NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12

[Highlander]

I've been thinking heavily about this issue, and I believe there are a few points no one has covered yet:
1) This is MM's fault
2) No, it isn't MM's fault
3) It isn't MM's fault, but I fear CU will do something stupid, because Barnett
4) This is RG's fault
5) No, it isn't RG's fault
6) It isn't RG's fault, but I fear CU will do something stupid, because Barnett
7) This is Phil's fault
8) No, this isn't Phil's fault
9) It isn't Phil's fault, but I hope CU lays the blame at his feet anyway because he is a spineless cockroach of a politician that does whatever he is told and has proven during his tenure he couldn't give 2 ****s about CU athletics regardless of his mildly supportive stance these days due to Benson

Did I miss anything?

 

[leftybuff]

I've been thinking heavily about this issue, and I believe there are a few points no one has covered yet:
1) This is MM's fault
2) No, it isn't MM's fault
3) It isn't MM's fault, but I fear CU will do something stupid, because Barnett
3) This is RG's fault
4) No, it isn't RG's fault
5) It isn't RG's fault, but I fear CU will do something stupid, because Barnett
6) This is Phil's fault
7) No, this isn't Phil's fault
8) It isn't Phil's fault, but I hope CU lays the blame at his feet anyway because he is a spineless cockroach of a politician that does whatever he is told and has proven during his tenure he couldn't give 2 ****s about CU athletics regardless of his mildly supportive stance these days due to Benson

Did I miss anything?

You left out "won't someone think of the children?"

 

[Deleted member 807]

Did I miss anything?

**** Baylor & **** you!

 

[Fight CU]

I've been thinking heavily about this issue, and I believe there are a few points no one has covered yet:
1) This is MM's fault
2) No, it isn't MM's fault
3) It isn't MM's fault, but I fear CU will do something stupid, because Barnett
3) This is RG's fault
4) No, it isn't RG's fault
5) It isn't RG's fault, but I fear CU will do something stupid, because Barnett
6) This is Phil's fault
7) No, this isn't Phil's fault
8) It isn't Phil's fault, but I hope CU lays the blame at his feet anyway because he is a spineless cockroach of a politician that does whatever he is told and has proven during his tenure he couldn't give 2 ****s about CU athletics regardless of his mildly supportive stance these days due to Benson

Did I miss anything?

????
PROFIT!

 

[PAHIBuff]

I would like to see some protests if this was even a snowballs chance in hell of happening...

Never underestimate CU's chances of defecating in its own nest. They have an inclination for it.

 

[FightCu1414]

Eh, I think the only people talking about it right now are the people on this site. That obviously changes if anything dramatic happens, but Mac's been doing media spots with Vic Lombardi and I'm sure they're pretty busy with the SEP coming up. I'd also imagine Mac and RG have a fairly good idea of the findings and or "recommendations" from the investigation.

I can tell ya players are a little worried about it.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I've been thinking heavily about this issue, and I believe there are a few points no one has covered yet:
1) This is MM's fault
2) No, it isn't MM's fault
3) It isn't MM's fault, but I fear CU will do something stupid, because Barnett
4) This is RG's fault
5) No, it isn't RG's fault
6) It isn't RG's fault, but I fear CU will do something stupid, because Barnett
7) This is Phil's fault
8) No, this isn't Phil's fault
9) It isn't Phil's fault, but I hope CU lays the blame at his feet anyway because he is a spineless cockroach of a politician that does whatever he is told and has proven during his tenure he couldn't give 2 ****s about CU athletics regardless of his mildly supportive stance these days due to Benson

Did I miss anything?

Won't someone think of the Plati?

 

[goalline]

I can tell ya players are a little worried about it.

This, more than any other reason, is why they need to resolve this soon and move on with whatever decisions are made. Otherwise, it's just a lot of unnecessary stress.

 

[FightCu1414]

This, more than any other reason, is why they need to resolve this soon and move on with whatever decisions are made. Otherwise, it's just a lot of unnecessary stress.

Exactly. Am I worried about the eventual outcome? No. I think it's an unwarranted distraction that has dragged out way way too long.

 

[BuffLuke80]

That's exactly what it sounds like from afar, unnecessary. **** or get off the pot.

 

[Big Jim]

This, more than any other reason, is why they need to resolve this soon and move on with whatever decisions are made. Otherwise, it's just a lot of unnecessary stress.

The stress on the players is the absolutely last worry of the independent review and board of regents timeline. Your needs are different than theirs and they are driving the bus.

 

[CB17Cubed]

This, more than any other reason, is why they need to resolve this soon and move on with whatever decisions are made. Otherwise, it's just a lot of unnecessary stress.

Worst case scenario they estrange Mac from the school. I don't see him getting fired from this, but the longer they drag this out, it may make him start look elsewhere. If he has another successful season, he will get big time calls.

 

[Buffnik]

The stress on the players is the absolutely last worry of the independent review and board of regents timeline. Your needs are different than theirs and they are driving the bus.

Yep. They're politicians. So their motivation is to have an investigation be deep enough to cover them if they follow the will of the President, Chancellor and Athletic Director along with the stakeholders... and also cover their asses if they decide to piss off all these people by making a decision that goes against those interests. Their entire goal is for Salazar and the outside firm to give them an obvious path that it would be really hard for the DP, BDC and national media outlets to disparage. I don't expect a courageous action by the BOR in either direction. They'll follow the recommendations of the attorneys and we just have to hope that the findings clearly point to a path that we like.

P.S. And our hopes should include that if someone has to fall on his sword to make this go away, that Phil is willing to do that by retiring gracefully in order to give the pound of flesh required.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

Despite the desire for this to end quickly, it is not. The regents met again today for 5 hours! The report may or may not be ready by May 17th. BDC article states this: http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_30905092/cu-regents-meet-closed-door-session-again-but


There is some dirt. If this were a slam dunk no issues thing, this wouldn't go this long. These women have found things that conflict with the timeline. What that is can be many things. Many of them you can figure out by taking CU blinders off. Some have touched on their accurate conspiracy theories. Simple fact are all 3 men from MM, RG and PDS are mandatory reporters. Spin it how you want but CU holds faculty to that rule. Still, DiStefano sounds like he directed the other two away and unfortunately potentially Banashek which is an idiotic person to listen to. CU messed up. The question is how much and whom. Forcing a Chancellor out is huge. Same with an AD that made you relevant again and same for coach that turned around everything.

As I have said before I believe MM is least to blame. He followed his two superiors orders. I believe RG will have pointed out to do some very poor things but not fireable offenses. I believe DiStefano really screwed the pooch. He should have known better. And there will be a few surprises that we will have to get our popcorn ready.

 

[Buffnik]

Despite the desire for this to end quickly, it is not. The regents met again today for 5 hours! The report may or may not be ready by May 17th. BDC article states this: http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_30905092/cu-regents-meet-closed-door-session-again-but


There is some dirt. If this were a slam dunk no issues thing, this wouldn't go this long. These women have found things that conflict with the timeline. What that is can be many things. Many of them you can figure out by taking CU blinders off. Some have touched on their accurate conspiracy theories. Simple fact are all 3 men from MM, RG and PDS are mandatory reporters. Spin it how you want but CU holds faculty to that rule. Still, DiStefano sounds like he directed the other two away and unfortunately potentially Banashek which is an idiotic person to listen to. CU messed up. The question is how much and whom. Forcing a Chancellor out is huge. Same with an AD that made you relevant again and same for coach that turned around everything.

As I have said before I believe MM is least to blame. He followed his two superiors orders. I believe RG will have pointed out to do some very poor things but not fireable offenses. I believe DiStefano really screwed the pooch. He should have known better. And there will be a few surprises that we will have to get our popcorn ready.

The following is rumor/whisper I heard but don't have the ability to substantiate or contradict, but thought it was worth sharing and you can all tifwiw to you:

What I heard is that RG wanted to fire Tumpkin as soon as he saw the severity of the allegations and wasn't allowed to do so because it didn't reach the standard of cause for a state employee.

I don't know anything except for the fact that I wasn't seeing Tumpkin's name attached to anything I was following with recruiting between around Xmas and when the BDC article came out. So if my perception of things is correct, JT had been disengaged for a while at least within that aspect of the job.

 

[Bufffalo1]

The following is rumor/whisper I heard but don't have the ability to substantiate or contradict, but thought it was worth sharing and you can all tifwiw to you:

What I heard is that RG wanted to fire Tumpkin as soon as he saw the severity of the allegations and wasn't allowed to do so because it didn't reach the standard of cause for a state employee.

I don't know anything except for the fact that I wasn't seeing Tumpkin's name attached to anything I was following with recruiting between around Xmas and when the BDC article came out. So if my perception of things is correct, JT had been disengaged for a while at least within that aspect of the job.

On Jan 6, BuffStampede reported that Carson Wells was being recruited by JT following the departure of Leavitt. The article stated that in addition to being interim DC for the Alamo Bowl, JT had taken over the recruitment of Wells. Wells confirmed this by saying, "It has been good talking to Coach Tumpkin. He is coming out to see me after the dead period." Based on this, JT had been given additional recruitment duties between Dec. 14 when Leavitt left and Jan 6th when this article and the BDC article came out.

 

[Buffnik]

On Jan 6, BuffStampede reported that Carson Wells was being recruited by JT following the departure of Leavitt. The article stated that in addition to being interim DC for the Alamo Bowl, JT had taken over the recruitment of Wells. Wells confirmed this by saying, "It has been good talking to Coach Tumpkin. He is coming out to see me after the dead period." Based on this, JT had been given additional recruitment duties between Dec. 14 when Leavitt left and Jan 6th when this article and the BDC article came out.

Except it was MacIntyre who actually visited Wells (1/18 Buffstampede article). And it ended up being Jeffcoat who visited from among the assistants earlier in the month, not Tumpkin. Adam may have interviewed Wells on 1/5, but the article you reference doesn't say when Wells last spoke to Tumpkin... only that Tumpkin talked to him after the 12/14 departure of Leavitt to take over his recruiting.

fwiw, this chain of events was actually something I was thinking of when I made my previous post that I didn't think JT had been all that involved after Xmas. I mean, the bowl was on 12/29 and they were in a recruiting dead period anyway while they were also on winter break. And it was only a week between the Alamo Bowl and the report on 1/6 followed by the announcement of the indefinite suspension on 1/10. On 1/10, that was still on a break in the academic calendar and still in the recruiting dead period. Recruiting started again on 1/12 and the spring semester on 1/17. The reports that JT resigned were on the 27th, so it sure looks to me like he had 3 weeks of no involvement and a week or so before that which was a break in the schedule anyway, during which time it's hard to tell whether the inactivity was vacation for all the coaches or JT being distanced.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

Except it was MacIntyre who actually visited Wells (1/18 Buffstampede article). And it ended up being Jeffcoat who visited from among the assistants earlier in the month, not Tumpkin. Adam may have interviewed Wells on 1/5, but the article you reference doesn't say when Wells last spoke to Tumpkin... only that Tumpkin talked to him after the 12/14 departure of Leavitt to take over his recruiting.

fwiw, this chain of events was actually something I was thinking of when I made my previous post that I didn't think JT had been all that involved after Xmas. I mean, the bowl was on 12/29 and they were in a recruiting dead period anyway while they were also on winter break. And it was only a week between the Alamo Bowl and the report on 1/6 followed by the announcement of the indefinite suspension on 1/10. On 1/10, that was still on a break in the academic calendar and still in the recruiting dead period. Recruiting started again on 1/12 and the spring semester on 1/17. The reports that JT resigned were on the 27th, so it sure looks to me like he had 3 weeks of no involvement and a week or so before that which was a break in the schedule anyway, during which time it's hard to tell whether the inactivity was vacation for all the coaches or JT being distanced.

Come on Nik. Your optimism and CU spin can go away here. There was talk amongst all channels that Tumpkin had taken over for Leavitt on the Wells the day they suspended him. That means it was recent event.

 

[Bufffalo1]

Except it was MacIntyre who actually visited Wells (1/18 Buffstampede article). And it ended up being Jeffcoat who visited from among the assistants earlier in the month, not Tumpkin. Adam may have interviewed Wells on 1/5, but the article you reference doesn't say when Wells last spoke to Tumpkin... only that Tumpkin talked to him after the 12/14 departure of Leavitt to take over his recruiting.

fwiw, this chain of events was actually something I was thinking of when I made my previous post that I didn't think JT had been all that involved after Xmas. I mean, the bowl was on 12/29 and they were in a recruiting dead period anyway while they were also on winter break. And it was only a week between the Alamo Bowl and the report on 1/6 followed by the announcement of the indefinite suspension on 1/10. On 1/10, that was still on a break in the academic calendar and still in the recruiting dead period. Recruiting started again on 1/12 and the spring semester on 1/17. The reports that JT resigned were on the 27th, so it sure looks to me like he had 3 weeks of no involvement and a week or so before that which was a break in the schedule anyway, during which time it's hard to tell whether the inactivity was vacation for all the coaches or JT being distanced.

Tumpkin was out on Jan 6th so visits and contacts after that point would obviously be from Mac or other staff who were not suspended. Your timeline said from Christmas to when he was suspended. During that time frame, we have him speaking for the Buffs at the Alamo press conference, doing after practice interviews by media and Leavitt's recruit stating that it had been good talking to Coach Tumpkin on the phone and clearly, he had told Wells that he was coming out after the dead period.
Mac and Jeffcoat come after his suspension. With the elevated duties and Leavitt's recruit clearly feeling as if JT was his new recruiter, I do not see where CU was distancing themselves at all from JT until the BDC article broke.

 

[Buffnik]

I'm not disputing that JT was very active during Alamo Bowl week. It's the week after that which I'm saying is murky and that there's nothing to suggest he was doing much of anything then... whether due to the calendar or due to information that had come to light.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

I'm not disputing that JT was very active during Alamo Bowl week. It's the week after that which I'm saying is murky and that there's nothing to suggest he was doing much of anything then... whether due to the calendar or due to information that had come to light.

If you believe this, then it means CU was not blindsided on the 6th. It is much better for them if they were and business were per usual because they were completely unaware.

I have also got that info that RG wanted him fired immediately when he found out about how egregious it was. The fact is he was made aware of said issues nearly a month prior to Tumpkin being put on admin leave and they treated it like nothing was wrong. That has been shown repeatedly to be the incorrect action by CU.

 

[Buffnik]

If you believe this, then it means CU was not blindsided on the 6th. It is much better for them if they were and business were per usual because they were completely unaware.

I have also got that info that RG wanted him fired immediately when he found out about how egregious it was. The fact is he was made aware of said issues nearly a month prior to Tumpkin being put on admin leave and they treated it like nothing was wrong. That has been shown repeatedly to be the incorrect action by CU.

That's the thing. If the info we heard is accurate and MM told RG what she told him and that he (MM) believed her, that would have been weeks before the filing and the subsequent suspension. I think it's a reasonable possibility that RG wanted to cut ties with JT right then, was told they could not do so, and therefore MM used what resources were available to him while minimizing JT's contact with recruits. Also, with that, it would have meant that neither MM nor anyone from CU could tell the staff or other CU employees outside the investigation what was going on or make any comments disparaging JT during a period he was employed, had no charges filed against him, and was denying the allegations. I think that JT maintaining his innocence internally was probably a very big deal in terms of tying CU's hands. Legally, the only mistake that seems to have been made was the decision not to report to OIEC, which seems to be a misinterpretation of university policy. On the optics side, it looks icky that MM tried to win with the cards he was dealt and it looks icky that the victim was left high and dry on what seems to be the advice of counsel and there may be a technical requirement to report even if your boss (the Chancellor of the university) tells you that it is not a requirement -- but I don't see anything wrong there that should cause MM or RG to be reprimanded. I do expect that this will lead to compulsory education by all coaches and staffers on OIEC reporting requirements. If anyone is in actual trouble, I don't see how it goes beyond Phil D and, even there, it looks like a misunderstanding rather than something nefarious.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

Buffnik, love your positivity in all things. But last point you made I have to take an issue with. Phil has been driving force in forcing others out for not following the OIEC guidelines. So what makes him exempt. I have battled back and forth with many of these thoughts myself. This report will hopefully tie these loose ends up. You don't say one week the report is taking longer than anticipated and then say hell we may not have an answer in 5 weeks. Something is up. What it is? Who knows?!

 

[MCskid]

[QUOTE=
12/10: Victim calls MM
12/10: MM talks to RG
12/11: Victim calls MM again
12/14: Banashek, defense lawyer for Tumpkin, calls victim
12/16: Victim tells MM via text and voicemail she's going to Colorado on 12/19 to get a protective order against Tumpkin. 1 hour later, Banashek calls the victim again
12/16: MM names Tumpkin interim DC for the bowl game

Let's pretend this is the real world and not college athletics. Victim calls company President to inform him of the physical abuse she's received from one of the company's mangers, Pres talks with CEO, victim texts and voicemails Pres(that's the important part), that same day Pres promotes said manager to interim company Vice President. In the real world after the dust had settled and the smoke had cleared what do y'all think the likely hood would be that the Board of Directors would fire the company President? I'd say greater than 50% and probably in the 75% range.

 

[Buffnik]

Buffnik, love your positivity in all things. But last point you made I have to take an issue with. Phil has been driving force in forcing others out for not following the OIEC guidelines. So what makes him exempt. I have battled back and forth with many of these thoughts myself. This report will hopefully tie these loose ends up. You don't say one week the report is taking longer than anticipated and then say hell we may not have an answer in 5 weeks. Something is up. What it is? Who knows?!

Did I say he was exempt? Was not my intent. I said that it looks to me like he made an interpretation of those OIEC guidelines and it was a wrong one. I don't think it was nefarious, but rather was a judgment call he got wrong.

Honestly, unless there's evidence of some conspiracy and coverup here, I really don't see what the big deal is. Seems like a procedural issue and that no one was harmed by whatever procedural errors were made.

 

[hokiehead]

in any company I've worked for, it woudl be the CEO's responsibility to fire the president, not the BoD's. The BoD's role is to hold the CEO accountable.

following your analogy, it would be on RG to fire to HCMM.

 

[Buffnik]

Where are you getting "interim DC" from? Where do you get "promotion" from? Being given more and different responsibilities when your group is down a man is not a promotion. If you were told in your job that your department manager had quit and for the weeks until a replacement was hired you would have to take on more responsibility for the same pay while getting no assurances that you're in line for that job... would you call it a promotion?

All I ever saw MM say on it was that with JL gone that Clark would coach the entire secondary while JT would take the LBs and would do the playcalling. I remember the media trying to call JT an interim DC or play it up as an audition, but I can't remember MM calling him an "interim DC" and also that he nipped the "audition" talk in the bud when asked about it.

I think you're conflating media and fan speculation & characterizations of the situation with the actuality of the situation.

Link: http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_30777871/cu-chancellor-ad-okd-allowing-joe-tumpkin-coach
"With no official documents in hand from a court or an investigation by police, we felt we were not in a position to take any personnel action," said CU spokeswoman Deborah Mendez Wilson. "Rick George updates the chancellor on personnel issues and decisions routinely in their bimonthly meetings. The decision on who was going to call plays was made by Coach MacIntyre, and Rick George supported that decision."

Tumpkin received a $15,000 bonus for coaching in the bowl game, but CU said he did not receive any change in salary or a promotion to interim defensive coordinator despite being assigned defensive playcalling duties.

"We made it clear that we were not going to elevate him due to the allegations, but allow him to do playcalling at the game," Mendez Wilson said.

 

[buffaholic]

Fake News. Once it's out there, it's someone's reality.

 

[Buffnik]

in any company I've worked for, it woudl be the CEO's responsibility to fire the president, not the BoD's. The BoD's role is to hold the CEO accountable.

following your analogy, it would be on RG to fire to HCMM.

Also that analogy didn't accurately reflect the situation.

More like this:

Vice President has the Director of one of his 2 departments leave the company two weeks before a product launch.
That Director has one Senior Manager and two Managers in the department who made up that management team.
The Senior Manager's ex (who the VP has met on several occasions) calls the VP and says that the Sr Manager had abused her.
The VP makes sure the ex is safe and then asks the President what should be done.
President says that it needs to be kicked upstairs to the CEO because the organization takes these allegations very seriously.
CEO says that since the abuse occurred outside the company that there is no responsibility to report it and that since there is no police report or legal filing, there is no action to be taken against the Sr Manager.
President asks the Vice President what he wants to do about the Sr Manager, given the situation.
VP says that he's short staffed and needs that Sr Manager to take on some of the key responsibilities the departed Director had had in order to get through the product launch.
President says fine, considering they can't get rid of the Sr Manager and they're still paying the salary, use your resources.
President also kicks this above and that course of action is approved.
Later, it comes out that the CEO did not make the right decision because the CEO had misinterpreted company policy on reporting of these types of allegations against an employee.
So, the Board of Directors gets involved, orders an independent investigation of the events, and might take action (which would be against the CEO unless the President or Vice President are found to have gone rogue with their actions)
Possible outcomes could range from nothing much of anything resulting from this beyond maybe a reprimand of the CEO and a new policy for educating all employees on reporting... up to the CEO riding a golden parachute out of the company. It's hard to imagine any Board of Directors deciding that this warranted terminating two star performers in the President and Vice President who have just finished turning around the company's signature brands.

 

[DavisBuff]

The length of this investigation is ridiculous. And at $1,200 per hour the University is being milked.
It's going on two months. Present your damn findings and let's move on.