Every once in a while the storylines within college football's regular season pale in comparison to the storylines at season's end and it seems like we're firmly in the latter through the first part of bowl games.
Since conference championship weekend, we've witnessed Lane Kiffin leave his Ole Miss team, the dismissal of Sherrone Moore (with cause) by Michigan and his subsequent arrest and charges, as well as a mysterious decision by Ohio to put head coach Brian Smith on leave after going 8-4 in his debut season leading the program.
At first, no details nor timeline were provided outside of the fact that Smith had been placed on leave indefinitely by the school.
After over two weeks of silence on the matter, Ohio announced the decision to relieve Smith of his head coaching duties.
Once again, no details were provided, leading to plenty of online speculation.
In the days that followed since Ohio's decision, details have started to come out little by little.
At first, reports of Smith storing alcohol in his office and celebrating wins with a toast of bourbon with his staff in the office was the driving factor behind the school's decision. That didn't sit right with a lot of folks.
Then, reports of inappropriate relationships came to light, with one of those relationships being with an undergraduate student.
Over the last few days, legal teams from both sides have had their letters to each other obtained via public records requests and their back-and-forth exchanges set the stage for the latest legal battle set to captivate college football.
Those letters shed some light on the school's decision to part ways with Smith, specifically pointing out three areas.
First, Ohio President Lori Stewart Gonzalez's letter outlines the school's perspective where she lays out specific instances of the Employment Agreement that states cause for termination in the event of "commission of or participation in any act, situation or occurrence that, in the University's reasonable judgement, brings Head Coach into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule or failure by Head Coach to conform their personal conduct to conventional standards of good citizenship, with such conduct offending previaling social mores and values and/or reflecting unfavorably upon University's reputation and overall primary mission and objectives."
Gonzalez goes on to note that Smith's conduct triggered that clause in multiple ways, pointing to extramarital affairs he admitted in partaking in while staying in the Ohio University Inn on campus, where he could have been observed by donors, families of student athletes, and alumni.
One of the other reasons laid out by Gonzalez does point to the use of alcoholic beverages "as to impair" the head coach's abilities, nothing Smith had been previously reprimanded for the use of alcohol in his office.
In Smith's rebuttal from his legal team, they point to "erroneous conclusions that will undoubtedly irreparably harm Smith's career," calling the allegations false, starting with the affair accusations.
Smith's team insists that he and his now ex-wife separated earlier this year, lived apart and divorce proceedings were well underway prior to him dating anyone. Perhaps most importantly to his argument, is that his ex-wife never accused him of engaging in extramarital affairs during their divorce proceedings and the fact that he was seen at the OU Inn was because that's where he was staying while he searched for a more permanent housing solution.
As for the inappropriate relationship with a student, well Smith notes the two of them dated for four months, and when they met he was not aware she was an OU student. The female was not a part of the athletic department in any way, and since she was not employed by the athletic department there was no way for him to impact or influence her in any way and it was simply a relationship between two consenting adults.
Smith's legal team goes on to note that there is no policy at OU against employees dating a student, and thus does not justify a "for cause" termination.
As for the use of alcohol in his office, Smith's legal team contends that he was reprimanded by the school back in November, and it was not cause for termination then, and therefore cannot be used "for cause" now, not to mention the other offices of distinguished faculty on campus that engage in the same type of behavior casually with no repercussions.
Smith's side contends that he should be reinstated and allowed back with his team and staff before threatening public legal action.
The courts are certainly where this one seems to be heading, and public opinion is sure to be split on the matters brought up by both parties as this one continues to play out.
Stay tuned to The Scoop for all the latest, and see the letters from each side below.
