Ok so we can also consider viewership in 2022: 1) Bucks 2) scUM 3) Penn State 4) Oregon 5) USC 6) Nebraska 7) Michigan State 8) Maryland You’re still a dumbass troll with your program relevancy list
The point his statement tries to make - and it’s pretty well done by the way - is that it doesn’t matter if he did it or not. He portrays MSU as having no contractual or vendor relationship with Tracy at the time it occurred - therefore he’ll argue it cannot have violated the University’s anti-harassment policy. He also points out that the University has already found it isn’t a Title IX violation. All that’s left is that it violates the personal conduct language in his contract and that language has been found to be subjective time and again. They are going to have to pay him something if/when they fire him regardless of whether the claims are true. I’m sure they’ll settle on an amount before it sees the inside of a court room.
I tend to believe the woman in these cases especially in a situation where the male is powerful but idk if anything definitive one way or the other will exist in this case.
This is where I am at. This entire situation is weird. Tuckers timeline of them having consensual phone sex and then him immediately ghosting her doesn’t make any sense. At the same time, Tracy talking to a married dude 27 times on the phone at an average of half an hour per call is no bueno. This obviously doesn’t mean it’s ok to jerk off on the phone with her if she isn’t down for that. Tracy’s lawyer’s note in the USA Today article seem to indicate that their call was about potentially filing a lawsuit against Tucker and MSU. The triangles with names after them are lawyer shorthand for potential defendants in a civil suit. I’m guessing her lawyer asked her if she recorded any of the calls and/or had any of the text messages. When Tracy said she didn’t have the calls and deleted all their texts I’m guessing the lawyer said it would be really tough to win a sexual harassment lawsuit. Without the phone records I don’t see how any investigator can try to prove anything.
My best guess is there was reciprocal heavy flirting. Then maybe Tucker took it some place it shouldn't have gone but idk.
Yep agree. A girl sending pictures of herself to a dude and being like omggg I need to get back in shape is flirting 101
I think the point of his statement is that she was neither a volunteer nor a vendor at the time of the phone sex. She did a paid presentation and then was hoping to do another one - that’s the way he’s trying to portray it anyway. I’m not taking his side…just saying this is very smart lawyering in that statement.
Would need to see what his contract states but yeah I’m sure you’re right that he can’t just sexually harass people and be like lulz they’re not associated with the university so I’m Gucci but MSU would need more than someone filing a report to get out of that contract
And my point is that sexual harassment isn't permissible regardless of how you want to categorize her relationship to the University.
Right but his statement attempts to call into question whether she was affiliated with the University at the time he harassed her; therefore, his lawyer will argue it is a criminal or civil matter for the courts and not for MSU to litigate. Again, I’m not saying he’s in the right or defending him - just pointing out what it appears he’s trying to accomplish with the statement.
On the other hand, one of Tucker’s issues is that even if consensual, he was having a relationship with a vendor and/or volunteer of MSU. Which I’m guessing violates some type of policy. So he’s at least trying to eliminate that. so yes sexual harassment isnt appropriate anywhere, but if he’s found not to have harassed, he could still get bounced for having an affair with an MSU affiliated individual. so he’s trying to cut that off too, I believe.
Sounds like she had a totally rational business reason for continuing telephone conversations with him.
Eh I don’t think so. I doubt many head coaches are the ones doing the scheduling for paid outside speakers to come talk to their teams. And even if they are, 27 half hour calls is ridiculous.
I think we’re talking past one another. There are several policies which MSU can find Tucker to have broken. Title IX is probably out just based on the known facts of the case (and Tucker’s statement reinforces that MSU has already said as much). So what’s left for MSU and to find are violations of its Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct policy or any personal conduct clause in his contract. The former (RVSM) speaks to behavior that “is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it causes an unreasonable interference with the individual’s work or educational performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for employment, education, University living, or participation in a University activity or program.” It’s clear that this is about individuals affiliated with MSU. And Tucker’s statement attempts to make the case that she isn’t affiliated with MSU and therefore MSU can’t find him to have violated this policy. I’m not arguing he’s right. I’m saying it’s a pretty smart way for his lawyer to set up the eventual financial settlement.
Agreed. But it’s also why his statement includes that the phone conversations weren’t about business.
So the dude probably had consensual phone sex and shared nudes with this chick dozens of times. Cant wait to see how recruits, parents, and opposing coaches treat this when we are stuck with Tucker.
I think msu is going to fire him. It’s now just figuring out how much they’ll owe him after this happens
I don’t think Tucker will coach another game for MSU. The only question is how much money he takes with him.
The allegation happened between scheduled appearances, no? I understand that many want MSU to have to pay the full contract to this guy for their personal entertainment. I do think there's a solid possibility that this settles out of court. I'm not an employment law expert and have no idea how this would go if it does end up in court. But, I also don't see anything in tuckers statement that changes much of what we already knew.
I'm no lawyer, but getting nervous that he's going to end up getting paid the rest of his contract. Anyone know if his statement is correct that he has virtually no say in the hearing and they arent under oath?
It is presumed that both parties deleted the text messages as they contained butthole pics and other nudes going both ways.
Also, Tucker’s statement confirms that they agreed for her to have another paid appearance with the team while all of this was going on. Seems to fall within Title IX to me.
His written statement says they agreed to have it. He specifically states that it was postponed, not canceled.
They aren’t under oath because it isn’t a court and doesn’t carry the force of law. According to MSU’s hearing procedure, both the respondent and claimant have the right not to show up at all. They do have the right to cross examine the other if they appear. https://civilrights.msu.edu/policies/rvsm-hearing-procedures-12-9-21.pdf
He’s got enough exposure under the disrepute clause that I’d be shocked if he held out for the full amount. There’s a lot of room between $75 million and $0 for the lawyers to tie case value to likelihood of success.
Well, yeah, but c'mon we all know there were some butthole shots buried in all those other texts that got deleted.
I assume he’d take 1/3-1/2 of it and go be an assistant for Saban or something at the end of the day. The more important question is if MSU goes Leroy Jenkins and wants to try it to show that the institution has changed since Nassar. Also, might be some insurance issues here too when he files suit.
This is another example of why these contracts are so fucking dumb. He 100% deserves to be fired, and he will be. But some agent negotiated a contract with a group of boosters that was vague enough to survive dispositive motions, and it will cost the university tens of millions of dollars.
Jim Leavitt hit a kid in front of the whole team and he still got paid on his way out. Tucker is getting something.
Especially when almost all of these coaches end up getting fired anyway. how happy would A&M and MSU fans be now if someone had hired their coach because they wouldn’t give him a 9 figure guarantee
I'm pretty sure that the $24m that the donors ponied up for the contract is gone for sure. He can fight over what the University owes him though.
The vast majority of these contracts are constructed similarly. Industry-standard is to provide wiggle room because when these go bad they always end in settlement and sought after coaches (and their agents) have a ton of leverage. Agents don't steer their coaches to outliers so everyone acts the same way.