In an indirect way, they do, because Ollie's team can easily make the counter case that these violations occur everywhere and are only being brought to light because of the contract situation. The distinction between walking on glass and careening through a China shop is not communicated by the language used in the contract. To the extent that Kevin Ollie ever had an opportunity to fully comply, with watch dogs at every corner and the barrel of the gun plastered to his forehead, is unclear. I would think that it's very possible for the entire premise to be voided based on unrealistic or unfaithful negotiating tactics, especially if no precedent for this kind of action exists. A contract isn't worth the paper it's written on if there's no neutral party to keep score.
I mean, the contract literally states that "a violation by the Coach of any law, rule, regulation, policy, bylaw, or official interpretation of the University" can trigger the cause. That's laughable, and if you followed every contract to that decimal, none of them would ever get signed. Ollie's agent probably viewed it as a complete throwaway clause that the University would use to tout their commitment to compliance. That's the only explanation. The only explanation is that it was literally too ridiculous to worry about. If you want to make yourself the judge, jury, and executioner, what's the point of even having a buyout? Everyone knows what's going on here. Even the people who support the school's move acknowledge the deceit. Really difficult to have any faith in our legal system if a desperation heave like this from a broke institution gets rewarded.
