I believe there are at least three points on which most agree:
1. If he wasn't losing, he wouldn't have been fired.
2. He was losing--badly--and he deserved to be fired.
3. NCAA violations were committed under his watch, for which he was responsible, and for which the university had the right to fire him.
The "we really mean it this time" contract provision re NCAA violations sounds great in theory, but on paper the language reads the same as it did when, well, we might not have meant it--or enforced it--as much. Was this reinforced orally to Ollie? That's what UConn says. I don't know what Ollie says about that.
The reason some posters are alluding to history with former players is because context matters. We don't know what they know re prior conduct. But they do.
I’ll refer you to my post about the NCAA treating UConn differently at the end of Calhoun’s tenure and the beginning of Ollie’s.
The landscape is/was different for UConn after the post-season ban. Also, Ollie inherited a program on probation, and within 5 years had that program in danger of being back on probation.
I’m not naive about what may have occurred at UConn. But most of those arguing UConn is in the wrong are ignoring the fact that the NCAA literally went out of its way to
ban us form the postseason. While jumping through hoops to protect other programs who have done worse.
So yes. Context matters.
edit... and i don’t think I’ve seen one person who argues that Ollie should get paid admit that had he not cheated and lied about it, he would have been paid.
like I said earlier. The argument is about money. you can argue UConn would have fired him without the violations. Who cares? They would have had to pay him, and there wouldn’t be an argument. The only argument is whether he deserves the full amount or not. Because we don’t know what settlement offers were made and rejected, and by which side.
