Don't bother clicking the story, I'll save you some time. The only new part is this:
"Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller said he wanted to separate former coach Mel Tucker from the football team months before the 2023 season began, but the school's administration prevented him from doing so, according to multiple sources familiar with comments Haller made about the matter to the university's board of trustees in September."
Bottom line up front: Turns out this report is accurate, but pretty much meaningless.
The rest of the article recaps everything ESPN has tried to pin on MSU since the news broke on 9/10/23.
ESPN has been steadfast in asking MSU about what Haller or Woodruff knew and when they knew it. But they don't seem to want to believe the answers they are given (because, apparently, it doesn't fit the narrative they are trying to build).
As a reminder, Haller knew enough to be able to put in temporary measures to try to make sure Tucker wouldn't contact the accuser and also try to make sure he wouldn't break the university's rules again.
This was required. Haller could only know so much. And he could only do so much.
According to sources I've talked with who were in the meeting when Haller said to the baord that he wanted to separate Tucker from the football team months before the 2023 season began, members of the Board of Trustees asked Haller how he was doing while handling this matter.
He replied to that question about how he was doing and then also offered up the following info: he had wanted to do something about this as early as possible but was ultimately unable to do anything with the information that he had -- which, apparently, wasn't the entire case file or report -- because he had to make a decision as to whether to let the process play out or to suspend Tucker with the information he had.
It is my understanding that those who counseled Haller (legal, etc) worked through the different scenarios with him. Obviously, there was not a perfect answer. Suspend him and you would draw attention to the accuser who is supposed to be guaranteed anonymity during the process. People wouldn't just say, oh, the head coach of a Big Ten university is suspended, we'll wait until the hearing process plays out, and figure it out then. Of course not. Not only would the accuser's name get out there, but it would help create a chilling environment for those who want to turn in complaints against their (accused) abusers.
If that happened, MSU would be lambasted for not being able to protect the identity of an accuser and for being an unsafe space for those who wanted to turn in complaints.
This was the jist of the Woodruff speech at the press conference that Sunday night when she compared the new MSU with the old MSU.
Along the way, MSU thought that they were doing what had to be done to protect the integrity of the adjudication process. They limited the information to only those who needed to know and kept the details private. The conversations among those who were privy to the basic details of the situation (legal, etc) never found their way to an agreed-upon solution that would have allowed Haller to do anything before the hearing process played all the way out.
The "cons" of doing so were too great.
They were damned if they did, damned if they didn't.
There was not a path forward that would have been satisfactory. So Haller had to wait, with the measures in place, while Tucker received due process.
It is my belief that Haller did not think he would have to start the season with Tucker at the helm. I believe that he thought this was going to be wrapped up before the season started, even before summer started. But Tucker apparently stalled and took as much time as he could each step of the way. This tactic obviously pushed the situation into football season.
We all saw how it eventually came out, with Tucker admitting to enough stuff in his public defense of his behavior that made the rest of the hearing process moot (at least as far as him being fired with cause).
Haller was in a tough spot. Could he have made a different decision? Yes. But no matter what he did, he would have been criticized loudly -- it's just that he would have been criticized loudly for something else.
The criticism was unavoidable, really.
"Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller said he wanted to separate former coach Mel Tucker from the football team months before the 2023 season began, but the school's administration prevented him from doing so, according to multiple sources familiar with comments Haller made about the matter to the university's board of trustees in September."
Bottom line up front: Turns out this report is accurate, but pretty much meaningless.
The rest of the article recaps everything ESPN has tried to pin on MSU since the news broke on 9/10/23.
ESPN has been steadfast in asking MSU about what Haller or Woodruff knew and when they knew it. But they don't seem to want to believe the answers they are given (because, apparently, it doesn't fit the narrative they are trying to build).
As a reminder, Haller knew enough to be able to put in temporary measures to try to make sure Tucker wouldn't contact the accuser and also try to make sure he wouldn't break the university's rules again.
This was required. Haller could only know so much. And he could only do so much.
According to sources I've talked with who were in the meeting when Haller said to the baord that he wanted to separate Tucker from the football team months before the 2023 season began, members of the Board of Trustees asked Haller how he was doing while handling this matter.
He replied to that question about how he was doing and then also offered up the following info: he had wanted to do something about this as early as possible but was ultimately unable to do anything with the information that he had -- which, apparently, wasn't the entire case file or report -- because he had to make a decision as to whether to let the process play out or to suspend Tucker with the information he had.
It is my understanding that those who counseled Haller (legal, etc) worked through the different scenarios with him. Obviously, there was not a perfect answer. Suspend him and you would draw attention to the accuser who is supposed to be guaranteed anonymity during the process. People wouldn't just say, oh, the head coach of a Big Ten university is suspended, we'll wait until the hearing process plays out, and figure it out then. Of course not. Not only would the accuser's name get out there, but it would help create a chilling environment for those who want to turn in complaints against their (accused) abusers.
If that happened, MSU would be lambasted for not being able to protect the identity of an accuser and for being an unsafe space for those who wanted to turn in complaints.
This was the jist of the Woodruff speech at the press conference that Sunday night when she compared the new MSU with the old MSU.
Along the way, MSU thought that they were doing what had to be done to protect the integrity of the adjudication process. They limited the information to only those who needed to know and kept the details private. The conversations among those who were privy to the basic details of the situation (legal, etc) never found their way to an agreed-upon solution that would have allowed Haller to do anything before the hearing process played all the way out.
The "cons" of doing so were too great.
They were damned if they did, damned if they didn't.
There was not a path forward that would have been satisfactory. So Haller had to wait, with the measures in place, while Tucker received due process.
It is my belief that Haller did not think he would have to start the season with Tucker at the helm. I believe that he thought this was going to be wrapped up before the season started, even before summer started. But Tucker apparently stalled and took as much time as he could each step of the way. This tactic obviously pushed the situation into football season.
We all saw how it eventually came out, with Tucker admitting to enough stuff in his public defense of his behavior that made the rest of the hearing process moot (at least as far as him being fired with cause).
Haller was in a tough spot. Could he have made a different decision? Yes. But no matter what he did, he would have been criticized loudly -- it's just that he would have been criticized loudly for something else.
The criticism was unavoidable, really.
