Michigan Radio & TV Buzzboard

Robert Faygo wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 19, 2023 6:22 pm

Matt wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 19, 2023 6:00 pm

If MSU had the same information they have today in December 2022, March, and July, it is hard to justify firing for cause NOW. #asthetugcranks

Actually, it's pretty easy to justify. Everything kicked up once the USA Today article was published and it all became public. MSU has been through the proverbial ringer since the article. That triggered the firing. Rightly or wrongly, before then silence was golden. Even if Haller knew all of the details - he wasn't free to share it to enough people to make a firing decision. Once the cover was blown, all bets were off.

I'd argue though that the timing of all this is irrelevant.

Had all of this remained private through Oct 6, that USA Today article was still going to be published. Had MSU kept Tugger as coach after that hearing ... the blowback / humiliation / etc. heaped on the University would have been even worse than it's already been. Had they fired him ... all of this still would have happened.

MSU has been acting very deliberately and cautiously at the advice of legal counsel. Haller couldn't make this decision, even though it's his name on the "you're fired" document. This was all done as billable hours ... and all of that takes time to be done the right way. They want out of paying him $77 million dollars.

bmw wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:15 pm

I haven't paid any attention to this story until reading the most recent link Matt just posted. Setting aside whether the call was consensual or not and setting aside whether Tucker's actions violated MSU policy or not, who in their right mind - especially somebody in a position such as Mel's - decides that it is a good idea to have phone sex with someone whose profession is that of "sexual awareness speaker"? That just seems like an incredibly stupid decision.

moldyoldie wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 9:43 am

I dunno, but after reading everything that's out there, I'm sensing that Tucker is being railroaded by a scorned woman. It's an ugly situation, to be sure. Very bad judgement on Tucker's part, but he'll walk away with a hefty settlement when all is said and done. We'll see.

km1125 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 10:00 am

moldyoldie wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 9:43 am

I dunno, but after reading everything that's out there, I'm sensing that Tucker is being railroaded by a scorned woman. It's an ugly situation, to be sure. Very bad judgement on Tucker's part, but he'll walk away with a hefty settlement when all is said and done. We'll see.

Can you imagine someone with the tenacity of, say Feiger, motivated by "you get 50% of the take" when $77mm is on the table?

moldyoldie wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:08 am

km1125 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 10:00 am

moldyoldie wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 20, 2023 9:43 am

I dunno, but after reading everything that's out there, I'm sensing that Tucker is being railroaded by a scorned woman. It's an ugly situation, to be sure. Very bad judgement on Tucker's part, but he'll walk away with a hefty settlement when all is said and done. We'll see.

Can you imagine someone with the tenacity of, say Feiger, motivated by "you get 50% of the take" when $77mm is on the table?

A lot will depend on a judge or jury's interpretation of "moral turpitude" as spelled out in the contract. My guess is a settlement to make it "go away".