etc.
Seems like this was CDC's game plan until someone above him made the call to fire Beard.
 

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
35,796
34,182
113
Iowa
I agree, I don't really understand those that are asking why it took so long to fire him.

I will say I'm still skeptical that UT wasn't looking for a way to keep him.
I'm wondering if UT knows something more, or more info is going to come out.
IMO UT would try to do anything they could to punish Beard and keep him as the coach. Suspend him for the rest of this year, make him take some counselling, etc.
Seems like this was CDC's game plan until someone above him made the call to fire Beard.
That's pretty much where I'm at. I fully expected Beard to somehow, some way, walk away from this and keep his job.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ankency and DSMCy

Carlisle Clone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 2, 2019
346
624
93
49
In no way did Texas handle this the right way. You know they went into this process asking "how can we keep Beard?" which is the wrong stance. The little investigation they had done turned up way more than they bargained for so they resorted back to the original reason to fire.

(when I say the investigation turned up more Im meaning his previous marriage was not good. Guessing this wasnt Beards first domestic with the previous wife and fiance)