- Joined
- Mar 29, 2018
- Messages
- 4,257
- Reaction Score
- 2,437
More?
That's what keeps it entertaini-, er, interesting. Not "more", but "more?"
More?
Moot. This is never getting to court. It would be the dumbest thing for either side.Either UConn is trying to win, or it isn't. If UConn is going to do this, then they should leave a smoking hole in the ground where Ollie's career used to be. The worst thing they can do is go to court and lose.
8 figure contracts came into being because the numbers justified them. The numbers were generated by broadcast revenue derived from mass audiences. Mass audiences like intrigue and drama. Michael Jackson likes his popcorn....especially when the same damn people say the same damn thing and damn everyone who doesn't agree. Yawn.
newsflash - people don't act like saints in the presence of an 8 figure contract. Film at 11.
More?
Either UConn is trying to win, or it isn't. If UConn is going to do this, then they should leave a smoking hole in the ground where Ollie's career used to be. The worst thing they can do is go to court and lose.
Yes. We shall call it the UConn Cold War.By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.
The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?
By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.
The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?
By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.
The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?
These are rules he's broken which breached his contract, Ollie hasn't denied breaking these rules. They haven't at all gone scorched earth on him.Accusing Ollie of cheating is scorched Earth. What's left? Accusing him of harrassing female employees? Might as well throw that out there too at this point, even if it is not true.
That is about all the leverage the school has left. They can't threaten to slam Ollie in the press since they have already slammed Ollie in the press.
Yes they did.These are rules he's broken which breached his contract, Ollie hasn't denied breaking these rules. They haven't at all gone scorched earth on him.
By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.
The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?
Gee who could've predicted that? It's almost like trying to weasel out of a buyout could possibly cause some bigger issues?
UConn path of least resistance was to get rid of Ollie pay the buyout and hire Hurley.
They chose a different strategy. One that may introduce some unsavory stuff.
" Threading the needle" ( was that chiefs originally?) Is really the most apt description of this. They may pull it off yet. We'll see. If that needle isn't threaded it's going to be fugly.
The smart play would have been to negotiate an acceptable settlement number right from the get go. Then UConn and Ollie could have "threaded the needle" in a manner that worked for both of them. Not sure why that didn't happen when it is the obvious optimized solution.If he ever, ever wanted any sort of job in basketball again, he would be wise to not go that route. See Miller, Glen, who's only employed at a lowest level 1st year DIII program because of an extraordinarily loyal old friend, who happens to have unlimited cache.
While not a good look, it's just not the same for a school as it is for a coach.
The smart play would have been to negotiate an acceptable settlement number right from the get go. Then UConn and Ollie could have "threaded the needle" in a manner that worked for both of them. Not sure why that didn't happen when it is the obvious optimized solution.
That said, that ship has sailed. There is a narrow optimal window for a negotiated solution before arbitration or litigation.
Unless this is
a) being badly mismanaged or
b) the parties have vastly differing viewpoints as to value,
we will have a resolution soon.
Temporary spike in ratings.The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?
Any early settlement where UCONN doesn't just roll over and give Ollie the stated contractual amount would get scrutinized and be open to a FOIA request. The alleged violations would have become public and the crapfest we now find ourselves would have still occurred. The best that can be hoped for at this point is for neither party to go nuclear so as to leave nothing left to salvage.The smart play would have been to negotiate an acceptable settlement number right from the get go. Then UConn and Ollie could have "threaded the needle" in a manner that worked for both of them. Not sure why that didn't happen when it is the obvious optimized solution.
The violations were reported to the NCAA. They were always going to make there was to the media eventually.Any early settlement where UCONN doesn't just roll over and give Ollie the stated contractual amount would get scrutinized and be open to a FOIA request. The alleged violations would have become public and the crapfest we now find ourselves would have still occurred. The best that can be hoped for at this point is for neither party to go nuclear so as to leave nothing left to salvage.
The smart play would have been to negotiate an acceptable settlement number right from the get go. Then UConn and Ollie could have "threaded the needle" in a manner that worked for both of them. Not sure why that didn't happen when it is the obvious optimized solution.
That said, that ship has sailed. There is a narrow optimal window for a negotiated solution before arbitration or litigation. Unless this is being badly mismanaged or the parties have vastly differing viewpoints as to value, we will have a resolution soon.
Correction. They fired Ollie for losing. The violations provide a way to avoid paying him.You can't even read. Nelson is saying that the university is trying to "destroy" Ollie when all they've done is fire him for committing violations.
Correction. They fired Ollie for losing. The violations provide a way to avoid paying him.
I never said UConn shouldn't pursue a path that limits their financial obligation.In fact anything else would incompetent. I have no idea where you got that out of my post. You pretty much agreed with me, took two paragraphs to do it and argued points that I never made.Would you bet $10 million that your language is the only way to frame it? Would you act differently on the matter of limiting financial obligation from the University if you were in a position of responsibility in the matter? Is it wrong to seek a reason to justify termination with limited financial obligation? Would responsible counsel not explore such options? Is it not in the nature of contract law to behave this way? Are all of these questions irrelevant to you?
I ask with confidence that if the MBB team performed well on the court, won a a suitable number of games, looked well-coached, generated reasonably expected interest and revenue, and reflected well on the University there likely would not have been a coaching change absent strong NCAA action in response to violations whether reported or uncovered.
Are all of these questions irrelevant to you?
They are irrelevant questions if you care about things like "Keeping your word" and "Honoring your promises" and "Doing what you say"
I have no objection to agreement; in fact I prefer it. That said, when offered as a "correction," the precise phrase "avoid paying him" reads differently from limiting financial obligation with legal justification, even if you & I might conclude upon closer look that it pretty much adds up to the same thing.I never said UConn shouldn't pursue a path that limits their financial obligation.In fact anything else would incompetent. I have no idea where you got that out of my post. You pretty much agreed with me, took two paragraphs to do it and argued points that I never made.
No problem at all.I have no objection to agreement; in fact I prefer it. That said, when offered as a "correction," the precise phrase "avoid paying him" reads differently from limiting financial obligation with legal justification, even if you & I might conclude upon closer look that it pretty much adds up to the same thing.
If neither of two parties who largely agree likes feeling "corrected," think of the possibilities for those nor in agreement.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.