Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections

[CL82]

You're really going to argue semantics?

It's not semantics, you are repeatedly making a legal conclusion. You are wrong.

I am sure the school is going to win this legal case and it will technically be deemed "theirs," but is the collateral damage worth it?

Yes. The "collateral damage" does not exceed $11M of taxpayer dollars.

Potentially permanently damaging coach Calhoun's relationship with his most successful player and another key piece of his first NCAA championship worth it?

Ray's in the wrong here, not UConn and certainly not Calhoun. Is putting a salve to Ray's ego worth $11M of Connecticut taxpayer dollars? Not to me.

Don't bother answering, I'm sure you'll just post some condescending remark designed to make you feel superior.

Kind of not the way it works. If you didn't want to read my response you shouldn't have posted.

 

[Travelman6]

(As far as I understand..) There is no possible way another sane coach can use the threat of being deposed against Uconn. (Are there other negative things? Sure.)

All any future recruit needs to ask themselves is the following: Do I have anything, AT ALL, to do with Ollie?
If the answer is NO, which it basically will be from here on out, no need to worry, they won't be deposed. The threat of that will quickly die for any new recruit.

 

[Jbirdp5]

You're really going to argue semantics? Call it whatever you want, I don't really care. I am sure the school is going to win this legal case and it will technically be deemed "theirs," but is the collateral damage worth it? Potentially permanently damaging coach Calhoun's relationship with his most successful player and another key piece of his first NCAA championship worth it?

Don't bother answering, I'm sure you'll just post some condescending remark designed to make you feel superior.

If you want to argue that this isn’t worth it because of the damage it’s doing to Calhoun and Ray Allen’s relationship and possible alumni relations fine, but don’t tie it to recruiting because that’s where it becomes a huge stretch

 

[Rico444]

Ray's in the wrong here, not UConn and certainly not Calhoun. Is putting a salve to Ray's ego worth $11M of Connecticut taxpayer dollars? Not to me.

Is that supposed to make UConn fans feel better about Calhoun and Ray Allen not having a relationship? Do you know how many big-time universities have fired coaches and just paid the buyout without taking the coach to court? It happens every year, even when the coach probably doesn't deserve the money. They do it because they realize that it's not worth the headache of going through what UConn is going through now.

Kind of not the way it works. If you didn't want to read my response you shouldn't have posted.

I don't have a problem reading your response. My point was that you specifically add in snarky, condescending barbs to make yourself feel superior all the time when arguing with someone. Have you considered not being a Richard?

 

[ctchamps]

If you want to argue that this isn’t worth it because of the damage it’s doing to Calhoun and Ray Allen’s relationship and possible alumni relations fine, but don’t tie it to recruiting because that’s where it becomes a huge stretch

For the most part I agree with you.

Can this action by UConn impact recruiting? Logically the answer is no. However one of the things people can observe in this forum is the demonstration of how frequently people think irrationally. You can be certain coaches going head to head against us for a recruit will negative talk UConn over this incident. Of course they'll exaggerate their words saying things such "as one of the most famous alums has been treated poorly by the university and now they're going after recently graduated recruits. Is this how you want to be treated?"

Will this impact any recruits. It shouldn't but I'd prefer that kids don't hear anything negative about our program. It's bad enough outsiders manufacture things. It's lousy when we manufacture things ourselves.

That is the worst case scenario. And a stretch of course. But a stretch isn't the same thing as saying there is zero probability.

Of course I've taken the position that KO's litigation will have zero future impact on the program, but every time I've convinced myself of this, most of the people saying the universities actions will have zero impact on recruiting are the same people who argue KO is still hurting the university. Hence my conclusion about the irrational emotional take people have over these type of things.

 

[intlzncster]

This isn't technically wrong. But in practice what school is dealing with a coach that has a show cause.

There's been a couple, but it's obviously not common.

Bruce Pearl was the last I remember. He had less than a year or something remaining on his when Auburn hired him.

 

[CL82]

Is that supposed to make UConn fans feel better about Calhoun and Ray Allen not having a relationship?

Ray's in the wrong here, not UConn and certainly not Calhoun. Is putting a salve to Ray's ego worth $11M of Connecticut taxpayer dollars? Not to me.

Do you know how many big-time universities have fired coaches and just paid the buyout without taking the coach to court?

How many of those were found to have repeated violated NCAA rules, causing their employers to be penalized; their players to ruled ineligible resulting in them receiving a three year show cause penalty? I'm guessing none of them.

I don't have a problem reading your response. My point was that you specifically add in snarky, condescending barbs to make yourself feel superior all the time when arguing with someone. Have you considered not being a Richard?

Of the two of us who has stooped to name calling? Let's be honest, this isn't about my "feeling superior" since you have no way of telling how I feel. It is about your feeling inferior. Tough to blame me for that. If it really bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't take positions that you can't support. Just a thought.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

Yes. The "collateral damage" does not exceed $11M of taxpayer dollars.

Ray's in the wrong here, not UConn and certainly not Calhoun. Is putting a salve to Ray's ego worth $11M of Connecticut taxpayer dollars? Not to me.

Other than the agitation and in-fighting on the boneyard, ultimately I don't think there's any real collateral damage. What happens between JC and his former players is between them. They're adults and are in control of what happens in their lives.
Had we been making egregious amounts of cash in a P5, I'm sure it would have been handled somewhat differently since we could have afforded to throw some divorce money at KO. But I would still hope that the University shows some fiscal responsibility with the State's money and wouldn't just give him $11M off the bat. Can't be acting like a drunk in a cat house.

 

[Stainmaster]

This thread has done a great job distilling the differences between a court of law and a court of public opinion.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

“gotten” speculative conspiracies for $11m much

 

[Rico444]

Ray's in the wrong here, not UConn and certainly not Calhoun. Is putting a salve to Ray's ego worth $11M of Connecticut taxpayer dollars? Not to me.

You just repeated what you said in your last post and ignored what I said, so not really sure how to respond?

How many of those were found to have repeated violated NCAA rules, causing their employers to be penalized; their players to ruled ineligible resulting in them receiving a three year show cause penalty? I'm guessing none of them.

What does that have to do with anything? UConn has to weigh the $11 million against the collateral damage this decision is causing them. Just like those other schools did.

Of the two of us who has stooped to name calling? Let's be honest, this isn't about my "feeling superior" since you have no way of telling how I feel. It is about your feeling inferior. Tough to blame me for that. If it really bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't take positions that you can't support. Just a thought.

Come on, this isn't all that difficult. Smugness is kind of your M.O.

 

[CL82]

You just repeated what you said in your last post and ignored what I said, so not really sure how to respond?

You raised the same faux point. You got the same answer.

What does that have to do with anything? UConn has to weigh the $11 million against the collateral damage this decision is causing them. Just like those other schools did.

It has every thing to do with it. You are saying other school fired there coaches but paid them severance. But you are ignoring the point that those coaches didn’t commit the same series of offenses that KO did which resulted in his players, his employer and himself being punished by the NCAA. Do you understand why that might be important?

Come on, this isn't all that difficult. Smugness is kind of your M.O.

Lol so now I’m smug? Uh, I guess. Does labeling other posters make you feel better about yourself?

 

[crewbear742]

But you are ignoring the point that those coaches didn’t commit the same series of offenses that KO did which resulted in his players, his employer and himself being punished by the NCAA. Do you understand why that might be important?

I think we all understand the importance.

We need to fire Kevin Ollie. He's absolutely killing our basketball program. We can't however afford to pay him $10 million. Is there any way we can bootstrap an ethics charge so we can fire him for cause? Perhaps we can use the NCAA ... Hey! Don't write that down in the minutes. A lawyer or an arbitrator might see it some day!

 

[CL82]

I think we all understand the importance.

We need to fire Kevin Ollie. He's absolutely killing our basketball program. We can't however afford to pay him $10 million. Is there any way we can bootstrap an ethics charge so we can fire him for cause? Perhaps we can use the NCAA ... Hey! Don't write that down in the minutes. A lawyer or an arbitrator might see it some day!

Probably more like “not only is Kevin alienating kids causing them to leave the program and doing an absolutely abysmal job coaching, he’s breaking one NCAA rule after another and lying to us about it. It looks like we’re going to get penalized, kids have lost eligibility and he’ll be lucky enough to get a show cause penalty. We’ve talked to him about it but there’s been no change. As much as we like the guy, and appreciate the great job he did at first, we can’t keep carrying him it is too risky to the school and the kids. I feel sorry for him and I hope he gets his life back together. Let’s give them the opportunity to resign and save face. I mean he’s got to realize what an egregiously bad job he’s done. Heck he looks like he doesn’t want to be here. Hopefully he’s not so far gone that he’ll pass on the opportunity to leave with some dignity and move on with his life.”

 

[Rico444]

It has every thing to do with it. You are saying other school fired there coaches but paid them severance. But you are ignoring the point that those coaches didn’t commit the same series of offenses that KO did which resulted in his players, his employer and himself being punished by the NCAA. Do you understand why that might be important?

I've made it clear that I don't think he deserves the money, and that "deserve" doesn't have anything to do with it. I feel pretty comfortable in guessing that didn't make Jim Calhoun feel better when Ray Allen didn't show up to his charity golf outing. There are a bunch of other former players that I would surmise this doesn't sit well with.

Lol so now I’m smug? Uh, I guess. Does labeling other posters make you feel better about yourself?

It doesn't make me feel better, no. And if it makes you feel better for me to not say it out loud, I won't, but it's pretty obviously true.

 

[CL82]

I've made it clear that I don't think he deserves the money, and that "deserve" doesn't have anything to do with it. I feel pretty comfortable in guessing that didn't make Jim Calhoun feel better when Ray Allen didn't show up to his charity golf outing. There are a bunch of other former players that I would surmise this doesn't sit well with.

I'm sure it didn't make Jim happy, but it isn't worth paying KO $11M to encourage Ray to make an appearance at Calhoun's charity event. I mean you agree with that, right?

It doesn't make me feel better, no. And if it makes you feel better for me to not say it out loud, I won't, but it's pretty obviously true.

Doesn't matter to me in the least. I understand that some posters can get frustrated when they can't make their point (or just don't have one) and feel better making personal attacks. It's a little childish but it is a common enough thing.

 

[Rico444]

I'm sure it didn't make Jim happy, but it isn't worth paying KO $11M to encourage Ray to make an appearance at Calhoun's charity event. I mean you agree with that, right?

You seem like an intelligent person, so I can only surmise that you're purposely making this strawman argument because you know you can't argue my other point as strongly. I never said that one appearance by Ray Allen at Calhoun's charity event is worth $11 million; I've said multiple times throughout the thread that their relationship is quite obviously damaged and as far as we may know, it may never be fixed. I think that's worth something. You can argue it's not worth $11 million, and that's your opinion, but don't try to twist my argument into something it's not.

Doesn't matter to me in the least. I understand that some posters can get frustrated when they can't make their point (or just don't have one) and feel better making personal attacks. It's a little childish but it is a common enough thing.

I have plenty of points and am having no trouble making them; you keep making strawman arguments to debate something I'm not saying, or you just flat out ignore them altogether like you did a few posts back. It's why it's not worth my time debating with you. So I think I'm done here. I think everyone that has read this thread knows what point I'm trying to make, and we can agree to disagree.

 

[superjohn]

You seem like an intelligent person, so I can only surmise that you're purposely making this strawman argument because you know you can't argue my other point as strongly. I never said that one appearance by Ray Allen at Calhoun's charity event is worth $11 million; I've said multiple times throughout the thread that their relationship is quite obviously damaged and as far as we may know, it may never be fixed. I think that's worth something. You can argue it's not worth $11 million, and that's your opinion, but don't try to twist my argument into something it's not.



I have plenty of points and am having no trouble making them; you keep making strawman arguments to debate something I'm not saying, or you just flat out ignore them altogether like you did a few posts back. It's why it's not worth my time debating with you. So I think I'm done here. I think everyone that has read this thread knows what point I'm trying to make, and we can agree to disagree.

How is Calhoun responsible for Ray's hurt feelings over Ollie not getting $11 million? Ray has made $200 million playing basketball, if he's so worried about his friend's financial situation he can take care of him.

 

[Rico444]

How is Calhoun responsible for Ray's hurt feelings over Ollie not getting $11 million? Ray has made $200 million playing basketball, if he's so worried about his friend's financial situation he can take care of him.

I never said he's responsible for Ray's hurt feelings?

 

[jibsey]

Since both Ray and Jim are grown rich men I don’t care about their relationship with each other. On the other hand I would like Ray on board with Hurley and the program and as an ambassador. No recruits are coming to see Jim Calhoun around the Werth Center. Ray, Caron, Drummond, Rip, that’s a different story because of their stardom in the NBA which is exactly where those recruits all think they’re going. Even if they are not.

 

[superjohn]

I never said he's responsible for Ray's hurt feelings?

Why do you keep bringing up Ray Allen and Calhoun's damaged relationship?

 

[Rico444]

Why do you keep bringing up Ray Allen and Calhoun's damaged relationship?

Because I think it matters? You don't have to. I'd also like Ray to keep coming back to Gampel during games so he can be honored.

 

[CL82]

You seem like an intelligent person, so I can only surmise that you're purposely making this strawman argument because you know you can't argue my other point as strongly. I never said that one appearance by Ray Allen at Calhoun's charity event is worth $11 million; I've said multiple times throughout the thread that their relationship is quite obviously damaged and as far as we may know, it may never be fixed. I think that's worth something. You can argue it's not worth $11 million, and that's your opinion, but don't try to twist my argument into something it's not.



I have plenty of points and am having no trouble making them; you keep making strawman arguments to debate something I'm not saying, or you just flat out ignore them altogether like you did a few posts back. It's why it's not worth my time debating with you. So I think I'm done here. I think everyone that has read this thread knows what point I'm trying to make, and we can agree to disagree.

Respectfully, I don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

 

[husky8273]

Respectfully, I don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The main way to counter a straw man is to point out its use, and to then ask your opponent to prove that your original stance and their distorted stance are identical, though in some situations you might also choose to either ignore your opponent's strawman, or to simply accept it and continue the discussion.

Types of strawman arguments
There are countless ways to distort an opposing view when using a strawman. Common ways to do so include:

• Oversimplifying, generalizing, or exaggerating the opponent’s argument.
• Focusing on only a few specific aspects of an opponent’s argument.
• Quoting parts of the opponent’s argument out of context.
• Arguing against fringe or extreme opinions which are sometimes used in order to support the opponent’s stance, but which the opponent didn’t actually use.

 

[Rico444]

Respectfully, I don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

I'm sure it didn't make Jim happy, but it isn't worth paying KO $11M to encourage Ray to make an appearance at Calhoun's charity event. I mean you agree with that, right?

I never said that Ray not showing up to coach Calhoun's event was the reason the school should have paid $11 million to Ollie, but it's clearly the argument you're attributing to me. Respectfully, can you explain to me how that is not a strawman argument?