Brenda Tracy on why she went public with Mel Tucker allegations

I guess, but they seemed so caught off guard by the whole thing and if they did, why now and not a month ago before the season starts. This just makes them look like morons if it was them. Which, to be fair, they are morons so let's not put it past them. But it just seems wild they would be the leak in this when they were trying to cover it up/control the story. They seemed to have no control or response. The Presidents remarks were cringeworthy with the whole "MSU of today..." mantra repeated over and over again like it was a chant.

I would say nothing is clear except that he masturbated while talking to her on the phone. 

I think they ran into a deadline with the hearing on October 5th/6th.  That's likely to get out because nobody can keep that tight of a ship nowadays, and if you fire Tucker for cause (in order to keep your money) that has to be airtight because otherwise he's absolutely going to lawyer up to get his remaining $80M.  

So if they got the report in July (I didn't see an exact date but let's say mid-month) then you basically are looking at 6-8 weeks from then until now in which other lawyers look into it, meetings are held, etc.  This isn't some beyond the pale transgression that you have to act immediately; it's gross and inappropriate but cheating on your estranged wife with a vendor (which is the best interpretation possible for Tucker's side) isn't the highest priority for a school.  

But I do think after some analysis and discussions they may well have been leaning toward firing Tucker, and then you start leaking the story details so that you get the public behind you and maybe scare him away from fighting for the rest of the money.  That's naive but athletic departments and schools make idiotic decisions all the time.

I suspect both MSU the school and MSU the AD/football ecosystem had to come together and decide on a united front here.  This isn't a transgression you have to act on immediately, but you do need to resolve and some behind-the-doors tribunal in October wasn't going to go unnoticed/unreported.  So between July (when the report was delivered) and early September there were likely discussions internally on what to do and then at some point the decision was made to can him and then stories start getting out to make that move easier in the court of public opinion and, perhaps, to scare him away from seeking all the money he's still owed.

My aunt was talking to my cousin's POS husband about something for her daughter, and after about five-ish minutes she heard him making weird noises. She asks him what he's doing, and he admits he was jerking off. She said it was disgusting and he just laughed and said it was no big deal. That wasn't consensual, and she did hang up ASAP. So it's not always possible to hang up before something gross happens. 

The time difference between Michigan and California is three hours, not four, and you are going into quite a bit of wild speculation about the nature of the relationship here yourself. We do not really know what happened or what the content of their conversations were. I personally don't think Tracy's version of events totally adds up, and I also think Tucker was a fool and possibly a creep. Everyone taking strong sides in this whole drama are acting on motivated reasoning, not actual facts.

I guess what it all boils down to is if he’s a 2-pump chump or if he has Sting’s stamina. You could probably hang up on Sting, but maybe not before Tuckin comin’ (sic.)

In today's climate, I understand why people are allergic to the idea that the alleged victim could have any responsibility or be in the wrong, but I think it's important to make a distinction between actual victim blaming and having an adult discussion about the situation and what the evidence and common sense points to. The way this is always framed: one person is the clear victim and the other is the offender is not done in good faith. It's not a reflection of reality. Sometimes it does happen that way, but both could be culpable and to varying degrees. In this situation no one was raped, touched, or anything objective/physical/tangible in terms of evidence other than phone records and their word. We're talking about a distant phone conversation that can end with the click of a button not someone cornered in a room. Common sense tells me that a married man and another woman having dozens of long phone conversations late at night and outside of work about highly personal topics alludes to a romantic or sexual relationship. It certainly creates that appearance. If you think that's reasonable then good luck explaining something like that to your spouse. Theoretically, sure it could be completely platonic, but is that likely? C'mon man.  If a man can lose $80M dollars and probably more after the divorce based on phone sex and one person's accusation, then who is actually in the position of power?  This woman literally specializes in helping people avoid these situations.  It's clear to me that they are both more than likely victims of their own stupidity and poor decision making than anything else. If you want to defend her then fine.  I guess we can pretend that women never go after men with lots of money and it's always just men that make terrible decisions in the pursuit of sexual gratification. To suggest anything else is possible is victim blaming!  C'mon . . . get real.