menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Smith has been fired
Page: 4 of 7
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/18/2025 3:31 PM
Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more
I can see it now:


Welcome to Ohio University! We named our field after Frank Solich, who had a nice career after being given a second chance after a DUI. We don't currently have a football coach, because he had a drink of bourbon. We may have to name the field after him after he sues us for several million dollars.
The letter from the University makes the claim that he made a public appearance while intoxicated. No idea if that's right, but they're not actually hanging the alcohol claim on the bourbon toast. They're stating that he appeared as a representative of the university while intoxicated.
mail
person
Bitchy Incognito
12/18/2025 3:35 PM
Could this come down to a court determining if OU's employment clauses and its enforcement of them were sufficiently well-crafted to sustain scrutiny with regard to vagueness and/or adhesion to current pubic standards? I suppose case law could also figure in.

Additional reading:

https://law.usnews.com/law-firms/advice/articles/what-is-...

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?...

Agree that the 41-year-old would not seem to be a problem, so is this a factual dispute about what Smith said about what someone may have observed at the OU Inn?
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/18/2025 3:42 PM
Just to lay it all out, as far as I can tell right now. . .

The letter from the University states the following as their rationale:

1. Smith had an extra-marital affair/
2. Smith had a relationship with an undergrad.
3. Smith had a relationship with a 41 year old woman.
4. He was witnessed at the OU Inn -- which I think is University property -- by a football player's parents. He seems to have acknowledged this to the AD.
5. He was intoxicated at a public event where he was representing the University.

The response to that letter from his lawyer claims:

1. There was no extra-marital affair because he was separated from his wife.
2. Smith had a relationship with an undergrad for 4 months.
3. He didn't know she was an undergrad.
4. There's no policy against that.
5. He also had a relationship with a 41 year old woman, and the parent of a football player saw him with that woman at the OU Inn.
6. He was living at the OU Inn
7. He wasn't drunk at any events.

I think that's the full range right now.
mail
OhioCatFan
12/18/2025 3:47 PM
Bitchy Incognito wrote:expand_more
Could this come down to a court determining if OU's employment clauses and its enforcement of them were sufficiently well-crafted to sustain scrutiny with regard to vagueness and/or adhesion to current pubic standards? I suppose case law could also figure in.

Additional reading:

https://law.usnews.com/law-firms/advice/articles/what-is-...

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?...

Agree that the 41-year-old would not seem to be a problem, so is this a factual dispute about what Smith said about what someone may have observed at the OU Inn?
From what I've been told the incidents referred to in the prez's letter are just the tip of the iceberg. If this goes to court, or if there is a settlement, the facts will come out and this will get even more messy. As others with more legal training then I have said, under Ohio FOI law there is no way that the university can keep this all under wraps. The university appears to have been trying a "modified, limited hangout." If they had remembered their watergate history they would have known that often doesn't work out too well.
mail
HeHateMiami
12/18/2025 3:50 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
After reading the lawyers letter I’m ready to welcome Smith back, although we may be missing something (you reckon). Grab some popcorn.
After reading the lawyer letter I'm going to predict that we end up paying out most of his remaining contract. "Nursing student" sounds scandalous. "41-year old after separation/divorce proceedings began" sounds like a nothing burger.
I think you're conflating two things.

There's two different women, including an undergrad, right? [/QUOTE]AH... I think you're right! I think I'll just sit back and reserve judgement for a minute.

[QUOTE=From The Lawyer Letter]
“Rather he told the AD that he ran into parents while there with a 41-year-old woman he spent time with after he broke off the relationship with the OU student.”
mail
person
GoCats105
12/18/2025 3:51 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Just to lay it all out, as far as I can tell right now. . .

The letter from the University states the following as their rationale:

1. Smith had an extra-marital affair/
2. Smith had a relationship with an undergrad.
3. Smith had a relationship with a 41 year old woman.
4. He was witnessed at the OU Inn -- which I think is University property -- by a football player's parents. He seems to have acknowledged this to the AD.
5. He was intoxicated at a public event where he was representing the University.

The response to that letter from his lawyer claims:

1. There was no extra-marital affair because he was separated from his wife.
2. Smith had a relationship with an undergrad for 4 months.
3. He didn't know she was an undergrad.
4. There's no policy against that.
5. He also had a relationship with a 41 year old woman, and the parent of a football player saw him with that woman at the OU Inn.
6. He was living at the OU Inn
7. He wasn't drunk at any events.

I think that's the full range right now.
There has to be more to this story, because this all right here is basically he said/she said and makes it even the sillier that OU hasn't announced more. Unless he was drunk while coaching a game, which would definitely be something. What image are they trying to protect?
mail
Mike Coleman
12/18/2025 3:57 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I can see it now:


Welcome to Ohio University! We named our field after Frank Solich, who had a nice career after being given a second chance after a DUI. We don't currently have a football coach, because he had a drink of bourbon. We may have to name the field after him after he sues us for several million dollars.
The letter from the University makes the claim that he made a public appearance while intoxicated. No idea if that's right, but they're not actually hanging the alcohol claim on the bourbon toast. They're stating that he appeared as a representative of the university while intoxicated.
I believe this potentially is a serious, fireable, offense. That said, the letter states it "was reported to the university" that he smelled of alcohol and "appeared" inebriated.

Reported by whom? Was this witness not a representative of the university. This seems very, very, very, hard to prove. In most cases like this...like Gary Moeller, for instance...there is audio or video that corroborates the story. Maybe there is. Gary Moeller...what is it with all the Michigan coaches in this thread.
mail
person
cbarber357
12/18/2025 4:01 PM
It’s hard to reconcile the University getting the story about the relationship with the student and the woman he was seen with at the Inn jumbled together and firing him for this if there isn’t more that the University isn’t saying. Especially after the period on leave.

Either seems like a massive mistake on the part of the University to even go down this path, or they are holding things back trying to give Smith a quiet way out, which also seems like a mistake at this point.

Either we’re going to end up paying Smith millions or we’re going to eventually hear about some real alcoholism or inappropriate sexual conduct.
mail
person
GoCats105
12/18/2025 4:01 PM
Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more
I can see it now:


Welcome to Ohio University! We named our field after Frank Solich, who had a nice career after being given a second chance after a DUI. We don't currently have a football coach, because he had a drink of bourbon. We may have to name the field after him after he sues us for several million dollars.
The letter from the University makes the claim that he made a public appearance while intoxicated. No idea if that's right, but they're not actually hanging the alcohol claim on the bourbon toast. They're stating that he appeared as a representative of the university while intoxicated.
I believe this potentially is a serious, fireable, offense. That said, the letter states it "was reported to the university" that he smelled of alcohol and "appeared" inebriated.

Reported by whom? Was this witness not a representative of the university. This seems very, very, very, hard to prove. In most cases like this...like Gary Moeller, for instance...there is audio or video that corroborates the story. Maybe there is. Gary Moeller...what is it with all the Michigan coaches in this thread.
Shout out Steve Sarkisian.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-sarkisian-wa...
mail
person
Bitchy Incognito
12/18/2025 4:02 PM
Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more
I can see it now:


Welcome to Ohio University! We named our field after Frank Solich, who had a nice career after being given a second chance after a DUI. We don't currently have a football coach, because he had a drink of bourbon. We may have to name the field after him after he sues us for several million dollars.
The letter from the University makes the claim that he made a public appearance while intoxicated. No idea if that's right, but they're not actually hanging the alcohol claim on the bourbon toast. They're stating that he appeared as a representative of the university while intoxicated.
I believe this potentially is a serious, fireable, offense. That said, the letter states it "was reported to the university" that he smelled of alcohol and "appeared" inebriated.

Reported by whom? Was this witness not a representative of the university. This seems very, very, very, hard to prove. In most cases like this...like Gary Moeller, for instance...there is audio or video that corroborates the story. Maybe there is. Gary Moeller...what is it with all the Michigan coaches in this thread.
With Moeller it wasn't drunkenness (or alleged drunkenness) at a university function.
mail
person
BryanHall
12/18/2025 4:03 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
Just to lay it all out, as far as I can tell right now. . .

The letter from the University states the following as their rationale:

1. Smith had an extra-marital affair/
2. Smith had a relationship with an undergrad.
3. Smith had a relationship with a 41 year old woman.
4. He was witnessed at the OU Inn -- which I think is University property -- by a football player's parents. He seems to have acknowledged this to the AD.
5. He was intoxicated at a public event where he was representing the University.

The response to that letter from his lawyer claims:

1. There was no extra-marital affair because he was separated from his wife.
2. Smith had a relationship with an undergrad for 4 months.
3. He didn't know she was an undergrad.
4. There's no policy against that.
5. He also had a relationship with a 41 year old woman, and the parent of a football player saw him with that woman at the OU Inn.
6. He was living at the OU Inn
7. He wasn't drunk at any events.

I think that's the full range right now.
There has to be more to this story, because this all right here is basically he said/she said and makes it even the sillier that OU hasn't announced more. Unless he was drunk while coaching a game, which would definitely be something. What image are they trying to protect?
If there was more to the story why wouldn't they disclose it? It does them no good to wait to disclose more later.

Given the nature of what is disclosed, it appears they wanted to dump him for the relationship with the student nd/or intoxicated interview, but it wasn't enough. They added a bunch of other stuff to get a stronger case. For example, the OU Inn/affair point seems silly and misleading. Given the date of the leave announcement, it appears they decided to pull the trigger before he was guaranteed the money--did they make the right decision?
mail
Mike Coleman
12/18/2025 4:09 PM
Bitchy Incognito wrote:expand_more
I can see it now:


Welcome to Ohio University! We named our field after Frank Solich, who had a nice career after being given a second chance after a DUI. We don't currently have a football coach, because he had a drink of bourbon. We may have to name the field after him after he sues us for several million dollars.
The letter from the University makes the claim that he made a public appearance while intoxicated. No idea if that's right, but they're not actually hanging the alcohol claim on the bourbon toast. They're stating that he appeared as a representative of the university while intoxicated.
I believe this potentially is a serious, fireable, offense. That said, the letter states it "was reported to the university" that he smelled of alcohol and "appeared" inebriated.

Reported by whom? Was this witness not a representative of the university. This seems very, very, very, hard to prove. In most cases like this...like Gary Moeller, for instance...there is audio or video that corroborates the story. Maybe there is. Gary Moeller...what is it with all the Michigan coaches in this thread.
With Moeller it wasn't drunkenness (or alleged drunkenness) at a university function.
Truth. But similarly the letter doesn't accuse Smith of drunkenness. He is accused of smelling of alcohol...his lawyer implies alcohol was served at the event...and appeared inebriated. Far cry from Moeller's drunken outburst. But, like I said, consuming alcohol and being drunk are two different things. As far as I know, there is no rule against consuming alcohol at a school function in his contract. Stretching it to drunk requires some proof. Maybe it's there, dunno.
mail
person
ChiCat2018
12/18/2025 4:13 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Just to lay it all out, as far as I can tell right now. . .

The letter from the University states the following as their rationale:

1. Smith had an extra-marital affair/
2. Smith had a relationship with an undergrad.
3. Smith had a relationship with a 41 year old woman.
4. He was witnessed at the OU Inn -- which I think is University property -- by a football player's parents. He seems to have acknowledged this to the AD.
5. He was intoxicated at a public event where he was representing the University.

The response to that letter from his lawyer claims:

1. There was no extra-marital affair because he was separated from his wife.
2. Smith had a relationship with an undergrad for 4 months.
3. He didn't know she was an undergrad.
4. There's no policy against that.
5. He also had a relationship with a 41 year old woman, and the parent of a football player saw him with that woman at the OU Inn.
6. He was living at the OU Inn
7. He wasn't drunk at any events.

I think that's the full range right now.
not sure I want some 40 year old guy that can't figure out his 20 something girlfriend is a college student when she goes to a nursing program in a college town
mail
Mike Coleman
12/18/2025 4:17 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
I can see it now:


Welcome to Ohio University! We named our field after Frank Solich, who had a nice career after being given a second chance after a DUI. We don't currently have a football coach, because he had a drink of bourbon. We may have to name the field after him after he sues us for several million dollars.
The letter from the University makes the claim that he made a public appearance while intoxicated. No idea if that's right, but they're not actually hanging the alcohol claim on the bourbon toast. They're stating that he appeared as a representative of the university while intoxicated.
I believe this potentially is a serious, fireable, offense. That said, the letter states it "was reported to the university" that he smelled of alcohol and "appeared" inebriated.

Reported by whom? Was this witness not a representative of the university. This seems very, very, very, hard to prove. In most cases like this...like Gary Moeller, for instance...there is audio or video that corroborates the story. Maybe there is. Gary Moeller...what is it with all the Michigan coaches in this thread.
Shout out Steve Sarkisian.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-sarkisian-wa...
Yes. Got it. Perhaps there is a disturbing pattern. Or perhaps it's overblown. Initial documents suggest potentially overblown. Receipts and testimony from others could show this is very deserved.

But the loudest voice on here was saying it wasn't about the alcohol, so who knows.

Maybe it's just a general, worrisome, lapse in leadership.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
12/18/2025 4:19 PM
Whoever's parent complained has to feel great. Like congrats kid, your mom got a d1 head football coach in trouble for seeing him with a woman at a hotel. That's some small town high school bs.
mail
person
Bitchy Incognito
12/18/2025 4:24 PM
To be clear, the university IS citing marital infidelity as a component of the morality clause violation, so the distinction between the ages of Smith's two paramours and the fact that it was observable while he lived at the OU Inn are not necessarily the differences establishing cause.

It's his lawyer that raises the notion that dating the 41-year-old, which was who he says the parent saw Smith with, as divorce was well underway, would not constitute immoral or embarrassing behavior.
mail
Mike Coleman
12/18/2025 4:26 PM
Sherrone Moore was fired and went nuts on Dec. 10.

Dr. Gonzalez penned her letter Dec. 12.

I find that very interesting.
mail
person
cbarber357
12/18/2025 4:28 PM
Meanwhile, Lane Kiffin is already posting pics with LSU cheerleaders after hot yoga.
mail
person
Bitchy Incognito
12/18/2025 4:31 PM
Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more
Sherrone Moore was fired and went nuts on Dec. 10.

Dr. Gonzalez penned her letter Dec. 12.

I find that very interesting.
It seems possible that the redacted section at the end of Gonzalez's termination letter consists of a direct admonition to stay away from the undergrad and maybe the parent.
mail
Mike Coleman
12/18/2025 4:33 PM
Bitchy Incognito wrote:expand_more
Sherrone Moore was fired and went nuts on Dec. 10.

Dr. Gonzalez penned her letter Dec. 12.

I find that very interesting.
It seems possible that the redacted section at the end of Gonzalez's termination letter consists of a direct admonition to stay away from the undergrad and maybe the parent.
Good point.
mail
person
GoCats105
12/18/2025 4:38 PM
FWIW, the complaint for the divorce was filed 7/29/2025 per court records.
mail
person
Kevin Finnegan
12/18/2025 4:42 PM
Weren't the coaches shows traditionally held at bars? When I was in school, they'd have them at either Damon's or the pizza place at the end of Court Street. Are those school functions? If so, is the coach allowed to have a beer while on the radio show? Would this constitute drinking during a school function? What about Caravan events?

Reading this makes me feel like my alma mater is trying to be like Liberty or BYU. Not the school I went to.
Last Edited: 12/18/2025 4:43:04 PM by Kevin Finnegan
mail
Andrew Ruck
12/18/2025 4:59 PM
Well this isn't going to be as clean and swift as I'd hoped, and could be costly. Employment law is generally heavily favored toward the employee versus the employer. Even if they escape, the lawyer fees will be substantial.

You really have to wonder what Hauser and the rest of the coaching staff think about all this. I'd love to know the answer to that. To me, wanting to stay at the University would be fairly telling which side they are on.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
12/18/2025 5:05 PM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
Well this isn't going to be as clean and swift as I'd hoped, and could be costly. Employment law is generally heavily favored toward the employee versus the employer. Even if they escape, the lawyer fees will be substantial.

You really have to wonder what Hauser and the rest of the coaching staff think about all this. I'd love to know the answer to that. To me, wanting to stay at the University would be fairly telling which side they are on.
I can't imagine the staff is pleased with how President Gonzalez has decided to handle this. What an absolute mess the new AD has found himself in.
mail
Diamond Cat
12/18/2025 5:06 PM
I loved Solich so not hitting him over the head here. As many of you mentioned, Frank was involved in a widely known incident involving alcohol. He did not lose his job (thank God).

The University has a history in making that decision. It would seem to indicate Smith was treated more harshly than others (selective enforcement).

So it has to be the affairs, etc.? The response letter from Elliott is a must read.

How about these statements:

"The reprimand related to coaches toasting in the offices after home victories. Finally, the coaches were toasting with Bourbon provided by your husband to Coach Smith in his office."

"We have numerous other incidents of OU faculty and staff drinking alcohol in offices, OU facilities and on campus. For instance, an OU Associate AD invited Coach Smith to the office of a distinguished faculty member - Dr.(insert name) - offered a glass of bourbon to the Associate AD and Coach Smith and all three drank the alcohol in the faculty member's office."

Popcorn being consumed now.
Showing Messages: 76 - 100 of 165
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)