Respectfully, I disagree. Wildhack has a duty to uphold the position of teh University until it is changed by the BoT/Chancellor. Just as HCDB and staff cannot openly criticize and must openly support the decision because that is the process as it is, does not translate that any one of them agrees with the process. As Chakka has indicated, there are rumblings of change and the powers that be are taking a serious look at the facts. If the AD, Coaches and Staff do not toe the line, then they would bring unwanted scrutiny to the University. Let the powers that be* have the first shot at fixing the problem, if that fails, step 2. If the AD, Coaches and Staff openly criticized the system (independent MD), they could also cause further investigation as well as destroy the integrity of the concept of an independent medical opinion: i.e. if AD Wildhack removed Dr. Tucker before now, it would appear that the AD could do so whenever he disagreed with a decision. The NCAA would deem this a violation worthy of another investigation (and we know how thorough and competent NCAA investigations are!). However, by letting the BoT/Chancellor review the entire set facts (history of DQs, 5 experts v. 1 gp, easy concussion DQs, etc.), they can remove Dr. Tucker without drawing the ire of any agency.
Remember, these questions are much bigger than Dr. Tucker and AD Wildhack. They way things are handled here will affect how others handle similar situations, which will arise. It sucks that this is happening to a great kid (Steven Clark), his family and our favorite university, but it will likely bring about some change. Ideally, a good person will run scenarios and gather information. I personally like the suggestion for a panel of experts being called prior to a DQ (I am not worried about sidelining a kid right after an injury or holding him out until the treatment is completed enough to return to play) or questioned treatment plan, using one expert chosen by the University, one expert agreed upon by the University and the player and, one expert of the player's choosing. Three experts, whatever the decision, the University and the player abide by it. Similar to mediation, also, this limits the decision to three experts; as applied in Steven case, Dr. Tucker would then finalize the decision of the experts and the NCAA would be mollified.
*Anytime high profile issues are addressed, it is best to have the organization on the same page and move in one direction. This may take a little longer but has far reaching benefits. Simply firing Dr. Tucker would raise too many questions, create issues that don't really exist (who's in charge, independent process to protect the player, etc.) and lets people come to a consensus rather than forcing a decision without hearing all sides.
That said, I still believe Dr. Tucker to be wrong, wish only the best for SC and family, hope the Orange work this out properly. If SC is not given a chance to play here, I understand he has a life to live and will follow him as a fan. I still think he has the heart to play on Sundays.
