One would hope the legal counsel could have helped bridge some of the gaps.
As for RG and MM, I am still not comfortable with the idea that it took the story going public before action was taken. Were they prepared to renew his contract?
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Investigation completed: Meyer suspended three games
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
One would hope the legal counsel could have helped bridge some of the gaps.
As for RG and MM, I am still not comfortable with the idea that it took the story going public before action was taken. Were they prepared to renew his contract?
That's my thing, too.
Hypothetically, if the alleged victim and Tumpkin had worked things out with a non-disclosure agreement and a financial settlement to go with an agreement to have no further contact... ????
I'm sure that happens all the time where a couple "works things out" and it never becomes a public issue. If it had been "worked out", would Tumpkin be our defensive coordinator today? Is it even something we find unacceptable to the point where ever person who ever has a DV complaint against hm should be ineligible to have a job?
CULifer
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the facts, they dont lie. But I echo Buffnik's sentiments. The CU OIEC gets shared blame anytime this is brought up. And give me a break, we're back to titling Tumpkin as DC for one game? It's clear that CU, from the top down, had no clue how to handle it. (Btw, I pray Tumpkin's ex is okay, and I hope with all my being that she is on solid ground with a good support system to get her back to emotional health.) Also, it's pretty clear that the CU ADeptmt. and the others up the chain and across the hall seemed to be playing hot potatoe with the situation, but they weren't playing extended years of hide and seek with it to try and cover it up (cough tOSU cough). The tOSU and CU situations are comparable in some ways, but to go as far as to say that we have revisionist history occurring where it's pointed out that they're NOT comparable is diluted horse **** out of a soda fountain. Missteps were taken by the CU ADeptmt., but those have been dealt with and hopefully the OIEC and the ADeptmt. are aggressively seeking each other out to train and be trained to handle the next situation far better.
Allegations of DV, Sexual Harassment, Rape, etc that are made public are reputation and career ruiners, almost regardless of who you are or whether those allegations are found to be true or not. Your name is forever tied to that and it's far better for an employer to stay away from that, even if you were proven innocent or charges were dropped, etc.
Right.
That's my point here.
There is absolutely no way that Tumpkin was the only situation where a wife or girlfriend alleged assault against a college coach in the lat 1 1/2 years. But it seems as though it is the only point of reference for the media in regard to the Ohio State case.
Does anyone believe for a second that DV isn't more common than that?
So the question is whether it's still ever acceptable for DV to be handled between the couple and internally from a university perspective. Should every case lead to administrative leave and a likely end to the coach's career? Maybe so. At the least, pressuring victims to remain silent while covering this stuff up seems to be the standard operating procedure - otherwise I'm convinced we'd hear about this stuff more often. The pressure and coverups need to stop. And we don't want DV offenders to be mentoring young men at our universities. But is there never a circumstance where it is ok for a couple to work things out without it going public? Seems like there have been cases where couples moved on from DV (Braves manager Bobby Cox, iirc).
When assistant coaches are making mid to high six figure salaries, their wives/gfs are not usually working, I'd imagine, and it behooves them to stay quiet in order to keep living that lifestyle. I think people will put themselves through a lot if it means not having to worry about money, tbh. If the couple is truly able to work things out on their own, then I don't see why it should go public or why said coach can't keep his job. It's part of the HC's job to determine whether an assistant is fit to be a coach and mentor of the young men on the team. If the allegations do go public, however, not sure there's an argument from a PR standpoint to keep the coach around in any capacity.
Pragmatically, I think that's how most have looked at it.
But the current attitude on all this is moving strongly toward it being an immediate suspension of the coach if a report leaves the privacy of the couple and falls on anyone's ears at the university.
I think that's appropriate, though I understand why many people will feel that is a step too far.
Where I think/ hope that we all can agree is that universities, including their head football coaches, should not be in the business of counseling and pressuring victims to keep quiet in order to protect the assistant. And I think this happens. A lot.
I think I'd support a program policy of immediate paid leave of absence or whatever if anything like that leaves the privacy of the couple, with possible reinstatement pending the outcome of an internal investigation. I think it would be framed by the university as being due to "personal/family reasons" with no further information given. I don't like the idea of guilty until proven innocent mindset we seem to be trending toward in our court of public opinion society, so there needs to be some benefit given to the accused.
I think that your first paragraph is fair; that's entirely my point- if the victim had not gone public, who's to say that it wouldn't have been a tOSU situation?
There seems to be some confusion as to the last paragraph. There are plenty of articles before and after the DV accusations came out that list Tumpkin as interim DC:
Denver Post, 12/27: " Tumpkin, who will serve as the interim defensive coordinator for Colorado"
Deadspin, 1/27: "The University of Colorado announced today that safeties coach and interim defensive coordinator Joe Tumpkin had resigned "
Daily Camera, 1/10 "Colorado head coach Mike MacIntyre, left, and interim defensive coordinator Joe Tumpkin shout out instructions during the first half of the Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, Texas, on Dec. 29"
Regardless of the specifics, it's an extremely bad look with the timeline as it happened.
Also, Phil ultimately should have borne the responsibility for this. It's a disgrace he wasn't let go.
I remember that the media was calling Tumpkin "Interim DC". They were also writing a lot of stuff suggesting that he should be the next DC. But I don't remember MacIntyre ever referring to Tumpkin by that title. In fact, I specifically remember a Q&A where MM made it clear that the Alamo Bowl was not a job interview for Tumpkin for the open DC job and that there had not been a title change for the game.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
Maybe they learned something from that whole situation, one would hope anyway.
Though in this case, public perception matters, no? If the public perception (from media reporting) was that he had recieved a promotion, that's important, right? Could have been avoided by MM calling plays or giving someone else those duties.
Sure. Perception is everything. CU is horrible at managing perception.
There was no one else to call the defense unless MM did it himself. Clarke? He had a foot out the door and was only a year removed from MM coaching his position for him. Jeffcoat? He was fortunate to even be employed. That was the rest of the defensive staff for the Alamo Bowl.
So, if I'm MM, I can totally see myself doing what he did. His big boss, the university Chancellor, told him that the accusation against Tumpkin was not a university issue and that he had no obligation to further report, suspend or anything else. So - after ensuring that the alleged victim was safe and that there would be no further meetings between her and Tumpkn - MM used the resources available to him to give the players, coaches and fans what he believed was the best opportunity to win the football game. The best use of those resources was Tumpkin calling the defense and taking over LB duties with MM remaining in the role he'd had all season on the sideline.
And I would have been pissed if later I had my contract held up and had to pay a $100k fine for this while the people who failed to train me (OIEC) and my boss who gave me bad direction both walked away clean from it.
But, yeah, perception is what ultimately matters. The SI piece, other media coverage and the public perception is the only story at the end of the day.
I just don't understand why you seem to know the facts but would continue to feed the perception that MM gave Tumpkin a promotion.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Pretty much a Trump rally. None of these people even understand the McMurphy/ESPN history.....
Just like the idiots in Happy Valley after the Sandusky/Paterno ****ery came to light.
Yeah. Urb publically called him a liar and mcmurphy showed up with receipts. One of the greatest mic drops in sports journalism history.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
At first, I thought he'd get fired or whatever. Now, I'm not so sure he will. Maybe he will and they seem to want to move quickly on it. As far as Smith, I didn't believe a word from him. His eyes told the story on that for me. I don't get why he was slobbing Urban's knob though, they have a deal or something?
No it makes no difference in public perception who is calling plays. Your axe has been done ground down to a nub.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Sure. Perception is everything. CU is horrible at managing perception.
There was no one else to call the defense unless MM did it himself. Clarke? He had a foot out the door and was only a year removed from MM coaching his position for him. Jeffcoat? He was fortunate to even be employed. That was the rest of the defensive staff for the Alamo Bowl.
So, if I'm MM, I can totally see myself doing what he did. His big boss, the university Chancellor, told him that the accusation against Tumpkin was not a university issue and that he had no obligation to further report, suspend or anything else. So - after ensuring that the alleged victim was safe and that there would be no further meetings between her and Tumpkn - MM used the resources available to him to give the players, coaches and fans what he believed was the best opportunity to win the football game. The best use of those resources was Tumpkin calling the defense and taking over LB duties with MM remaining in the role he'd had all season on the sideline.
And I would have been pissed if later I had my contract held up and had to pay a $100k fine for this while the people who failed to train me (OIEC) and my boss who gave me bad direction both walked away clean from it.
But, yeah, perception is what ultimately matters. The SI piece, other media coverage and the public perception is the only story at the end of the day.
I just don't understand why you seem to know the facts but would continue to feed the perception that MM gave Tumpkin a promotion.
I think the only mistake MM made was not deciding to call the defense himself in the bowl game. This is still a much different situation than what is going on at OSU-given how long Zach Smith worked under Urban and the fact that he got hired at OSU after Urban got that gig.
In hindsight, I think MM's mistake was that he didn't put Tumpkin on administrative/ personal leave after hearing his alleged victim's account. Should have bitten the bullet and promoted Chidera and Taye for the bowl game as interim assistants while running the defense himself. If something like that ever came up again, I bet that's what he'd do.
I have a friend who played for OSU in the late 70's and is a pretty big booster there and he was at the rally. He embarressed himself for sure and continues to do so on Facebook with posts about integrity and Urban. Ughhhhhh they do not get it at all.
Not sure how relevant this is, as asst coaches get varying raises every year.
I guess he didn’t qualify for his “don’t let me hear about you beating your wife “ bonus in 2015.
At this point it sounds like the most likely outcome is Meyer keeps his job but gets suspended for the first 2-4 games.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Whoa
Good find.
Is Herman angling for the tOSU job?
This coming out probably would kill that for him.