We’re heading into September 26th, the day that Michigan State University has indicated is the day they have the right to fire its football coach, Mel Tucker, and here’s an update on what I know based on my conversations over the last week or so.
I’m sure you’ve heard by now that, on Monday 9/25, Tucker and his attorneys responded to Michigan State’s intent to fire notification. They did what lawyers do and tried to present the best version of their client’s case to let MSU know that Tucker isn’t going down without a fight (nor without some of the money on that contract). I’m not a lawyer, but Tucker’s team seems to be really grasping at straws. I think Michigan State knows it holds the upper ground here and is ready to move along.
What’s next? MSU will review the response and determine if they still go through with the termination. The answer to that question is most assuredly yes – they wouldn’t have given their notice of intent to terminate the contract unless they were very comfortable with their case. With any situation that can be negotiated, like this one, there is still room to delay it, for at least a couple of days, before the termination is official.
Tuesday 9/26 might be the day that MSU terminates Tucker’s contract or it might not be. The transfer portal might not open Tuesday 9/26 – it will open after it becomes official and after the university lets the players know. It could be Tuesday 9/26, or it could be a day or two later. I can’t imagine a scenario, though, where it doesn’t happen.
Alan Haller and the university’s legal team seem to be on solid legal footing here. Will they fight all the way to the end and try not to give Tucker any money? Or will they settle at some point, no matter how strong their case is, just to put an end to that chapter. Regardless, I believe that Haller is ready to make it official and turn it from a football story into a lawsuit story. To move Tucker off the football team officially and to turn him into a plaintiff.
Speaking of Haller, solid sources in the football program have told me that Haller has promised the players that he will be around and available to them – and he is following through on that promise. He goes to nearly every practice and is around often, answering questions, giving support to the players. He’s on the sideline during practice and in the football building before and after practice. Players can (and do) grab him and ask him questions. One source told me that Haller knows that these players didn’t ask for this and that he is doing everything he can to make things as ‘normal’ as it can be for them.
Strategically, Michigan State moved quickly on the Tucker firing (giving notice 8 days after the suspension) which is seen by sources as likely the best way forward to set the student-athletes in the best possible spot inside of what is definitely a terrible situation. The integrity of the investigative process was important and what is best for the student-athletes was also important. Both were considered in making the decisions that were made so far since this news broke. It should be pretty obvious to everyone paying attention that there is no perfect way to handle this situation and those in charge are doing the best they can in the situation they find themselves.
It's important to remember that the last time MSU hired a coach was in the month of February. It was tough getting people interested in the job at the time. Simply put, it’s tough hiring a coach in February or March or April. All the coaches have been hired by then and it takes/took a financial lever to move someone along from their current job. MSU is in a much better situation this time around as it finds itself able to look for coaches in late September/early October – and they won’t have to overpay for one out of season. I’ve been told that the best-case scenario for MSU would not be waiting until the end of the season. Read into that what you will. Also, I’ve been told that candidates may emerge throughout the season and the search might look different than it does now. Also read into that what you will.
I can say this definitively based on my conversations (not that it will come as a surprise to most) – Urban Meyer will not be considered for the job. That idea was dead on arrival. It’s not happening.
It’s important to know that Power 5 Athletic Directors are always evaluating their coaches up and down the department. From the football program to the field hockey program to the gymnastics and soccer programs and everywhere in between – ADs plan ahead. They look at hypotheticals. The good ones are proactive, not reactive. They work through different scenarios and try to have multiple plans of action in place. They are constantly planning and calculating. It is obvious that Haller had to have known that this was a possibility ever since it was brought to his attention last November/December. Say what you will about Haller but I guarantee you that he has been thinking through this situation and considering it from every possible angle.
Speaking of the length of the investigation and how MSU handled it – it’s important to note that Michigan State was damned if they did, and they were damned if they didn’t. Regardless of which approach MSU took, they were going to be criticized. I’ve learned that it’s a collaborative process across the university – different factors come into play and the leaders make decisions based on the information they have at the time. From what I’ve heard, MSU made the best decision at the time, with the information they had at the time. All the information I’ve found points to the fact that MSU had the process locked down and the investigation was confidential. I would be surprised if the leak came from Michigan State, based on what I’ve learned.
To be clear, all of the details in the July reports were not given to Tucker’s supervisor, Alan Haller. He was kept abreast of the situation and – had the investigator come across information that would have required Haller to re-evaluate the interim measures that were put in place – he would have been able to do so. Had the investigator found information that would have indicated that anyone’s safety was in jeopardy or if the investigation had uncovered even more severe or additional bad behavior, MSU leadership would have been notified that they would need to re-evaluate the interim measures while the process was playing out.
It’s been explained to me that the investigator gave no indication that the interim measures that were in place should change – the university didn’t think it would take this long. But Tucker kept delaying the investigation. If something was supposed to happen in 15-30 days, he would make sure that it took 30 days. He would ask for extensions and used his personal family issues to prolong the investigation. Even when the hearings were initially set for the August dates, MSU expected that it would wrap up prior to the football season. But then it was delayed again, to the frustration of all involved.
When all the details were shared publicly by Brenda Tracy, it changed the dynamics of the situation dramatically. Up until then, Haller didn’t know the full extent of the “acknowledged behavior” as it is not MSU’s protocol to give the investigative report to the supervisor until the process is done (hearings and appeals concluded).
If the MSU community at large wants to have a discussion about this aspect (in good faith), it would make sense to do so. Should these details be kept from the supervisor? From the president of the university? From the board of trustees?
Remember, the whole point of setting up the process the way they did was to make sure they avoided implications of impropriety and undue influence on the investigation. In these situations, you want the neutral setting. You want zero bias – that’s why they hired the outside investigator. Several board members were friends with Tucker – to not give them more details was purposeful. MSU has, in the past, been (deservedly, in some cases) destroyed in the media for not keeping the process confidential, for not providing a safe space for those who want to make complaints. They were committed to not letting that happen here.
Once again, the whole “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario played out here. MSU had to err on one side or the other and chose to err on the side of keeping the complainant anonymous (until she made the decision to identify herself, on her own timeline).
As a process reminder, the third-party investigator finishes his/her investigation and then makes a recommendation if it has to go to a hearing or not. Most cases go to hearings because the two parties don’t agree on various details (unless the investigator finds someone to not be credible). The whole point MSU brought in the outside investigator was to remove bias and to make sure that it was handled without undue influence. It would be somewhat ridiculous to not follow the recommendation of the person that has all the investigation information and was hired for their expertise.
Remember that in July, the only people who got a copy of the 1200 pages of the investigation were the respondent (Tucker) and the claimant (Tracy) and the OIE office (to schedule the hearing). Haller still doesn’t have the detailed information at this point. He is notified that it has moved on to the next part of the process – a hearing is being scheduled, etc, and doesn’t get a copy of the 1200 pages. The entire case is still in progress until after hearing/decision/appeals. He is told just enough by the investigator to make sure that his interim measures are still appropriate.
Michigan State had an obligation to protect the identity of the accuser in this case and did so. Experts involved in the culture around reporting incidents of this nature agree that individuals need to have a safe environment in which to make their complaints in a confidential manner. The university did its best to make sure that this was the case here. But after the claimant publicly identified herself and put her name behind her accusations – and shared the graphic details – the university was made aware of the “acknowledged behavior” and took quick action.
We’ll see where it goes from here.
I’m sure you’ve heard by now that, on Monday 9/25, Tucker and his attorneys responded to Michigan State’s intent to fire notification. They did what lawyers do and tried to present the best version of their client’s case to let MSU know that Tucker isn’t going down without a fight (nor without some of the money on that contract). I’m not a lawyer, but Tucker’s team seems to be really grasping at straws. I think Michigan State knows it holds the upper ground here and is ready to move along.
What’s next? MSU will review the response and determine if they still go through with the termination. The answer to that question is most assuredly yes – they wouldn’t have given their notice of intent to terminate the contract unless they were very comfortable with their case. With any situation that can be negotiated, like this one, there is still room to delay it, for at least a couple of days, before the termination is official.
Tuesday 9/26 might be the day that MSU terminates Tucker’s contract or it might not be. The transfer portal might not open Tuesday 9/26 – it will open after it becomes official and after the university lets the players know. It could be Tuesday 9/26, or it could be a day or two later. I can’t imagine a scenario, though, where it doesn’t happen.
Alan Haller and the university’s legal team seem to be on solid legal footing here. Will they fight all the way to the end and try not to give Tucker any money? Or will they settle at some point, no matter how strong their case is, just to put an end to that chapter. Regardless, I believe that Haller is ready to make it official and turn it from a football story into a lawsuit story. To move Tucker off the football team officially and to turn him into a plaintiff.
Speaking of Haller, solid sources in the football program have told me that Haller has promised the players that he will be around and available to them – and he is following through on that promise. He goes to nearly every practice and is around often, answering questions, giving support to the players. He’s on the sideline during practice and in the football building before and after practice. Players can (and do) grab him and ask him questions. One source told me that Haller knows that these players didn’t ask for this and that he is doing everything he can to make things as ‘normal’ as it can be for them.
Strategically, Michigan State moved quickly on the Tucker firing (giving notice 8 days after the suspension) which is seen by sources as likely the best way forward to set the student-athletes in the best possible spot inside of what is definitely a terrible situation. The integrity of the investigative process was important and what is best for the student-athletes was also important. Both were considered in making the decisions that were made so far since this news broke. It should be pretty obvious to everyone paying attention that there is no perfect way to handle this situation and those in charge are doing the best they can in the situation they find themselves.
It's important to remember that the last time MSU hired a coach was in the month of February. It was tough getting people interested in the job at the time. Simply put, it’s tough hiring a coach in February or March or April. All the coaches have been hired by then and it takes/took a financial lever to move someone along from their current job. MSU is in a much better situation this time around as it finds itself able to look for coaches in late September/early October – and they won’t have to overpay for one out of season. I’ve been told that the best-case scenario for MSU would not be waiting until the end of the season. Read into that what you will. Also, I’ve been told that candidates may emerge throughout the season and the search might look different than it does now. Also read into that what you will.
I can say this definitively based on my conversations (not that it will come as a surprise to most) – Urban Meyer will not be considered for the job. That idea was dead on arrival. It’s not happening.
It’s important to know that Power 5 Athletic Directors are always evaluating their coaches up and down the department. From the football program to the field hockey program to the gymnastics and soccer programs and everywhere in between – ADs plan ahead. They look at hypotheticals. The good ones are proactive, not reactive. They work through different scenarios and try to have multiple plans of action in place. They are constantly planning and calculating. It is obvious that Haller had to have known that this was a possibility ever since it was brought to his attention last November/December. Say what you will about Haller but I guarantee you that he has been thinking through this situation and considering it from every possible angle.
Speaking of the length of the investigation and how MSU handled it – it’s important to note that Michigan State was damned if they did, and they were damned if they didn’t. Regardless of which approach MSU took, they were going to be criticized. I’ve learned that it’s a collaborative process across the university – different factors come into play and the leaders make decisions based on the information they have at the time. From what I’ve heard, MSU made the best decision at the time, with the information they had at the time. All the information I’ve found points to the fact that MSU had the process locked down and the investigation was confidential. I would be surprised if the leak came from Michigan State, based on what I’ve learned.
To be clear, all of the details in the July reports were not given to Tucker’s supervisor, Alan Haller. He was kept abreast of the situation and – had the investigator come across information that would have required Haller to re-evaluate the interim measures that were put in place – he would have been able to do so. Had the investigator found information that would have indicated that anyone’s safety was in jeopardy or if the investigation had uncovered even more severe or additional bad behavior, MSU leadership would have been notified that they would need to re-evaluate the interim measures while the process was playing out.
It’s been explained to me that the investigator gave no indication that the interim measures that were in place should change – the university didn’t think it would take this long. But Tucker kept delaying the investigation. If something was supposed to happen in 15-30 days, he would make sure that it took 30 days. He would ask for extensions and used his personal family issues to prolong the investigation. Even when the hearings were initially set for the August dates, MSU expected that it would wrap up prior to the football season. But then it was delayed again, to the frustration of all involved.
When all the details were shared publicly by Brenda Tracy, it changed the dynamics of the situation dramatically. Up until then, Haller didn’t know the full extent of the “acknowledged behavior” as it is not MSU’s protocol to give the investigative report to the supervisor until the process is done (hearings and appeals concluded).
If the MSU community at large wants to have a discussion about this aspect (in good faith), it would make sense to do so. Should these details be kept from the supervisor? From the president of the university? From the board of trustees?
Remember, the whole point of setting up the process the way they did was to make sure they avoided implications of impropriety and undue influence on the investigation. In these situations, you want the neutral setting. You want zero bias – that’s why they hired the outside investigator. Several board members were friends with Tucker – to not give them more details was purposeful. MSU has, in the past, been (deservedly, in some cases) destroyed in the media for not keeping the process confidential, for not providing a safe space for those who want to make complaints. They were committed to not letting that happen here.
Once again, the whole “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario played out here. MSU had to err on one side or the other and chose to err on the side of keeping the complainant anonymous (until she made the decision to identify herself, on her own timeline).
As a process reminder, the third-party investigator finishes his/her investigation and then makes a recommendation if it has to go to a hearing or not. Most cases go to hearings because the two parties don’t agree on various details (unless the investigator finds someone to not be credible). The whole point MSU brought in the outside investigator was to remove bias and to make sure that it was handled without undue influence. It would be somewhat ridiculous to not follow the recommendation of the person that has all the investigation information and was hired for their expertise.
Remember that in July, the only people who got a copy of the 1200 pages of the investigation were the respondent (Tucker) and the claimant (Tracy) and the OIE office (to schedule the hearing). Haller still doesn’t have the detailed information at this point. He is notified that it has moved on to the next part of the process – a hearing is being scheduled, etc, and doesn’t get a copy of the 1200 pages. The entire case is still in progress until after hearing/decision/appeals. He is told just enough by the investigator to make sure that his interim measures are still appropriate.
Michigan State had an obligation to protect the identity of the accuser in this case and did so. Experts involved in the culture around reporting incidents of this nature agree that individuals need to have a safe environment in which to make their complaints in a confidential manner. The university did its best to make sure that this was the case here. But after the claimant publicly identified herself and put her name behind her accusations – and shared the graphic details – the university was made aware of the “acknowledged behavior” and took quick action.
We’ll see where it goes from here.
Last edited:
