Jim Leavitt’s Firing: Why He’s Out and What it Means

Jim Leavitt is out as USF’s coach today, fired after the results of an internal investigation into an incident at halftime of a Nov. 21 game against Louisville.The key finding of the investigation’s 33-page report (PDF) is that Leavitt did indeed take sophomore walk-on Joel Miller (identified as “Student Athlete A” throughout the report, which does not identify players by name because of privacy rights) by the throat that day, striking him twice on the cheek.

⇥Leavitt yelled at Student Athlete A. Leavitt then⇥placed his hand on the player’s throat and slapped him twice in the cheek.But the investigation also revealed that while Leavitt denied any sort of inappropriate conduct, players considered Leavitt’s actions the product of a coach renowned for his “passion” going beyond the pale.

The program Leavitt has built in Tampa is testament to his drive and acumen alone more than any other coach’s program in major college football today; he was the school’s first coach, and has ushered the Bulls from I-AA independence to a BCS conference in just 13 years.Leavitt’s enjoyed a reputation as a fiery coach during South Florida’s rise to prominence. Most notably, he was incensed on the sideline and intense throughout the then-second-ranked Bulls’ loss to Rutgers in 2007, and emerged from the same game against Louisville this November with a bloody nose, explained away as the result of a headbutt with a helmet-wearing player.

No one doubts his passion for football. But there can be no doubt that in this case, it went too far, ultimately ending his time with USF.

Leavitt’s version of events is that at halftime of that game, he kneeled before Joel Miller and, in a “crouched position,” asked “in a concerned and encouraging fashion” what was wrong. There’s nothing wrong with that sort of coaching; unfortunately for Leavitt, it is almost certainly fabricated.

Players told investigators a much different story. Most say Leavitt was standing. One said he was exhorting Miller to “Fight your ass!” after a lackluster first half, also saying “When Leavitt’s doing his thing, I stay away. I don’t respond to that kind of stuff.”

Multiple players said Leavitt grabbed Miller by his shoulder pads, then struck him twice on the cheek. One of those players reported that he could not eat or sleep after witnessing what he termed an “assault,” and said “they all felt threatened. Felt they could be next.” Another said that “every word in the FanHouse report” -- referring to Brett McMurphy’s initial piece on the incident -- “is accurate,” also saying Leavitt “flat-out” lied to reporters about the incident.

As with any situation where the truth will both paint one side in a positive light and possibly aid it, some will say that the only players to come forward are players with an ax to grind against Leavitt, and that this was all a conspiracy. This seems unlikely in this case, as investigators wrote the following:

⇥There have been suggestions made that some of the persons who presumably spoke to the media and did in fact speak to the reviewers were motivated by dissatisfaction with their playing time or other disappointments relating to their participation in the football program. But the persons to whom the reviewers spoke include Student Athletes in all circumstances including seniors who have completed successful careers and underclassmen who are on their way to such careers. Even those persons who might be characterized as having a reason to dislike their coach or the program did not appear to be motivated by an animus sufficient to justify the fabrication of their statements.In a similar vein of motivation, Miller may have tried to keep Leavitt around to save his own position. Miller told ESPN that Leavitt did not hit him shortly after the FanHouse report came out. But that did not quell the investigation; in fact, it contained a discrepancy noted by investigators. Miller said Leavitt “never apologized because he had nothing to apologize for,” but Leavitt told investigators he had apologized to Miller.

A player told investigators Miller was afraid of being “dumped” off the team by a non-Leavitt coach, and investigators wrote that Miller “very much seems like the sort of man who would not want the incident to affect the coaching staff or others.”

Of course, it will. Leavitt is gone, and ESPN’s Joe Schad reports that a USF source says the entire coaching staff is, as well, while the university says their fate is up to the next coach. That turmoil is troubling, and sad.

More troubling, though is the most striking observation in USF’s report, which comes from Student Athlete D. This player did not see the entirety of the incident, but it is why he didn’t that is disturbing.

⇥Another, Student Athlete D, said he recalls Leavitt entering the locker room and asking Student Athlete D if he got his block. Student Athlete D replied, “yes” and then Leavitt moved to Student Athlete A and asked if he got his block. Student Athlete D said that he saw Leavitt put a hand (maybe his right hand) “high” on Student Athlete A’s jersey, indicating that it could have been on Student Athlete A’s throat. At this point, Student Athlete D turned his head because he “did not want to ‘catch anything himself’ or see anymore.”Is the culture of the locker room really looking away, hoping not to see egregious abuse of players? I tend to think so. And so, I tend to think intensity that spills over into inappropriate treatment is not unique to this day, or to Jim Leavitt.

Leavitt got caught. Because of that, he is out of a job today, and the program he engineered is no longer his own.

But I am not nearly naïve enough to think that the problem Leavitt personifies is eradicated from football with his firing.

↵