Talk:Mike Leach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Lubbock County, Texas may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Bob Stoops on Mike Leach

When Bob Stoops was defensive coordinator under Steve Spurrier at the University of Florida he said that he was always impressed with how much trouble his defenses had with the University of Kentucky's offense and that is why he immediately hired Mike Leach when he got the head coaching position at the University of Oklahoma--sorry no reference.192.88.165.35 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you happen across a ref, add the info here or to the article itself. →Wordbuilder 14:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
...sure where to add it but here is a ref http://www.ussa.edu/news/2005/10/22/leach.asp 192.88.165.35 23:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UCLA Rumors

This does not belong on the page. There is absolutely nothing to verify the rumors. This section needs to be deleted. Ja860231 (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How about that Houston Chronicle article that is linked to in the article to verify the rumors? ––Bender235 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the very fact that they are rumors make them unencyclopedic? Is it appropriate to add to Wikipedia everything published in a newspaper? Are rumors good for the article, in particular, and for Wikipedia, in general? I say no. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But this is not a story made up by some newspaper journalist. This is some serious talking, ongoing. Like Les Miles to Michigan. Even if it turns out that Leach won't leave Texas Tech (because UCLA won't fire Dorrell, or whatever reason), the very fact that there were rumors ongoing whole season long is "encyclopedic". Like those rumored talks between Bobby Petrino and several schools during his Louisville days. You have to mention it because it's part of the "history" of his Louisville stint. Just like the UCLA rumors with Mike Leach's Texas Tech years. ––Bender235 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So, it has long-lasting importance? For instance, ten years from now is anyone going to find the following statement notable, "In 2007, there were rumors that Leach was possibly being considered for the head coaching position at UCLA, but he stayed at Tech for another decade."? Not saying he'll stay at Tech but, if he does, the rumors are not notable. If he goes to UCLA, the rumors still are not notable, though the actual hiring would be. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
They're nothing but rumors. Rumors DO NOT belong on Wikipedia. Not only that, but I know Mike Leach and he's perfectly happy living in Lubbock and does NOT plan on going anywhere for at least 3 years! He's going to make an average of $2.3 million over the next 3 years at Tech, money that UCLA cannot afford! They've always been cheapos and they would never pay Leach that kind of money!
Requesting that the UCLA/Coaching Rumors section be deleted, please.Ja860231 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no "serious talking, ongoing", there is only speculation. Please remove rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.252.50 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 November 2007
You guys must be blind. That Leach-to-UCLA thing is swirling around for weeks. TSN's Tom Dienhart wrote today: "If UCLA dumps Karl Dorrell, I keep hearing Texas Tech Mike Leach will get a long look. And I hear he'd love the job." ––Bender235 17:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not one who argued they weren't published, I just argued that they're not encyclopedic. Also, please avoid wording that can be construed as a personal attack. Thank you. →Wordbuilder 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to reach a consensus here — how about only including rumors that are verified by reliable sources, and removing them once there is an official announcement about whether he is going to stay or leave? As far as whether these rumors should be included, please read the second half of this discussion I wrote in the Tommy Tuberville article and let me know what you guys think. In that article, I added verified rumors about Tuberville being a possible coaching candidate at Texas A&M, but I was fine when the rumors were removed afterwards when it was announced that he was not one of the candidates and when Mike Sherman was finally hired. After all, as Wordbuilder mentioned, a person reading the article 10 years from now would hardly be interested about these rumors. Besides, I am sure rumors have been going on in the past when schools were looking for new head coaches, and I don't think people actually care about those now. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Now the Los Angeles Times reports that Dorrell is out and Leach is among the three candidates considered for the job (the others being Chris Petersen and Steve Mariucci). Is this finally a rumor worth to be noted in this Wikipedia article? ––Bender235 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would think it would be fine to mention this in the article but not as a "rumor". Simply saying something along the lines of Leach being one of the top three candidates for the job would be fine. Perhaps add it to the final paragraph before "2007 Texas vs. Texas Tech controversy". I don't know that it is significant enough at this point to warrant its own section. →Wordbuilder 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates comment

Where the hell did the comment about the pirates go? That was cited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.160.72 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)