menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Smith has been fired
Page: 7 of 7
mail
person
mf279801
12/21/2025 8:28 PM
BillyTheCat 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
I haven’t seen an age reported for the undergrad. Big difference between an 18-22 year old traditional student and a 30 or 40 year old non-traditional undergrad. Apologies if i missed an updated version of the story
Legal is also legal. Don’t enforce your moral code upon others.
Where am I enforcing a moral code upon others, or stating that age matters among consenting adults, Billy and LC?

I'm quite clearly replying to a commenter who says he doesn't want a coach who "can't figure out [that] his 20 something girlfriend is a college student...in a college town". Was said undergraduate a 20-something, or was she 30- or 40-something? Pretty big difference in the ease with which one would deduce she was/was not an undergraduate.

I think that the undergrad's age is directly relevant (i.e. a "big difference") if we're making fun of the guy for not assuming the woman in question was a college student or not.
mail
person
L.C.
12/21/2025 8:54 PM
OK, mf, I can see that, however, even if she was an older student, I find it difficult to believe that it never came up. No one asked "what do you do for a living"? Even then, if it's really not against University policy, why bother claiming that "he didn't know"?
mail
person
BryanHall
12/22/2025 12:11 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
OK, mf, I can see that, however, even if she was an older student, I find it difficult to believe that it never came up. No one asked "what do you do for a living"? Even then, if it's really not against University policy, why bother claiming that "he didn't know"?
I thought the claim was "he didn't know" when he first met her. I think it was to imply he wasn't cruising for sophomores at drink and drown (I know that dates me) when they met.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/22/2025 7:39 AM
mf279801 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
I haven’t seen an age reported for the undergrad. Big difference between an 18-22 year old traditional student and a 30 or 40 year old non-traditional undergrad. Apologies if i missed an updated version of the story
Legal is also legal. Don’t enforce your moral code upon others.
Where am I enforcing a moral code upon others, or stating that age matters among consenting adults, Billy and LC?

I'm quite clearly replying to a commenter who says he doesn't want a coach who "can't figure out [that] his 20 something girlfriend is a college student...in a college town". Was said undergraduate a 20-something, or was she 30- or 40-something? Pretty big difference in the ease with which one would deduce she was/was not an undergraduate.

I think that the undergrad's age is directly relevant (i.e. a "big difference") if we're making fun of the guy for not assuming the woman in question was a college student or not.

There's little ambiguity that there are two women we're aware of. An undergrad about is the age undergrads typically are, and a different 40 something woman.
mail
Mike Coleman
12/22/2025 8:26 AM
BryanHall wrote:expand_more
OK, mf, I can see that, however, even if she was an older student, I find it difficult to believe that it never came up. No one asked "what do you do for a living"? Even then, if it's really not against University policy, why bother claiming that "he didn't know"?
I thought the claim was "he didn't know" when he first met her. I think it was to imply he wasn't cruising for sophomores at drink and drown (I know that dates me) when they met.
Correct. There is a bit of redacting at this point in the letter. My guess is it's something that could be used for identification.

But it is lawyer posturing. I'm sure he knew pretty quick.
mail
person
BryanHall
12/22/2025 10:12 AM
Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more
OK, mf, I can see that, however, even if she was an older student, I find it difficult to believe that it never came up. No one asked "what do you do for a living"? Even then, if it's really not against University policy, why bother claiming that "he didn't know"?
I thought the claim was "he didn't know" when he first met her. I think it was to imply he wasn't cruising for sophomores at drink and drown (I know that dates me) when they met.
Correct. There is a bit of redacting at this point in the letter. My guess is it's something that could be used for identification.

But it is lawyer posturing. I'm sure he knew pretty quick.
I think that posturing occurred in both letters. Calling them extramarital affairs when they came months after his wife filed for divorce is technically accurate, but it is basically an attempt to exaggerate the charges.
mail
Mike Coleman
12/22/2025 11:43 AM
BryanHall wrote:expand_more
OK, mf, I can see that, however, even if she was an older student, I find it difficult to believe that it never came up. No one asked "what do you do for a living"? Even then, if it's really not against University policy, why bother claiming that "he didn't know"?
I thought the claim was "he didn't know" when he first met her. I think it was to imply he wasn't cruising for sophomores at drink and drown (I know that dates me) when they met.
Correct. There is a bit of redacting at this point in the letter. My guess is it's something that could be used for identification.

But it is lawyer posturing. I'm sure he knew pretty quick.
I think that posturing occurred in both letters. Calling them extramarital affairs when they came months after his wife filed for divorce is technically accurate, but it is basically an attempt to exaggerate the charges.
Agree 100%.

I tend to believe the administration got the feeling the ship was heading in the wrong direction (Ick factor), changed leadership as soon as they felt they legally could because of timing issues like the portal, with the full understanding there would have to be a fairly large settlement, but that it was worth it.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/22/2025 11:44 AM
BryanHall wrote:expand_more
I think that posturing occurred in both letters. Calling them extramarital affairs when they came months after his wife filed for divorce is technically accurate, but it is basically an attempt to exaggerate the charges.
How do we know the dates associated with the affairs or how many affairs there were?
mail
person
stockercat
12/22/2025 1:35 PM
Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more
OK, mf, I can see that, however, even if she was an older student, I find it difficult to believe that it never came up. No one asked "what do you do for a living"? Even then, if it's really not against University policy, why bother claiming that "he didn't know"?
I thought the claim was "he didn't know" when he first met her. I think it was to imply he wasn't cruising for sophomores at drink and drown (I know that dates me) when they met.
Correct. There is a bit of redacting at this point in the letter. My guess is it's something that could be used for identification.

But it is lawyer posturing. I'm sure he knew pretty quick.
I think that posturing occurred in both letters. Calling them extramarital affairs when they came months after his wife filed for divorce is technically accurate, but it is basically an attempt to exaggerate the charges.
Agree 100%.

I tend to believe the administration got the feeling the ship was heading in the wrong direction (Ick factor), changed leadership as soon as they felt they legally could because of timing issues like the portal, with the full understanding there would have to be a fairly large settlement, but that it was worth it.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just not sign the contract? String him along until the end of the season and then take action. Without a signed contract, the buyout question would not exist.
mail
person
GoCats105
12/22/2025 1:54 PM
stockercat wrote:expand_more
OK, mf, I can see that, however, even if she was an older student, I find it difficult to believe that it never came up. No one asked "what do you do for a living"? Even then, if it's really not against University policy, why bother claiming that "he didn't know"?
I thought the claim was "he didn't know" when he first met her. I think it was to imply he wasn't cruising for sophomores at drink and drown (I know that dates me) when they met.
Correct. There is a bit of redacting at this point in the letter. My guess is it's something that could be used for identification.

But it is lawyer posturing. I'm sure he knew pretty quick.
I think that posturing occurred in both letters. Calling them extramarital affairs when they came months after his wife filed for divorce is technically accurate, but it is basically an attempt to exaggerate the charges.
Agree 100%.

I tend to believe the administration got the feeling the ship was heading in the wrong direction (Ick factor), changed leadership as soon as they felt they legally could because of timing issues like the portal, with the full understanding there would have to be a fairly large settlement, but that it was worth it.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just not sign the contract? String him along until the end of the season and then take action. Without a signed contract, the buyout question would not exist.
This is actually an excellent question because his contract wasn't signed until October 10th. If there was ANY suspicion that this stuff was going on prior to that, why the hell would they even present him with a contract?
mail
OhioCatFan
12/22/2025 2:13 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
OK, mf, I can see that, however, even if she was an older student, I find it difficult to believe that it never came up. No one asked "what do you do for a living"? Even then, if it's really not against University policy, why bother claiming that "he didn't know"?
I thought the claim was "he didn't know" when he first met her. I think it was to imply he wasn't cruising for sophomores at drink and drown (I know that dates me) when they met.
Correct. There is a bit of redacting at this point in the letter. My guess is it's something that could be used for identification.

But it is lawyer posturing. I'm sure he knew pretty quick.
I think that posturing occurred in both letters. Calling them extramarital affairs when they came months after his wife filed for divorce is technically accurate, but it is basically an attempt to exaggerate the charges.
Agree 100%.

I tend to believe the administration got the feeling the ship was heading in the wrong direction (Ick factor), changed leadership as soon as they felt they legally could because of timing issues like the portal, with the full understanding there would have to be a fairly large settlement, but that it was worth it.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just not sign the contract? String him along until the end of the season and then take action. Without a signed contract, the buyout question would not exist.
This is actually an excellent question because his contract wasn't signed until October 10th. If there was ANY suspicion that this stuff was going on prior to that, why the hell would they even present him with a contract?
Perhaps Slade was not given a proper brieifing by those in the know. I would not fault him as new as he was to the job at that point. Seems that there might have been a communications problem somewhere. Just a guess from the cheap seats.
mail
person
BryanHall
12/22/2025 4:41 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I think that posturing occurred in both letters. Calling them extramarital affairs when they came months after his wife filed for divorce is technically accurate, but it is basically an attempt to exaggerate the charges.
How do we know the dates associated with the affairs or how many affairs there were?
My assumption was based on Smith's court filings, which stated that the leave was based on something unrelated to the divorce filing.
mail
person
DC_United47
12/22/2025 5:08 PM
Mike Coleman wrote:expand_more
Smith was fired for the Ick.

But he will make plenty of money for it.
He will definitely make plenty of $$ off of it.
Will affect the search and hire of the next coach I imagine.
If you have to hire a new HC and a whole new staff and pay out the old staff to go away. AND play all new players…AND pay some sort of settlement with Brian.
The fans better get their checkbooks out. The fundraising emails are about to start!! LOL
Hauser may not only be the best choice for HC, he may also be the cheapest (which in Bobcat land is usually the “best!”).
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/22/2025 5:44 PM
BryanHall wrote:expand_more
I think that posturing occurred in both letters. Calling them extramarital affairs when they came months after his wife filed for divorce is technically accurate, but it is basically an attempt to exaggerate the charges.
How do we know the dates associated with the affairs or how many affairs there were?
My assumption was based on Smith's court filings, which stated that the leave was based on something unrelated to the divorce filing.
I wouldn't put much stock in that. Everybody -- Smith, Smith's ex, their kids -- are better off if he's employed and/or paid out well as part of his termination. Both parties have a financial incentive to say so.
Last Edited: 12/22/2025 5:46:44 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
cc-cat
12/24/2025 12:15 AM
HIRE HAUSER !!!!!!!!!!
Last Edited: 12/24/2025 12:20:04 AM by cc-cat
Showing Messages: 151 - 165 of 165
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



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