Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections

[Pudge]

Um, isn't that kind of how that works?

Pay attention to the dialogue prior to mine.

I think we should have settled when it was vastly perceived - by the BY cognoscenti - that the school had the leverage. If we are in the mode of KO having some traction … I still feel entitled to say: you both should feel that this has to be over. Too much. Neither of you are getting value. It is a Lose - Lose.

 

[auror]

I've always been a little hazy how it applies to someone who is already hired. I guess the institution is subject to whatever listed penalties they've received and so is the individual so maybe it is moot? I'm just not clear on it. Have you read anything about it you could link?

You must report to the NCAA every 6 months on how you're toeing the line. I assume you need documentation and the like. It's probably a pain in the ass. Likely whatever you did to earn the show/cause also came with other penalties, too, and possibly a suspension separately.

This is the best I've found about the topic.

 

[HuskyHawk]

You must report to the NCAA every 6 months on how you're toeing the line. I assume you need documentation and the like. It's probably a pain in the ass. Likely whatever you did to earn the show/cause also came with other penalties, too, and possibly a suspension separately.

This is the best I've found about the topic.

And it's entirely possible that if he was still employed he would have been suspended. That penalty was moot in his case.

 

[Dean Wormer]

UConn will never rejoin the Big East, they said.

KO won’t get a dime, they said.

Maybe the first post I’ve ever agreed w/ you. Spot on.

 

[CL82]

Pay attention to the dialogue prior to mine.

I think we should have settled when it was vastly perceived - by the BY cognoscenti - that the school had the leverage. If we are in the mode of KO having some traction … I still feel entitled to say: you both should feel that this has to be over. Too much. Neither of you are getting value. It is a Lose - Lose.

Everyone wants settlement, but everyone wants settlement on their own terms. To say “the parties should settle”, without specifying what the terms are, is to say nothing.

 

[jibsey]

Again, what makes you believe that?

The poster said he will get all or nothing by the arbitrator so in that case I would bet on him getting something.(all)

 

[CL82]

You must report to the NCAA every 6 months on how you're toeing the line. I assume you need documentation and the like. It's probably a pain in the ass. Likely whatever you did to earn the show/cause also came with other penalties, too, and possibly a suspension separately.

This is the best I've found about the topic.

This makes sense to me. It basically says that unless the school can “show cause“ why the penalties assessed against the coach should not apply to them as an institution, they do. So it’s not the show cause penalty that prevents, or discourage us, hiring, it is the penalties associated with the coach or institution.

Thanks that was a good link.

 

[CL82]

The poster said he will get all or nothing by the arbitrator so in that case I would bet on him getting something.(all)

Why?

 

[whaler11]

I’m gonna give @huskymedic my number to text me when ollie gets the 11 * 3.

Might get the old school Jiffy Pop for the stove.

 

[Madmannsucks]

I like seeing you belly-ache about this over and over. Each time you think you're nipping "this" in the bud and you keep being wrong again and again.

Belly aching? No-Nipping it..? No or I would just block it. I actually find it humorous. Wrong? About what, because since nothing has been settled, no one is wrong yet.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

The poster said he will get all or nothing by the arbitrator so in that case I would bet on him getting something.(all)

After initially sharing no supporting insights in incorrectly stating the departed Ollie would be awarded an impossible $7m, you flipped to all (~$11m) in an all or nothing scenario. What compelling factual insights and documentable information supports your latest 50/50 guess @jibsey?

 

[David 76]

pretty cocky given the grey area in all of this .... and risky

BOTH SIDES should settle. Could we be forced to pay the entire Breakup exit deal to KO ... yes. Could lots of other things happen. Could it get uglier. This isn't about saving Face. Nobody is looking good.

Not cocky at all. I know anything can happen. Just think UConn has a good case. And unlike many of you, I don't think the world will fall apart because Ray Allen is upset and a lot of people in the sports world think Ollie should get paid even though they don't know the story.

 

[jibsey]

After initially sharing no supporting insights in incorrectly stating the departed Ollie would be awarded an impossible $7m, you flipped to all (~$11m) in an all or nothing scenario. What compelling factual insights and documentable information supports your latest 50/50 guess @jibsey?

KO is protected by his union contract which prevents his firing unless there are serious violations. ‘The Committee on Infractions said the violations mainly stemmed from improper pickup games at which student managers kept statistics for coaches, the use of a video coordinator as a coach, which resulted in more than the allowable number of coaches, and free training sessions provided to three players by a trainer who was friends with Ollie.” Even though these are violations are they extremely serious to justify his termination? The arbitrator has to decide whether they are or not and if they are not he will be due his money, not a portion of it. UCONN admits now it’s going to be a tougher case but they expect to prevail. The school needs to settle ( I said 7 million settlement) this and now. They could lose the 10 million and this ruling makes it more possible.

 

[BFieldHusky]

KO is protected by his union contract which prevents his firing unless there are serious violations. ‘The Committee on Infractions said the violations mainly stemmed from improper pickup games at which student managers kept statistics for coaches, the use of a video coordinator as a coach, which resulted in more than the allowable number of coaches, and free training sessions provided to three players by a trainer who was friends with Ollie.” Even though these are violations are they extremely serious to justify his termination? The arbitrator has to decide whether they are or not and if they are not he will be due his money, not a portion of it. UCONN admits now it’s going to be a tougher case but they expect to prevail. The school needs to settle ( I said 7 million settlement) this and now. They could lose the 10 million and this ruling makes it more possible.

U left out the part where Ollie lied to investigators.

 

[Excalibur]

U left out the part where Ollie lied to investigators.

Almost the entire "pay him everything" crowd (including the "I hope he bleeds the University dry and will gloat if he does") crowd forgets that part . . ..

 

[Chief00]

There's a lot of misinformation about show/cause's in this thread.

For the record, a show/cause is not a suspension. It does not mandate you fire the individual. Kevin Ollie could have stayed on as UConn's coach and/or could get a coaching job under the show/cause.

It's a risk to the current/new school, but it's not a banning. Some show/causes come with restrictions, such as Bruce Pearl being unable to recruit, which would certainly make the person unfit to be a D1 head coach. It is not my understanding that Ollie's featured any poison pills like that.

If what you say is correct, it still seems like you are expecting a school to take on a big unnecessary risk and why would they?

 

[CL82]

free training sessions provided to three players by a trainer who was friends with Ollie.

That's one possible way to put it, another is that Ollie provided illegal travel (violation #1), illegal lodging (violation #2) and illegal meals (violation #3)for illegal coaching sessions (violation #4) with an illegal coach (violation #5) in addition to the other ones you mentioned (which establish a pattern of violation.) He repeatedly lied about them to the university and the NCAA and received a 3 year show cause order, the NCAA strongest individual penalty.

His actions resulted in UConn being placed on probation and our losing a scholarship.

Kind of sounds sort of serious, no?

You kind of lost me with the logic of well they could lose 10M so they should pay KO 7M. Why not 6M or 8M?

 

[Chief00]

That's one possible way to put it, another is that Ollie provided illegal travel (violation #1), illegal lodging (violation #2) and illegal meals (violation #3)for illegal coaching sessions (violation #4) with an illegal coach (violation #5) in addition to the other ones you mentioned (which establish a pattern of violation.) He repeatedly lied about them to the university and the NCAA and received a 3 year show cause order, the NCAA strongest individual penalty. His actions resulted in UConn being placed on probation and our losing a scholarship.

Kind of sound sort of serious, no?

You kind of lost me with the logic of well they could lose 10M so they should pay KO 7M. By that logic they could gain $10M so should they counter sue Ollie for $20M? One thing has nothing to do with the other.

That first paragraph was a home run.

 

[crewbear742]

This thread is hilarious. You have people straining jot and tittle to establish charges they don't care about in order to justify firing KO for those selfsame charges that they never cared about just to avoid saying out loud what they know to be the truth and admit to be the truth - that KO was fired for doing a bad job. But of course the truth can never be admitted to the arbitrator lest he rule in accordance with it.

It's one big legal fiction.

 

[David 76]

UConn wanted to fire Ollie, but couldnt.
He gave them another reason to fire him.
Was it convenient for them to fire him for the reason that could save the University $11 million? Yes.
Did he really do the violations that cost him his job? Yes.
I can't believe that people think UConn should have taken the expensive route out of this.
Ollie made it easy for them. He was stupid to put himself in that situation and more so for lying about it.
Bottom line, he would have stayed if he was just losing.

 

[8893]

Bottom line, he would have stayed if he was just losing.

I don't think so. He had to go because of the losing. The question was whether they were going to pay him or not.

In any event, I think the thing a lot of people have a problem with is the feeling that he would have stayed if he was winning, even with the NCAA violations.

 

[auror]

If what you say is correct, it still seems like you are expecting a school to take on a big unnecessary risk and why would they?

There's a difference between another school taking the risk and...

The evidence that would lead to the 3 year KO ban was there then - the investigation had been going on for many months. The University is required by the NCAA to police itself first. The University really had no choice but to terminate KO, especially given its recent history. That would be an argument.

The point is that the school is not forced to terminate him for a show/cause. It's not a mandatory banning or suspension. It was still a choice they made. UConn cannot argue their hand was forced by the NCAA. They will still argue it was prudent to fire him for many reasons that fall under just cause. Just clearing up the misconception.

 

[CL82]

UConn wanted to fire Ollie, but couldnt.

Oh they could have, it just wasn't cost efficient.

Ollie made it easy for them. He was stupid to put himself in that situation and more so for lying about it.
Bottom line, he would have stayed if he was just losing.

I don't think so. He had to go because of the losing. The question was whether they were going to pay him or not.

I think I'm with Dave on this. If Ollie was doing everything right but not winning, I think that he would have gotten more time. It was the combination of losing, appearing not to care, violating NCAA rules and lying about it that created the perfect circumstances for firing.

 

[whaler11]

They had to fire Ollie when they did or Hurley would be elsewhere.

 

[Chief00]

This thread is hilarious. You have people straining jot and tittle to establish charges they don't care about in order to justify firing KO for those selfsame charges that they never cared about just to avoid saying out loud what they know to be the truth and admit to be the truth - that KO was fired for doing a bad job. But of course the truth can never be admitted to the arbitrator lest he rule in accordance with it.

It's one big legal fiction.

When a Manager goes to fire someone in the corporate sector the first thing that’s usually done is you obtain reports on their internet, computer and email usage. It may not be why you want to fire someone but often a clear violation of company policy is documented electronically and attorneys may advise to use those grounds since it’s so indisputable. One can argue if this is morally right or wrong but it’s legal and happens every day.