{"id":470,"date":"2012-11-16T08:41:04","date_gmt":"2012-11-16T08:41:04","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2014-11-24T05:48:54","modified_gmt":"2014-11-24T11:48:54","slug":"analysis-of-the-reasoning-behind-the-firings-of-mike-leach-and-jim-leavitt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/analysis-of-the-reasoning-behind-the-firings-of-mike-leach-and-jim-leavitt\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis of the Reasoning Behind the Firings of Mike Leach and Jim Leavitt"},"content":{"rendered":"
Aaron J. Moore, Ph.D.<\/div>\n

ABSTRACT<\/h3>\n

This paper is a thematic analysis of press coverage surrounding the firings of coaches Mike Leach and Jim Leavitt from the 2010. In an effort to understand
\nthe rationale behind their dismissals, this quantitative research uses attribution theory as the basis of the analysis. While the schools stated the firings were
\ndue to the way these two coaches questionably handled a player, the press coverage displayed other reasons. This paper contextualizes the rationale behind their
\nfirings in an effort to explain the current high stakes of major college football.<\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/h3>\n

There are very few professionals with less job security than major college football coaches. Entering the 2010 season, there were 24 new coaches in the
\nDivision I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). That turnover represented 20% of all FBS programs. Two of the 24 coaches who lost their jobs following the 2009
\nseason generated national attention from their relatively regional programs. Both Mike Leach of Texas Tech and Jim Leavitt from South Florida lost their
\njobs amid controversy and intensive media coverage centering on their off-field actions with some of their players. Prior to the firings, both coaches were
\nhailed as successful leaders. Issues surrounding their departures cast doubt upon the official reasons stated by the universities. When perceived reality
\ncontradicts public discourse, there is a tremendous opportunity for public relations scholarship. This paper uses thematic analysis of news coverage to demonstrate
\nhow the meanings the universities tried to construct for these firings were essentially refuted in the sports press.<\/p>\n

Relevance of Research<\/strong><\/p>\n

The rationale behind the firings of these coaches, beyond what was publicly stated by their employers, is an important topic for researchers
\nto analyze for multiple reasons. First, as it relates to the growing field of sport communication, it provides content that focuses on the expansive growth
\nof the college football industry, the salaries provided to coaches, and the overall investment schools are willing to make to be successful on the football
\nfield. Additionally, this research is an important topic as it relates to the fields of mass media, public relations, and journalism. College football is
\nat such a prominent level in terms of revenue, advertising, and marketing that it shares an escalating symbiotic relationship with the mass media. This media
\ncoverage helps raise the financial stakes of those schools participating at the highest level of college football. The sport has always had this relationship
\nbut since the inception of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) in 1998, the monetary rewards have risen exponentially. The BCS is the system that selects 12 schools
\nthat participate in the top six post-season bowl games. Those 12 slots are highly coveted since they bring the most money and media attention to the participating
\nschools (Dunnavant, 2004). The power of the BCS has escalated to a point where politicians are now questioning its possible violation of anti-trust laws (Staples,
\n2010). This past bowl season, the six conferences that received an automatic bid to a BCS game garnered $145.2 million in revenue from the BCS. That sum
\nis compared to the $24.7 million awarded to the five conferences that didn\u2019t receive an automatic BCS bid (Murphy, 2011). The manner in which college football
\nhas become such an integral part of the mass media landscape makes any controversy that occurs in the industry worthy of address by academic researchers (Oriard,
\n2009).<\/p>\n

College Football and Higher Education<\/strong><\/p>\n

The rise in college sports, in terms of revenue and media prominence, creates a public relations conundrum. Under the traditional educational perspective,
\nstill touted in their marketing materials, colleges and universities have the primary mission of educating young people and preparing them for adult life.
\nFor the select few student-athletes competing in the high-visibility sports at the Division I level, athletics is still presented as just another outlet
\nthat prepares them physically and mentally for adulthood. However, the financial investments schools are making in their sports programs put this traditional
\nmodel in jeopardy. Now, athletes are more than students; they are necessary participants in the school’s profit motives (Sperber, 2000).<\/p>\n

The role of the coach is also different in the evolving collegiate sports model. With the amount of money major colleges invest in football and the turnover
\nrate for head coaches, it is difficult to argue that winning isn’t the coach’s first priority (Stein, 2004). Because the multi-year contracts top coaches command
\ntypically do not permit termination just for losing, a pretext may be needed to fire a coach. While schools are often forced to fire losing coaches because
\nof disgruntled fan bases, it remains a difficult financial decision. For an academic institution, it would appear that firing a coach for breaking rules
\nshould be an easy decision to make. However, there are a number of college coaches who blatantly violated university or NCAA rules but still kept their jobs. Having
\na rule-breaking coach remain on staff appears to violate the principles of an institution of higher learning. Yet, on the football and basketball sidelines
\nthere remain a number of coaches almost impervious to being fired. There must be an underlying reason some schools are willing to be more lenient with rule-breaking
\ncoaches.<\/p>\n

LITERATURE REVIEW<\/h3>\n

From a theoretical perspective, research into the rationale behind the firings of Leach and Leavitt relates to attribution theory. An expert in attribution
\ntheory, Bernard Weiner (1985), often wrote about the human characteristic in which people have a driving need to search for the cause of events. This theory
\nrelates to the persuasive messages used to explain how people account for the actions of others (Woodward & Denton, 2009). Attribution theory is storytelling
\nand the belief that a persuader tries to figure out how certain behaviors or messages will be perceived by others. The resulting story communicated by persuaders
\nbest suits their needs and goals (Coombs, 2007). Attribution theory relates to public relations and crises communication since responses made by an organization
\nduring the time of crisis will frame the public perception and impact its overall reputation (Heath, Toth & Waymer, 2009). After researching the influence
\nWord of Mouth Communication (WMOC) has on brand recognition, Laczniak; DeCarlo and Ramaswami (2001) concluded that poor WMOC significantly devalues the public\u2019s
\nperception of the brand.<\/p>\n

Even though there is a relationship between attribution theory and crisis communications, scholarly analysis connecting the theory to sports-related issues is almost
\nnon-existent. In fact, there is almost no academic research into the broad topic of sports coaches being fired. Most of the literature deals with the impact,
\nin terms of wins and losses when a coach is dismissed during the season (Koning, 2003; Frick, Barros & Prinz 2010; White, Persad & Gee, 2007). One case
\naddressed by a scholar was the dismissal of basketball coach Jim Valvano by North Carolina State University in 1990. Michael Selvaggi (1993) used legal
\nanalysis to examine the lawsuit filed by the university asserting that it had proper grounds to fire Valvano because of the poor academic progress of his
\nplayers. This research determined that this was the first time a school had fired a coach because of a stipulation in his contract regarding players\u2019
\nacademic progress.<\/p>\n

Legal scholar Martin J. Greenberg (1991) noted that there is no other business in which contracts are broken more often than the sports industry. Since there
\nis so much at stake in terms of revenue and publicity, colleges and universities are in a precarious situation when administering punishment for coaches and
\nplayers who break rules. Keeping a coach or player out of action because of a violation could endanger a school\u2019s chance of winning a game. That in
\nturn would lead to economic ramifications (Stangel, 2000).<\/p>\n

Based on the cases of Leach and Leavitt and the possibility that they were both fired for other reasons than stated by their employers, this paper will
\nlook to connect attribution theory to each controversy. Based on the research of Laczniak; DeCarlo and Ramaswami (2001), these controversial cases impacted
\nthe overall brand value for both Texas Tech and South Florida. The following research questions will be used to better rationalize the firings of Leach and
\nLeavitt.<\/p>\n

RQ1: Were there other reasons for the firings of Leach and Leavitt besides the rationale provided by their employers?<\/p>\n

RQ2: How do the cases of Leach and Leavitt compare to other BCS coaches who kept their jobs after violating NCAA rules during the same time frame?<\/p>\n

METHOD<\/h3>\n

This qualitative research paper is a case study of the firings of both Leach and Leavitt in an effort to better explain the reasoning behind their dismissals.
\nA case study is expected to \u201ccatch the complexity of a single case\u201d by \u201ccoming to understand its activity within important circumstances\u201d
\n(Patton, 2002, p. 297). By using thematic analysis of press accounts, this paper will argue that the universities reasons for the firings of Leach and Leavitt
\nwere not entirely supported by the media reports.<\/p>\n

Since college football is still predominantly a regional sport, as noted by Cave and Crandall (2001), this research paper relies heavily upon the relevant
\nlocal media outlets that cover Texas Tech and South Florida football in-depth. Those outlets include the Dallas Morning News, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, and
\nTampa Tribune. In order to present a national perspective to this analysis, stories from noted publications such as ESPN.com, USA Today, Sports Illustrated
\nand The New York Times were also used. These media outlets in particular cover college football in depth and often include critical coverage of off-the-field
\nissues. Also, these media outlets are highly regarded as the premier sources of national sports journalism.<\/p>\n

The research obtained for this paper was a result of a thorough LexisNexis search using the terms Mike Leach, Jim Leavitt, Texas Tech football, and South
\nFlorida football. Due to the fact that both coaches received little national media attention for their programs prior to the 2008 season, the search was
\nlimited to the time frame from 2008 to early 2010. This allowed for the collection of press accounts that detailed the rise of both coaches and then the ensuing
\nfallout from their crises that occurred in early 2010.<\/p>\n

The resulting press accounts served as the data for a thematic analysis of the crises surrounding Leach and Leavitt. This method of collecting data enables
\nresearchers to combine and catalogue related patterns into sub-themes (Aronson, 1994). This method enables researchers to search through data to identify any
\nrecurrent patterns. Themes are then linked together to find similar meetings and patterns. Anne Golden (2003) also utilized a thematic analysis of the sports
\nmedia when she examined the differences in the press coverage of the 2002 Winter Olympics and the 2002 Winter Paralympics. Relating to the method used for this
\nresearch, Mirca Madianou (2002) conducted a thematic analysis of television news coverage to investigate the coverage of how Greeks are identified in the
\nmedia.<\/p>\n

To contextualize possible motives underlying the schools\u2019 decision-making, this paper will also compare the cases of Leach and Leavitt to four other contemporary
\ncoaches who broke rules (during the same time frame as the incidents surrounding Leach and Leavitt) established by their employers and the National Collegiate
\nAthletic Association (NCAA). The four coaches examined in this research: Pete Carroll, Jim Tressel, Urban Meyer, and Nick Saban are universally regarded by
\nthe sports media as the top college coaches in the country. Through the use of media reports, this element of the thematic analysis will exhibit the reasons
\nthat these other rule-breaking coaches were able to maintain their employment during the time frame of the study.<\/p>\n

CASE STUDIES<\/h3>\n

Mike Leach<\/em><\/p>\n

Mike Leach was the Texas Tech head football coach from 2000 to 2009. His Red Raiders went 84-34 with nine bowl game appearances (5-4) because of their pass-centric
\noffense that featured the 11 offensive players on the field lining up further apart from each other than what was commonly used by other coaches. Leach\u2019s
\nsuccess culminated with the 2008 campaign which brought the school its first ever 11-1 season that included a win over top-ranked Texas and a share of the
\nBig 12 Conference South division title. He was named Co-Coach of the Year in the Big 12, but the Red Raiders were left out of a BCS bowl berth because of
\na little known tie-breaking rule. Texas and Oklahoma represented the Big 12 in the BCS while Texas Tech played in the lesser Cotton Bowl, where it lost
\nto Mississippi.<\/p>\n

Oklahoma wound up losing the National Championship Bowl against Florida. Not making a BCS bowl game is a major issue since the Big 12, like the Big East
\nwhere South Florida resides, gives a bigger share of the game\u2019s profit to the schools that appear in one of the top post-season games. Other conferences
\ndivide BCS bowl money evenly among all members. This is not the case for the Big 12 and Big East. Therefore, there is a tremendous financial incentive to
\nbe a conference representative in a BCS bowl game for a Big 12 and Big East squad (Warmbroad, 2004).<\/p>\n

During his career in Lubbock, Leach\u2019s name was often mentioned with coaching vacancies at other larger programs. Leach stayed with the Red Raiders as he
\nreceived a pair of contract extensions. In 2008, he signed a five-year extension worth $12.7 million. This contract gave Leach unprecedented clout at the school
\n(Leach, 2009).<\/p>\n

Crisis: Leach places player in shed<\/em><\/p>\n

Leach\u2019s crisis began in late December 2009 when Texas Tech suspended him after allegations arose that earlier in the month he had an injured player
\nsent to an equipment shed as a form of punishment. The player, Adam James, the son of ESPN announcer and former NFL running back Craig James, had suffered
\na concussion and was unable to practice. This unconventional move by Leach became a newsworthy topic both locally in Texas and nationally (Dodd, 2009). The ensuing
\nmedia hype continued to rise when Leach refused to apologize for his actions and James became the spotlight of local and national sports media (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal,
\n2009). In just a matter of one season, in the eyes of the national and local media, Texas Tech went from being the upstart program that played a compelling
\nwide-open offense to the school that employed a coach who humiliated an injured player. This forced the school into an on-going crisis communication phase.
\nUltimately, the organization\u2019s crisis communication management would use public relations techniques to attempt to protect the institution\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n

Texas Tech officially fired Leach on December 30th. The firing came one day before Leach was due a substantial $800,000 bonus and a guaranteed $1.7 million
\nsalary for the upcoming season (ESPN, 2009). The amount of money paid to Leach was far more than Texas Tech had spent on coaches in the past. However, it is
\nsimilar to the salaries of the major national coaches also in the Big 12. For example, Mack Brown of Texas received $5 million per year and Bob Stoops of
\nOklahoma received $4.2 million per year (Rohode, 2010).<\/p>\n

After Leach was fired he went on the media offensive criticizing the school and its athletic department. He claimed that the school \u201cconspired\u201d
\nto fire him because of the $800,000 bonus he was due. In court documents, his lawyers argued \u201cTTU would obtain the benefits of Leach\u2019s performance
\nbut chisel him out of his compensation\u201d (Associated Press, 2010). He also said the animosity between him and the school was a result of the contract negotiations
\nhe went through the previous year (Evans and Thamel 2009). Since Texas Tech had such a productive 2008 season going 11-2, Leach\u2019s name was constantly
\nattached to openings at large programs including Auburn and Washington. Subsequently, in an effort to keep Leach in Lubbock, Texas Tech was forced to renegotiate
\nthe coach\u2019s contract. Larger football schools must commonly increase incentives in order to keep a head coach if he wins. Texas Tech was essentially in an unfamiliar
\nsituation from a financial perspective to be bidding against itself to keep Leach.<\/p>\n

Leach said of his relationship with Texas Tech administrators, \u201cIt\u2019s shocking to me that there\u2019s people working together that were trying to
\nget me fired last year after an 11-1 regular season,\u201d Leach said. He added: \u201cI believe in everybody working together and that together we could all
\naccomplish great things together, but then I discover that\u2019s not the case and that the very foundation is crumbling out from under me. Betrayal\u2019s
\nreally hard\u201d (Evans and Thamel, 2010). Providing support to Leach\u2019s claims that the school\u2019s top administrators did not want him running the
\nprogram regardless of the James situation, the Dallas Morning News acquired internal emails from 2008 to 2010 between Tech administrators, primarily Chancellor
\nKent Hance and athletic director Gerald Myers, and athletic booster Jim Sowell of Dallas during Leach\u2019s contract negotiations. The emails display a general
\nlack of support for Leach even though the school was going to offer him a major pay raise. One message had Sowell recommending to Hance and Myers that Tech
\nshould stand firm in its negotiations with the coach. “You should sign a contract that would not cost us too much to fire him,” Sowell wrote.
\n“He has to have a big buyout. He has shown no loyalty\u201d (Dallas Morning News, 2010). Leach\u2019s attorney also stated that reports show that Hance
\ninformed an attorney investigating James\u2019 claims against Leach that they were \u201ctoo milk toast\u201d and \u201ctoo mild\u201d (USA Today, 2010).<\/p>\n

Leach also contended that the celebrity status awarded to James because of his father\u2019s NFL career and status as an ESPN commentator accelerated
\nthe firing process. (Evans and Thamel, 2010). Texas Tech officials denied these claims and fired Leach with cause because of his insubordination and lack of
\nassistance during the James situation and the resulting investigation (Carver, 2010). The back-and-forth claims eventually led Leach to sue the university
\non a number of claims. A district judge ruled that Leach could sue on one count of breach of contract. To date both sides are still entangled in a legal battle
\n(Blaney, 2010).<\/p>\n

Jim Leavitt <\/em><\/p>\n

Leach and Texas Tech\u2019s national rise almost paralleled that of Jim Leavitt and the University of South Florida. Leavitt was ostensibly the godfather of
\nBulls football. He coached at the school from 1997 to 2009. Beginning in 1997, South Florida was a I-AA program that eventually joined I-A\u2019s Conference
\nUSA in 2003. After just two seasons in the conference, South Florida made another significant jump, this time to the Big East and its BCS conference status. Once
\nagain Leavitt was at the helm as the USF program grew and won simultaneously. South Florida made five straight post-season games from 2005 to 2009.<\/p>\n

The peak of Leavitt\u2019s career and the height of South Florida football came in September 2007 when the program made its first-ever appearance in the
\nTop 25. As the Bulls kept winning that season, they made it to No.2 in the BCS rankings. Only Ohio State had a better position than the Bulls. South Florida
\nlasted in that spot only one week as it fell to conference rival Rutgers in a nationally televised contest. Two more losses came in ensuing games as Leavitt\u2019s
\nsquad eventually dropped out of the rankings. The Bulls finished the season 9-4 with a loss to Oregon in the Sun Bowl.<\/p>\n

Even with the late season dry spell, Leavitt was rewarded with a contract extension that would pay him $12.6 million from 2008 to 2014 (USA Today, 2010). Much like
\nLeach, other major programs also courted Leavitt prior to his signing this contract extension. Schools such as Alabama, Arizona State, Kansas State, and Miami were
\nreportedly interested in Leavitt\u2019s services (Donahue, 2006). Leavitt often cited his allegiance to the university as the main reason he stayed in Tampa.
\nHis allegiance was rewarded with a new contract, an uncommon policy for the school that only a few years prior had become a Division I program.<\/p>\n

Crisis: Leavitt has altercation with player <\/em><\/p>\n

The Jim Leavitt case mirrors Leach in many ways. Leavitt coached USF from 1997 to 2009 to a 94-57 record. Like Texas Tech, USF never made a BCS bowl appearance
\neven though it came very close. To stay competitive in an extremely difficult market, USF gave Leavitt a raise to keep him as its football coach. This raise
\ncame just before a controversial incident, as was the case with Leach. On November 21, 2009, during halftime of a game against Louisville, Leavitt apparently struck
\none his players, sophomore Joel Miller, a claim that Leavitt denied to school officials. Fanhouse.com first reported the story of the halftime incident (McMurphy,
\n2010). Afterwards, Leavitt responded: “It’s absolutely not true. It’s so wrong. It’s so far out there. I’m very disappointed something like this would
\nbe written\u201d (Auman, 2009). Leavitt contended that he was trying to raise the spirits of an upset player.<\/p>\n

When first contacted by the media following the breaking story, South Florida representatives neither supported nor criticized Leavitt. “The University
\nof South Florida is aware of the story and will review the matter promptly,” said Michael Hoad, USF vice president for communications. “We’re committed
\nto ensuring due process for everyone involved. To ensure fairness, the university doesn’t comment during a review\u201d (Auman, 2009).<\/p>\n

An investigation followed and it was concluded that Leavitt grabbed Miller by the throat, slapped him in the face and then lied about it (ESPN.com, 2010).
\nUSF made the findings first known to the media through a press release. The investigation conducted by the school also revealed that Leavitt lied to investigators
\nand had encouraged players and coaches to do likewise. In the wake of the report, Leavitt said he did not hit the player or ask others to lie on his behalf. USF
\nPresident Judy Genshaft and athletic director Doug Woolard asked Leavitt to admit to the incident as a result of his momentary loss of control. The coach
\nrefused to do so, saying he was \u201csticking to his guns.\u201d Just hours after he refused to admit to his misbehavior as stated in the investigation
\nto the school\u2019s top administrators, Leavitt was fired on January 8, 2010 (Peterson, 2010). In a press conference announcing the firing, \u201cneither
\nGenshaft nor Woolard took questions and specifics about Leavitt were not discussed\u201d (Fox Sports, 2010).<\/p>\n

Financial considerations were also present in the Leavitt firing. ESPN.com reported in January 2010: \u201cLeavitt just finished the second season of
\na seven-year, $12.6 million contract extension that calls for a base salary of $800,000 in 2010. The terms of the contract stipulate that if fired with
\ncause Leavitt is entitled to one month’s base pay, in this case $66,667. If fired without cause, the university would owe him 75 percent of what he’s owed
\nfor the remainder of the contract.\u201d<\/p>\n

RESULTS<\/h3>\n

Table 1. Themes of press coverage surrounding firings of Mike Leach and Jim
\nLeavitt<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Themes of Press Coverage of Leach and Leavitt<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Coaches are praised for putting their programs on the national stage.2. For the first time, Texas Tech and USF must keep renegotiating contracts
\nwith coaches.
\n3. Texas Tech and USF get close to BCS game but fail to make it.
\n4. Focus on Leach and Leavitt immediately goes from praise to their scandals.
\n5. Firings become national stories as journalists look to explain the situations.<\/p>\n

6. Both schools attribute the firings to just the incidents in question.<\/p>\n

7. Both coaches were due raises but were fired before they were paid.
\n8. School administrators characterize both as difficult or odd – other motives
\nregarding firings emerge.
\n9. Coaches who get schools to BCS games can encounter multiple offenses
\nand not lose their jobs.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Even though both Texas Tech and USF in their press conferences and reports to the media stated that the firings were a result of the way the two coaches
\nhandled the players in questions, other motives clearly emerged in the press. The amount of national media coverage regarding these two regionally based coaches
\nindicates journalists were in search of deeper meanings behind their dismissals. To answer RQ1, the other reasons appear to be financially motivated, along with
\nadministrators from both schools growing discontented with the coaches\u2019 behaviors.<\/p>\n

In the Leach case, there is an email trail that clearly displays the displeasure Texas Tech administrators had with giving Leach so much money and prestige.
\nIf Leach brought BCS riches, it\u2019s likely the school would maintain its relationship with him despite its displeasure. Since Leach did not provide the
\nschool with its ultimate goal of being in a BCS game, Texas Tech was unable to take the national criticism it received as a result of Leach\u2019s actions
\n(Jonsson, 2009). Spencer Hall (2009) wrote\u201d It makes sense in a world where Leach, an oddball among oddballs, finally reaches the limit of tolerance
\nboth on his part and on the part of his bosses in the TTU administration. Leach\u2019s contract negotiations were, to put it politely, contentious. His flirtations
\nwith other jobs were brazen. The university\u2019s patience with his high-profile antics was running low.\u201d The idea that there was more to Leach\u2019s
\nfiring than just his behavior with James was further supported by Magary (2009), \u201cJust last year, he was nearly dropped by the school in the wake of contentious
\nnegotiations. Just as the James saga was likely the last straw for the school to keep Leach around.\u201d Based on attribution theory, Texas Tech explained
\nLeach\u2019s firing for just one reason, not for the multiple reasons as stated in the media.<\/p>\n

This rationale also holds true for Leavitt, a coach without a BCS bowl game to his credit who got a big pay raise right before a controversial incident.
\nSouth Florida was unwilling to tolerate national criticism created by a high paid coach that did not deliver the school the coveted BCS prize. As deplorable
\nas it is for a coach to hit a player, conflicting stories about the incident, including statements by Miller, make Leavitt\u2019s abrupt firing questionable
\nin its motives (Schad, 2009). Even though Leavitt listened to other job offers, it does not appear that the ill will between him and the school ran as deep
\nas it did between Texas Tech and Leach. Rather, Leavitt\u2019s biggest mistake was not winning a conference championship prior to the incident with Miller.<\/p>\n

\t\t\"If his team was coming off a Big East title he might be able to survive \r\n\t  this (for right or wrong), but when his teams routinely fizzled over the second \r\n\t  halves of seasons, and with the way his team was a disaster in the classroom \r\n\t  (with one of the nation\u2019s worst rankings according to the Academic Progress \r\n\t  Report), this wasn\u2019t that tough a call for the university\u201d (College \r\n\t  Football News, 2010).\"<\/pre>\n
Richard Cirminello echoed these sentiments with<\/p>\n
 \r\n\t\t\"Leavitt had become a caricature in recent years, racing around the \r\n\tfield as if he was that team trainer with less than all of his faculties. While \r\n\tit was a cute act when USF was climbing up the ladder in the early days, it \r\n\tstopped being endearing when the program stopped improving. The Bulls peaked \r\n\tin October of 2007, rising to No. 2 in the country. Since then, they\u2019ve \r\n\tgone just 16-14, slipping into the middle of the Big East pack. As a program \r\n\tbuilder, Leavitt had an epic run. As a program elevator, he appeared increasingly \r\n\tout of his league. The incident involving Miller may have been just the ideal \r\n\topening the administration needed in order to make a change\u201d (College \r\n\tFootball News, 2010).\"<\/pre>\n
This \u201cideal opening\u201d correlates with attribution theory since it allowed USF to tell a particular persuasive story about Leavitt\u2019s firing
\nthat was in the best interest of its stakeholders.<\/p>\n
Comparison of Leach and Leavitt with BCS winning coaches <\/em><\/p>\n
Around the same time Leach and Leavitt faced intense scrutiny from their employers; several other major coaches were also found to have violated rules. The coaches
\nused for comparison to address RQ2 are Pete Carroll (USC), Jim Tressel (Ohio State), Urban Meyer (Florida), and Nick Saban (Alabama). The media coverage
\nof these four coaches demonstrates each repeatedly violated NCAA rules and regulations. However, unlike Leach and Leavitt, these four coaches had success in bringing
\ntheir schools to BCS games. Also, these coaches did not lose their jobs after breaking the rules. Based on the research, as it relates to RQ2, there appears
\nto be a double standard for college football coaches. Winning coaches can withstand a crisis or rules violation unlike those coaches without the same BCS success.<\/p>\n
For example, Carroll, the former coach of USC, was able to maintain his job from 2001 to 2009 even though he presided over the program that committed a
\nnumber of major NCAA violations. So much so, that in June 2010 the NCAA put USC on a two-year post-season ban while also forcing the program to eliminate
\n30 scholarships and forfeit a number of wins from 2004 to 2006 (Klein and Wharton, 2010). Most of the illegality of Carroll\u2019s program came during the recruitment
\nof Reggie Bush.<\/p>\n
Noted Los Angeles Times sports columnist Bill Plaschke (2009) criticized Carroll\u2019s tenure and his knowledge of the recruiting illegalities by writing \u201che
\ngoes from saint to scallywag. Carroll says he didn’t know about the Bush violations. That now seems impossible… …he made $33 million from violations that will
\ncost his old school its reputation, and folks here will never look at him the same.\u201d Carroll was able to keep his job during a period of time the NCAA
\nwas \u201ctroubled\u201d by \u201cthe campus environment\u201d that he created at USC (Lev, 2010). The NCAA also criticized USC for disregarding Carroll\u2019s
\nblatant use of allowing influential visitors access to his team by stating in a critical report of the school \u201c”the institution’s failure to regulate
\naccess to practices and facilities” (Gardner, 2010). Clearly, Carroll\u2019s BCS accomplishments helped insulate him from the immediate and harsh punishment
\ngiven to Leach and Leavitt.<\/p>\n
Ohio State\u2019s Tressel guided his team to three BCS championships, winning one, during his 10 years in Columbus. Those impressive numbers included five
\nstraight Big 10 conference titles. Because of this success, he was one of the top paid coaches in the country with an annual salary that eclipses $3.7 million
\n(Berkowitz, 2010). However, Tressel faced scandals several times during his Ohio State tenure. Longman (2007) wrote that both his career first at Youngstown
\nState and then OSU have been tarnished by a number of issues. \u201cAt both colleges, his top quarterback took money from boosters in violation of NCAA
\nrules. Maurice Clarett, the running back who played a vital role in Ohio State\u2019s national championship in 2002, sits in prison after a sad descent. A number
\nof other Ohio State players have encountered legal or disciplinary problems since Tressel became head coach in 2001, and his academic record, while improving,
\nremains mixed.\u201d Longman (2007) also wrote that Ohio State\u2019s athletic director was a \u201cstaunch ally\u201d of Tressel. As it relates to Leach,
\nhe certainly was not an ally of top Texas Tech officials.<\/p>\n
There was a similar relationship at Florida between Meyer and athletic director Jeremy Foley. Meyer was the recipient in 2005 of a seven-year contract worth
\n$14 million handed out by Foley (Low, 2009). This salary was a result of Meyer\u2019s two national championships and the highest winning percentage in the BCS. However,
\nduring this time in Gainesville, 27 of Meyer\u2019s players were arrested. The charges varied from larceny, stalking, to assault. The arrests forced Meyer
\nto defend himself by saying \u201cit’s not a dirty program\u201d (Associated Press, 2010). Tressel was fired by OSU in 2011 and Meyer retired in late 2010.<\/p>\n
Alabama\u2019s Saban, a winner of three BCS games and a national championship, encountered scandal in the summer of 2010 when a number of his players were
\ninvolved with illegal dealing with agents (Mandel, 2010). Saban did his best to distance himself from the issue, but this followed another scandal where
\na number of Alabama players were caught in unauthorized selling of their free textbooks as a result of their scholarships (Miasel and Schlabach, 2010). During
\nhis time at Alabama, Saban has dealt with \u201ctext book scandals and felonies\u201d (Brizendine, 2008). While Alabama was forced to vacate 21 wins and placed on
\nthree years-probation, Saban\u2019s job was not in jeopardy as a result (Hooper, 2009).<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION<\/h3>\n
The one-dimensional storytelling via the media conducted by both Texas Tech and South Florida regarding the firings of Leach and Leavitt has a direct relationship
\nwith attribution theory. Since these schools omitted other relevant and significant factors, such as disputes with administrators, uneasiness about renegotiating
\ncontracts, general odd behavior, and poor academic performance by the players, their messages to the media suggest they were doing so to protect themselves
\nand their stakeholders. These other factors were well documented by journalists.<\/p>\n
For Texas Tech and USF, this protection was a manifestation of attribution theory in action. The rationale behind the firings of Leach and Leavitt was
\npublic relations and marketing driven. Texas Tech and South Florida did not want to expand publicly on these other issues and instead focused their messages
\non the intolerant behaviors Leach and Leavitt displayed in an effort to perpetuate the image that the schools are institutions of higher learning, not just football
\nacademies. Also, by crafting a public story focused just on the singular activities of Leach and Leavitt, it gave the schools the rationale of firing a coach for
\njust cause. Texas Tech and South Florida called upon the persuasion techniques of attribution theory to create a story that would have fans, and some journalists,
\nbelieve the outcomes of the events were solely a result of the singular actions of both Leach and Leavitt.<\/p>\n
These two schools were able to employ their crisis communication techniques of creating a favorable story line because so many media outlets were willing
\nto carry their message in an effort to gain more content and programming. The addition of ESPN\u2019s Craig James into the story generated even more media
\nattention. Most of the coverage about the other issues surrounding the firings came from the national outlets. This finding is noteworthy as it underscores
\nthe symbiotic relationship the local Texas and Florida news outlets share with Texas Tech and South Florida. The local media outlets may have shown restraint
\nin creating critical coverage of these two universities. The exception was the Lubbock Avalanche- Journal that did run a number of pieces illustrating the
\nproblems between Texas Tech administrators and Leach.<\/p>\n
In the context of this research, there appears to be a double standard within the highest ranks of college football. Coaches with BCS wins apparently can
\nwithstand a crisis and receive greater support from their employer than those coaches without BCS wins. Unfortunately for Leach and Leavitt, they didn\u2019t
\nhave the same success as the likes of Carroll, Tressel, Meyer and Saban. Relating to the concepts of the attribution theory, a school is unlikely to make public
\nstatements that a coach was able to keep his job because he won BCS games. The school would instead provide other reasons that supported its status as an institution
\nof higher learning.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSIONS<\/h3>\n
The media coverage surrounding Leach and Leavitt in wake of their scandals demonstrates that the worst action a college coach can do is simply not win
\nenough. Universities, using the application of attribution theory, are not likely to publicly state this as it would tarnish their overall reputation. However,
\nit can serve as the foundation for a firing based on another incident that otherwise might not seem related. This idea of using an alternative rationale brings relevance
\nto this paper\u2019s topic and attribution theory. As part of a school\u2019s crisis communication plan, it might tell a public story that best serves itself
\nand its stakeholders.<\/p>\n
APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/h3>\n
This paper expanded the literature of sport communication to include attribution theory. As previously stated in this paper, attribution theory is not often
\nincluded in sports media literature. This paper is one of the few works to introduce attribution theory to sports public relations. A better understanding of this
\ntheory as it relates to sports crisis communication will benefit both academic scholars and professional journalists looking to interpret and contextualize
\nthe issues surrounding the firing of a major college coach. Since schools have so much money riding on the success of their teams, they will continue to dismiss
\ncoaches who do not win enough games in efforts of finding someone who will. Such competition in the industry of higher education that is supposed to both
\neducate young people and profit from athletic investments will continue to create a constant flow of financial, ethical, and media issues worthy of deeper analysis.<\/p>\n
Even though both Texas Tech and South Florida scaled back the amount of money invested in their football coaches, other schools are still pouring millions
\nof dollars into their programs in search of BCS riches. However, there only a select few games and only half the teams participating in those games can
\nprevail as the winner. So, there will continue to be more schools that fail in their BCS quest than win. This financial arms race and the adjoining media
\ncoverage should continue to create worthy areas of academic exploration for future researchers. This paper could lead other researchers into examining the
\nrationale of how and why a football coach was fired by a college or university. As college basketball continues to expand in popularity, similar research could
\nevolve with that sport as well.<\/p>\n
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/h3>\n
David Dewberry, Yun Xia, Cheryl Moore, Eliot Emert<\/p>\n
REFERENCES<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Aronson, (1994, Spring). A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. The Qualitative
    \nReport, Retrieved from http:\/\/www.nova.edu\/ssss\/QR\/BackIssues\/QR2-1\/aronson.html
    \nAssociated Press. (2010, April 17). Mike Leach claims Texas Tech officials
    \nconspired to fire him. USA Today.<\/li>\n
  2. Associated Press. (2010, September 17). Coach Urban Meyer \u2018real upset\u2019
    \n[Web log post]. Retrieved from http:\/\/sports.espn.go.com\/ncf\/news\/story?id=5582010<\/li>\n
  3. Auman, G. (2009, December 15). USF Bulls coach Jim Leavitt: ‘So wrong’
    \nto say he hit player. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from
    \nhttp:\/\/www.tampabay.com\/sports\/college\/usf-bulls-coach-jim-leavitt-
    \ndenies-striking-player\/1058816<\/li>\n
  4. Berkowitz, S. (2010, March 10). Salaries spike for college football assistants,
    \nsuccessful coaches. USA Today. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/sports\/college\/football\/2010-03-09-coaches-salaries_N.htm<\/li>\n
  5. Blaney, B. (2010, October 7). Attorneys await ruling in Leach lawsuit appeal.
    \nAssociated Press. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.google.com\/hostednews\/ap\/article\/ALeqM5g9o4jcaS7mR0hBu3Ns-F6J1S-NsAD9IN2MRO0?docId=D9IN2MRO0<\/li>\n
  6. Brizendine, M. (2008, October 13). Navigating Out of Doldrums: Saban Provides
    \nWind for Alabama\u2019s Sail. Bleacher Report. Retrieved from http:\/\/bleacherreport.com\/articles\/68438-navigating-out-of-the-doldrums-saban-provides-wind-for-alabamas-sails<\/li>\n
  7. Carver, L. (2010, January 9). Leach lawsuit claims fraud, defamation. Lubbock
    \nAvalanche-Journal. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.redraiders.com\/2010\/01\/09\/leach-lawsuit-claims-fraud-defamation\/<\/li>\n
  8. Cave, M., & Crandall, R. (2001, February). Sports Rights and the Broadcast
    \nIndustry. The Economic Journal, 111 (469), 4-26.<\/li>\n
  9. Coble, D. (2008, December 29). Gator Bowl: 30th anniversary punch. Florida
    \nTimes Union. Retrieved from http:\/\/jacksonville.com\/sports\/college\/other_college_sports\/2008-12-29\/gator_bowl_30th_anniversary_punch<\/li>\n
  10. College Football News. (2010, January 12). CFN Analysis – Jim Leavitt fired.
    \nThe USF coach gone amid controversy [Web log post]. Retrieved from http:\/\/cfn.scout.com\/2\/937332.html<\/li>\n
  11. Coombs, T. (2007, June). Attribution Theory as a Guide for Post-Crisis
    \nCommunication Research. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 135-139.<\/li>\n
  12. Dallas Morning News. (2010, January 2). E-mails show rocky relationship
    \nbetween Texas Tech and Leach. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.dallasnews.com\/sharedcontent\/dws\/spt\/colleges\/texastech\/stories\/123109dnspoleachletters.2d4b0ea8.html<\/li>\n
  13. Dodd, D. (2009, December 30). Emails in Support of Mike Leach. CBSSports.com.
    \nRetrieved from http:\/\/dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.com\/mcc\/blogs\/entry\/6270202\/19238949<\/li>\n
  14. Donahue, K. (2006, November 26). Where does Jim Leavitt want to coach?
    \n[Web log post]. Retrieved from Rivals.com: http:\/\/www.fanblogs.com\/south_florida\/006785.php<\/li>\n
  15. Dunnavant, K. (2004). The 50-Year Seduction: How Television Manipulated
    \nCollege Football. NY: Saint Martin\u2019s.<\/li>\n
  16. ESPN.com (2009, December 31). Texas Tech fires Leach [Web log post]. Retrieved
    \nfrom ESPN.com: http:\/\/sports.espn.go.com\/ncf\/bowls09\/news\/story?id=4781981<\/li>\n
  17. ESPN.com. (2010, January 8). Leavitt fired as South Florida coach [Web
    \nlog post]. Retrieved from ESPN.com: http:\/\/sports.espn.go.com\/ncf\/news\/story?id=4807719<\/li>\n
  18. ESPN.com (2010, January 11). Lawyers Want Leavitt Reinstated at USF. Retrieved
    \nfrom ESPN.com http:\/\/sports.espn.go.com\/ncf\/news\/story?id=4815717<\/li>\n
  19. Evans, T., & Thamel, P. (2009, December 30). Leach Is Fired Over Treatment
    \nof Player. New York Times. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2009\/12\/31\/sports\/ncaafootball\/31leach.html<\/li>\n
  20. Evans, T., & Thamel, P. (2010, January 1). Leach Denies He Mistreated
    \nPlayer. New York Times. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/01\/01\/sports\/ncaafootball\/01leach.html?_r=1<\/li>\n
  21. Fox Sports (2010, January 8). USF coach Leavitt fired amid allegations
    \nhe hit a player. Retrieved from http:\/\/msn.foxsports.com\/collegefootball\/story\/South-Florida-Jim-Leavitt-
    \nfired-010810<\/li>\n
  22. Frick, B., Barros, C., & Prinz, J. (2010, January). Analyzing Head
    \nCoach Dismissals in the German \u201cBundesliga\u201d with a Mixed Logit
    \nApproach. European Journal of Operational Research, 1(1), 151-159.<\/li>\n
  23. Gardner, T. (2010, June 29). Pete Carroll Rips NCAA Again For Punishments
    \nLevied Against USC. USA Today. Retrieved from http:\/\/content.usatoday.com\/communities\/campusrivalry\/post\/2010\/06\/pete-carroll-rips-ncaa-again-for-punishments-levied-against-usc\/1<\/li>\n
  24. Golden, A. (2003, Summer\/Fall). An Analysis of the Dissimilar Coverage
    \nof the 2002 Olympics and Paralympics: Frenzied Pack Journalism versus the
    \nEmpty Press Room. Disability Studies Quarterly, 23(3\/4). Retrieved from http:\/\/dsq-sds.org\/article\/view\/437\/614<\/li>\n
  25. Greenberg, M. J. (1991, Spring). College Coaching Contracts: A Practical
    \nPerspective. Marquette Sports Law Review, 1(2), 207-280.<\/li>\n
  26. Hall, S. (2009, December 30). The Brief: Mike Leach Fired At Texas Tech
    \nand What It Means [Web log post]. Retrieved from SB Nation: http:\/\/www.sbnation.com\/2009\/12\/30\/1225603\/mike-leach-texas-tech-fired-cause-terms-effects<\/li>\n
  27. Heath, R., Toth, E., & Waymer, D. (2009). Rhetorical and Critical Approaches
    \nto Public Relations II. New York: Routledge.<\/li>\n
  28. Hooper, M. (2009, June 11). NCAA puts Alabama football back on probation,
    \nvacates wins. Birmingham Weekly. Retrieved from http:\/\/bhamweekly.com\/birmingham\/article-867-ncaa-puts-alabama-football-back-on-probation-vacates-wins.html<\/li>\n
  29. Jonsson, P. (2009, December 30). Mike Leach fired: Texas Tech coach\u2019s
    \nmethods seen as cruel. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.csmonitor.com\/USA\/Society\/2009\/1230\/Mike-Leach-fired-Texas-Tech-coach-s-methods-seen-as-cruel<\/li>\n
  30. Klein, G., & Wharton, D. (2010, June 10). NCAA sanctions could cost
    \nUSC millions. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http:\/\/articles.latimes.com\/2010\/jun\/10\/sports\/la-sp-0611-usc-ncaa-sanctions-20100611<\/li>\n
  31. Koning, R. H. (2003). An Econometric Evaluation of the Firing of a Coach
    \non Team Performance. Applied Economics, 35(5), 555-564.<\/li>\n
  32. Laczniak, R.; DeCarlo, T.; & Ramaswami, S. (2001, July). Consumers’
    \nresponses to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective.
    \nJournal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), p. 57-73.<\/li>\n
  33. Leach suspended after player alleges abuse. (2009, December 29). Lubbock
    \nAvalanche Journal. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.redraiders.com\/2009\/12\/29\/leach-suspended<\/li>\n
  34. Leach, M. (2009). A Legal Education Applied to Coaching College Football.
    \nTexas Tech Law Review, 42, (77).<\/li>\n
  35. Lev, M. (2010, June 28). Pete Carroll Returns to LA and Rips NCAA. Orange
    \nCounty Register. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ocregister.com\/sports\/carroll-255463-usc-football.html<\/li>\n
  36. Longman, J. (2007, January 3). The Two Sides of Jim Tressel. The New York
    \nTimes. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/01\/03\/sports\/ncaafootball\/03tressel.html?pagewanted=print<\/li>\n
  37. Low, C. (2009, September 2). New Deal in Hand, Meyer Staying Put at Florida
    \n[Web log post]. Retrieved from http:\/\/espn.go.com\/blog\/sec\/post\/_\/id\/2106\/new-deal-in-hand-meyer-is-staying-put-at-florida<\/li>\n
  38. Mirca Madianou, M. (2002). Mediating the Nation. News, Audiences and Identities
    \nin Contemporary Greece. Write Doctoral Dissertation<\/a>. London School of Economics
    \nand Political Science.<\/li>\n
  39. Magary, D. (2009, December 30). Why Mike Leach Wins Big in the Texas Tech
    \nFiasco [Web log post]. Retrieved from NBC News New York: http:\/\/www.nbcnewyork.com\/news\/sports\/Why-Mike-Leach-Is-The-Big-Winner-Of-The-Mike-Leach-Fiasco-80418402.html<\/li>\n
  40. Mandel, S. (2010, September 16). Inside Look at NCAA Enforcers Who are
    \nSpearheading AgentGate. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http:\/\/sportsillustrated.cnn.com\/vault\/article\/web\/COM1174500\/index.htm<\/li>\n
  41. McMurphy, B. (2010, January 8). Investigative Report Details Leavitt\u2019s
    \nLies. AOLNews. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.aolnews.com\/2010\/01\/08\/south-florida-cuts-ties-with-coach-jim-leavitt\/<\/li>\n
  42. Miasel, I., & Schlabach, M. (2010, July 22). Dareus may have attended
    \nagent\u2019s party [Web log post]. Retrieved from http:\/\/sports.espn.go.com\/ncf\/news\/story?id=5396236<\/li>\n
  43. Murphy, A. (2011, May 2). Under Attack. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from
    \nhttp:\/\/sportsillustrated.cnn.com\/vault\/article\/magazine\/MAG1184824\/index.htm<\/li>\n
  44. Oriard, M. (2009). Bowled Over: Big Time College Football from the 60s
    \nto the BCS. The University of North Carolina Press.<\/li>\n
  45. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand
    \nOaks: Sage Publications.<\/li>\n
  46. Pelley, S. (2009, January 4). Mike Leach: The Mad Scientist Of Football
    \n[Web log post]. Retrieved from CBS News: http:\/\/www.cbsnews.com\/stories\/2008\/12\/31\/60minutes\/main4694714.shtml<\/li>\n
  47. Peterson, L. (2010, January 8). Genshaft: Leavitt refused to admit wrongdoing
    \nduring meeting. Tampa Tribune. Retrieved from http:\/\/www2.tbo.com\/content\/2010\/jan\/08\/genshaft-leavitt-refused-admit-wrongdoing-during-m\/sports-colleges-bulls\/<\/li>\n
  48. Plashcke, B. (2009, June 12). USC fans, blame USC. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
    \nfrom http:\/\/www.latimes.com\/sports\/la-sp-0611-plaschke-usc-ncaa-20100611-9,0,458661.column\/<\/li>\n
  49. Rohode, J. (2010, February 16). Big 12 football salary update. The Oklahoman.<\/li>\n
  50. Schad, J. (2009, December 16). USF\u2019s Miller says he was not harmed
    \n[Web log post]. Retrieved from ESPN.com: http:\/\/sports.espn.go.com\/ncf\/news\/story?id=4749780<\/li>\n
  51. Selvaggi, M. (1993). The College v. The Coach. Seton Hall J. Sport L.,
    \n221-225.<\/li>\n
  52. Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and Circus. New York: Henry Holt.<\/li>\n
  53. Stangel, K. (2000, Fall). Protecting Universities\u2019 Economic Interests:
    \nHolding Student-Athletes and Coaches Accountable for Willful Violations of
    \nNCAA Rules. Marquette Sports Law Review, 11(1), 137-160.<\/li>\n
  54. Staples, A. (2010, November 5). Forget Utah, Alabama Could be Key to Successful
    \nBCS Antitrust Suit. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http:\/\/sportsillustrated.cnn.com\/2010\/writers\/andy_staples\/11\/05\/bcs-antitrust\/index.html<\/li>\n
  55. Stein, D. (2004). Buying in or Selling Out?: The Commercialization of the
    \nAmerican Research University. Rutgers University Press.<\/li>\n
  56. USF player wants apology from fired coach Jim Leavitt. (2010, January 14).
    \nUSA Today. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/sports\/college\/football\/bigeast\/2010-01-14-player-wants-leavitt-apology_N.htm<\/li>\n
  57. Warmbroad, J. (2004). Antitrust in Amateur Athletics: Fourth and Long:
    \nWhy Non-BCS Universities Should Punt Rather than Go for an Antitrust Challenge
    \nto the Bowl Championship Series. Oklahoma Law Review, 57, p. 333 \u2013 373.<\/li>\n
  58. Weiner, B. (1985). An Attribution Theory of Achievement Motivation and
    \nEmotion. Psychology Review, 92, 548-573.<\/li>\n
  59. White, P., Persad, S., & Gee, C. (2007, June). The Effect of Mid-Season
    \nCoach Turnover on Team Performance: The Case of the National Hockey League
    \n(1989 \u2013 2003). .International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching,
    \n2(2), 143-152.<\/li>\n
  60. Woodward, G., & Denton, R. (2009). Persuasion and Influence in American
    \nLife. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
    Aaron J. Moore, Ph.D.<\/div>\n
    ABSTRACT<\/h3>\n
     This paper is a thematic analysis of press coverage surrounding the firings of coaches Mike Leach and Jim Leavitt from the 2010. In an effort to understand
    \n  the rationale behind their dismissals, this quantitative research uses attribution theory as the basis of the analysis. While the schools stated the firings were
    \n  due to the way these two coaches questionably handled a player, the press coverage displayed other reasons. This paper contextualizes the rationale behind their
    \n  firings in an effort to explain the current high stakes of major college football.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,295,293,291],"tags":[174,153,176,177,175,154],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-7A","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":264,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-demise-of-the-wnba-in-florida-a-mixed-method-case-study-of-newspaper-coverage-about-womens-professional-basketball\/","url_meta":{"origin":470,"position":0},"title":"The Demise of the WNBA in Florida: A Mixed Method Case Study of Newspaper Coverage about Women’s Professional Basketball","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Frederick L. Battenfield, Bosmat M. Dzaloshinsky & Samuel Y. Todd The Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) is a hot phenomenon on the American sports scene. With its recent popularity, the question has been raised as to whether newspaper coverage of the teams is pivotal to the survival of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1736,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/watchdogs-of-the-fourth-estate-or-homer-journalists-newspaper-coverage-of-local-bcs-college-football-programs\/","url_meta":{"origin":470,"position":1},"title":"Watchdogs of the Fourth Estate or Homer Journalists? Newspaper Coverage of Local BCS College Football Programs","date":"March 10, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Edward M. Kian, Ph.D., Stan Ketterer, Ph.D., Cynthia Nichols, Ph.D. and James Poling ABSTRACT Sport newspaper departments are regularly mocked for employing hometown journalism deemed too partial in favor of local teams. However, national media are increasingly criticizing affluent, major college football programs for scheduling games against smaller\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 11.40.00 AM","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/Screen-Shot-2014-03-10-at-11.40.00-AM.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":327,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-new-scale-measuring-coaches-unethical-behaviors\/","url_meta":{"origin":470,"position":2},"title":"A New Scale Measuring Coaches\u2019 Unethical Behaviors  for Comparison by Gender, Age, and Education Level of Coach","date":"January 8, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Semiyha Dola\u015fir Tuncel - Ankara University Abstract An effort to develop a scale measuring coaches\u2019 unethical behaviors included two phases. In the first, factor and reliability analyses were made of potential survey items meant to gather data from athletes describing coaches\u2019 behavior. In the second, select items were\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6185,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/institutional-reforms-and-the-recoupling-of-academic-and-athletic-performance-in-high-profile-college-sports\/","url_meta":{"origin":470,"position":3},"title":"Institutional Reforms and the Recoupling of Academic and Athletic Performance in High-Profile College Sports","date":"December 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Christopher P. Kelley, Shane D. Soboroff, Andrew D. Katayama, Mathew Pfeiffer and Michael J. Lovaglia Corresponding Author: Christopher P. Kelley 2354 Fairchild Dr., Ste. 6L107 U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840-2603 Christopher.Kelley@usafa.edu 319-331-8060 Dr. Christopher P. Kelley is an Assistant Professor of Leadership in the Department of Behavioral Science\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/Table1-1.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":5001,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/tennis-anyone-a-content-analysis-of-the-written-and-pictorial-coverage-of-tennis-magazine\/","url_meta":{"origin":470,"position":4},"title":"Tennis Anyone? A Content Analysis of the Written and Pictorial Coverage of Tennis Magazine","date":"April 13, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Tywan G. Martin, University of Miami Sanghak Lee, Korea Aerospace University Erin L. McNary, Indiana University Daniel Totani, University of Miami Corresponding author: Tywan G. Martin, Ph.D. Department of Kinesiology & Sport Sciences P.O. Box 248065 Coral Gables, FL 33124 Phone: (305) 284-1168 E-mail: t.martin@miami.edu Tennis Anyone? A Content\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Studies and Sports Psychology"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Martin-Table1.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":368,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/an-analysis-of-leadership-qualities-that-influence-male-and-female-athletes-in-middle-school-interscholastic-team-sports\/","url_meta":{"origin":470,"position":5},"title":"An Analysis of Leadership Qualities That Influence Male and Female Athletes in Middle School Interscholastic Team Sports","date":"April 8, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr. Raymond Tucker, United States Sports Academy doctoral graduate Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine what behavior styles of leadership male and female athletes in middle school interscholastic team sports prefer their coaches use. The study compares those behavior styles of leadership used by coaches on male\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/470"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=470"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/470\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2162,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/470\/revisions\/2162"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=470"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=470"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=470"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}