Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections

[UCDaveD]

Just pay the man and be done with this circus

I disagree.

 

[crewbear742]

UConn won't feel it with recruits. UConn will feel it the next time it needs to hire a basketball coach. You can't fire someone for trumped-up chicken-**** ethics violations as an excuse to avoid paying a contractual fee and have it go unnoticed. Potential candidates are going to say "If they would do that to KO, they will do it to me." So UConn will either pay more, settle for lower quality, or offer a much more coach-friendly contract.

 

[jleves]

UConn won't feel it with recruits. UConn will feel it the next time it needs to hire a basketball coach. You can't fire someone for trumped-up chicken-**** ethics violations as an excuse to avoid paying a contractual fee and have it go unnoticed. Potential candidates are going to say "If they would do that to KO, they will do it to me." So UConn will either pay more, settle for lower quality, or offer a much more coach-friendly contract.

Which was obvious with our current coaching hire to replace Ollie.

Think more, post less.

 

[Jbirdp5]

UConn won't feel it with recruits. UConn will feel it the next time it needs to hire a basketball coach. You can't fire someone for trumped-up chicken-**** ethics violations as an excuse to avoid paying a contractual fee and have it go unnoticed. Potential candidates are going to say "If they would do that to KO, they will do it to me." So UConn will either pay more, settle for lower quality, or offer a much more coach-friendly contract.

It didn’t scare Hurley away....

 

[pj]

UConn won't feel it with recruits. UConn will feel it the next time it needs to hire a basketball coach. You can't fire someone for trumped-up chicken-**** ethics violations as an excuse to avoid paying a contractual fee and have it go unnoticed. Potential candidates are going to say "If they would do that to KO, they will do it to me." So UConn will either pay more, settle for lower quality, or offer a much more coach-friendly contract.

Let's say Hurley will be here for about 10 years before leaving for the NBA. At that point, potential candidates are going to say, "Wow, Kevin Ollie is so toxic, he's been unemployed for 11 years and still no one wants him. I guess UConn was right to fire him. Meanwhile, Danny Hurley had a 75% winning percentage, 2 NCAA championships, and ended up moving to a $6 mn/year NBA job. I guess coaching at UConn is a great career move!"

 

[Chief00]

KO next suit will be attorney malpractice. But it’s unclear if it’s more PR malpractice or legal malpractice? KO is the one whose career is totally destroyed and most likely for life.
But what does Chief know? The arbitrator has already ruled the personal employment contract is essentially meaningless in CT. After-all the CBA supercedes state law.

 

[crewbear742]

Think more, post less.

This is the 172nd post I've made in the three years I've been registered. Do the math. I am extremely selective about the subjects on which I choose to post. And if I choose to post, I guarantee you that I will have thought that post through.

I realize that counting unhatched chickens is more than just a common practice on the BY. It's a veritable art form. It doesn't however count as thinking. So perhaps you should set aside your knee-jerk reaction and ask yourself why the "Hurley came here, didn't he" argument might not be dispositive.

 

[Madmannsucks]

They’re not going to say it, because they’re not gonna think about it for even 10 seconds. But you know what let’s agree to disagree and see how Danny does with recruits. So far it really doesn’t look like it’s impacting us at all, agree?

While I think you are correct about recruits not giving it much thought, I do not think it is unreasonable to have opposing coaching staffs playing it up, and saying who knows what about the situation.

 

[dennismenace]

Maybe the recruits will get the message that the integrity of the School and it's athletic department are more important than sinking into the moral mess of many big time school recruiting programs. Uconn doesn't need to sell out it's integrity. Maybe for once adhering to high moral standards is worth the fight rather than caving to a misguided concept of marketing a brand or a public opinion poll of who is winning in a triangular (victim, perpetrator rescuer) game. Pragmatism often wins in a purely business situation but a university is surely not just a business.

 

[upstater]

Maybe the recruits will get the message that the integrity of the School and it's athletic department are more important than sinking into the moral mess of many big time school recruiting programs. Uconn doesn't need to sell out it's integrity. Maybe for once adhering to high moral standards is worth the fight rather than caving to a misguided concept of marketing a brand or a public opinion poll of who is winning in a triangular (victim, perpetrator rescuer) game. Pragmatism often wins in a purely business situation but a university is surely not just a business.

99.9% of the players believe they are being exploited by the schools and the NCAA.

 

[pj]

ask yourself why the "Hurley came here, didn't he" argument might not be dispositive.

A counter-example is not dispositive only in the sense that it's trivially true that other coaching candidates may evaluate UConn differently than Hurley did. But Hurley's choice does show that not all coaches will evaluate UConn negatively because of the Ollie firing. UConn fired Ollie and still brought in the hottest coaching candidate in the country, at a salary discounted to what Pitt was offering. And with Hurley's success, which we can already see is a sure thing since his biggest hurdle, recruiting, is being overcome, will only make the job more attractive.

In reality, college coaches get fired all the time, especially from a top-10 program after consecutive losing seasons. Coaching candidates know that comes with the territory, and the $3 mn salary. If the parting was not clean, that reflects badly on Ollie, not UConn.

 

[dennismenace]

99.9% of the players believe they are being exploited by the schools and the NCAA.

I am discussing (thread) about the University vs KO. I am talking about the moral position of the University vs KO. The school has an agreement (not a conspiracy) with the NCAA. Incoming recruits who want recruiting that attempts to violate NCAA rules need not apply to Uconn. That is the policy of the school. I am not trying to justify the the NCAA rules about whether or not those rules are fair vs a vs jersey sales etc. I don't agree that 99.9% of players think that they are being "exploited" (victims). But that is another discussion.

 

[Rico444]

Let's say Hurley will be here for about 10 years before leaving for the NBA. At that point, potential candidates are going to say, "Wow, Kevin Ollie is so toxic, he's been unemployed for 11 years and still no one wants him. I guess UConn was right to fire him. Meanwhile, Danny Hurley had a 75% winning percentage, 2 NCAA championships, and ended up moving to a $6 mn/year NBA job. I guess coaching at UConn is a great pick!"

FTFY

 

[intlzncster]

Which was obvious with our current coaching hire to replace Ollie.

Funny how quickly 3 million per takes the edge off any reservations.

 

[intlzncster]

Maybe the recruits will get the message that the integrity of the School and it's athletic department are more important than sinking into the moral mess of many big time school recruiting programs. Uconn doesn't need to sell out it's integrity. Maybe for once adhering to high moral standards is worth the fight rather than caving to a misguided concept of marketing a brand or a public opinion poll of who is winning in a triangular (victim, perpetrator rescuer) game. Pragmatism often wins in a purely business situation but a university is surely not just a business.

Nobody cares about morals. Except maybe a few fans and grandstanding media members. And even they don't really care, as they keep on watching. Just look at the overall state of mcbb and the NCAA.

 

[intlzncster]

While I think you are correct about recruits not giving it much thought, I do not think it is unreasonable to have opposing coaching staffs playing it up, and saying who knows what about the situation.

Recruit response to that: "yeah? Where you getting me drafted?"

If anything, a few recruits might consider it in the context of they being less likely to receive a 100k payout from a penny pinching school. Probably good to avoid those guys anyway.

 

[dennismenace]

Nobody cares about morals. Except maybe a few fans and grandstanding media members. And even they don't really care, as they keep on watching. Just look at the overall state of mcbb and the NCAA.

Breaking laws by corrupting people with illegal bribes is a moral as well as a legal issue. If the law is immoral and unjust the remedy is to change the law. Not go around it. If you do that you are part of the problem, not the solution.

"Nobody cares about morals" ?????? Are you the self appointed community spokesperson? I think if you look around the BY posts a lot of people care about them. Otherwise there is an uneven playing field. And they are right about getting ticked off when some schools continue to payoff or arrange/look the other way when others are doing it.

 

[intlzncster]

Breaking laws by corrupting people with illegal bribes is a moral as well as a legal issue. If the law is immoral and unjust the remedy is to change the law. Not go around it. If you do that you are part of the problem, not the solution.

"Nobody cares about morals" ?????? Are you the self appointed community spokesperson? I think if you look around the BY posts a lot of people care about them. Otherwise there is an uneven playing field. And they are right about getting ticked off when some schools continue to payoff or arrange/look the other way when others are doing it.

I mean, nobody in the sport cares about them. Sure lip service is paid, but people keep doing the same thing over and over again. The majority of schools and handlers are skirting the rules. It's not just a handful of outliers. Media is complicit as well.

If fans really cared, from a moral perspective, they'd stop watching the sport. But they don't. And given current climate, they'd be leaving in droves. But they aren't.

If you're a fan of mcbb, you have to accept the fact that you are supporting a dirty cesspool of graft and corruption.

 

[dennismenace]

I mean, nobody in the sport cares about them. Sure lip service is paid, but people keep doing the same thing over and over again. The majority of schools and handlers are skirting the rules. It's not just a handful of outliers. Media is complicit as well.

If fans really cared, from a moral perspective, they'd stop watching the sport. But they don't. And given current climate, they'd be leaving in droves. But they aren't.

If you're a fan of mcbb, you have to accept the fact that you are supporting a dirty cesspool of graft and corruption.

To some extent I can see what you are saying but I found it has really taken a lot out of the excitement of the game. I won't even watch a lot of teams that you refer to as dirty. There was a time when I was naive to it or perhaps it wasn't as bad. For better or worse I think the AAU thing has really had an affect on it. Reading a recent thread where some knowledgeable people on this board were saying that most HS BB teams do not prepare a kid for anything other than possibly D3 was pretty astonishing to me. I think that the programs who avoid being dirty and develop character in young people are giving them a fantastic life experience that is portable and builds a foundation for their future. It is one of the reasons I love Uconn and other schools who maintain integrity. Having 4 NC's without playing the dirty game is a testament to the whole program.

 

[CL82]

UConn won't feel it with recruits. UConn will feel it the next time it needs to hire a basketball coach. You can't fire someone for trumped-up chicken-**** ethics violations as an excuse to avoid paying a contractual fee and have it go unnoticed. Potential candidates are going to say "If they would do that to KO, they will do it to me." So UConn will either pay more, settle for lower quality, or offer a much more coach-friendly contract.

Umm... The charges were so “trumped up” and so “chicken[poop]” that the NCAA gave him a three-year show cause penalty. Does that seem a little logically inconsistent to you?

 

[jibsey]

Umm... The charges were so “trumped up” in so “chicken[poop]” that the NCAA gave him a three-year show cause penalty. Does that seem a little logically inconsistent to you?

We missed an NCAA tournament and lost scholarships for something far less than what North Carolina did for no penalty. The NCAA has no consistency or fairness for that matter. Even though KO broke rules are these terrible acts that warranty firing? Had Calhoun done things equal or worse? Some of our past players might actually know and see unfairness which is why they are so pissed. I'm no KO fan at this point but there are a lot of grey areas in crime and punishment.

 

[TJT]

I'm no KO fan at this point but there are a lot of grey areas in crime and punishment.

You may see a lot of grey but many others view it only from a black and white perspective.

 

[CL82]

Even though KO broke rules are these terrible acts that warranty firing?

Yes

Had Calhoun done things equal or worse?

Calhoun never received the NCAA's 3 year show cause penalty, so ... no.

 

[kemba]

Yes
Calhoun never received the NCAA's 3 year show cause penalty, so ... no.

And we all know how fair, reasonable, and consistent the NCAA's sense of justice is...

 

[CL82]

And we all know how fair, reasonable, and consistent the NCAA's sense of justice is...

Meh, it's an independent third party assessment of the severity of KO acts. That's the best that you can do. I'll be surprised if an arbiter views it any differently.

 

[Chief00]

The above is the critical post in this thread, everything else is window dressing. UConn has to prove by a preponderance of evidence that just one of the following is true:
1. Ollie neglected his responsibilities. I'm sure they have assembled plenty of evidence here.
2. Non-compliance with NCAA rules or regulations or the university code of ethics. We know they have this one.
4. Sexual harassment. There have been rumors of inappropriate Ollie behavior with at least one female student. I doubt UConn wants the bad blood this would bring, but if push comes to shove ...
5. Repeated, documented failure to meet generally accepted satisfactory standards of job performance. After the transfers, Benedict met with players and documented Ollie's failure to meet the generally accepted standard that a coach should retain his players. Then Benedict gave Ollie a documented warning and a year to shape up. Then we hear that at the end of his final season, a lot of players were contemplating leaving. I think UConn has this one covered.

So UConn has strong evidence on 3 points, possible evidence on a fourth, and only needs to prove one with a preponderance of evidence.

Ollie's odds of winning are very low here.

What happened to #3? As for #4, I think there’s no problematic relationship with a UConn student. Additionally, no sexual harassment like behavior (unwanted).

 

[HuskyHawk]

Meh, it's an independent third party assessment of the severity of KO acts. That's the best that you can do. I'll be surprised if an arbiter views it any differently.

I don't see how the arbiter could look at it otherwise. The contract says he has to comply with the rules of the NCAA and the NCAA says he didn't, and that he lied to them about it. The courts have been very clear that the NCAA is the final authority on their own rules.

In other words, you aren't entitled to complain about what they did in some other situation. It's no different than judges and juries reaching inconsistent verdicts on cases with similar fact patterns.

 

[UConnDad]

The entire timeline will be important and we don't know the entire story. Past practice will also be reviewed. If it's all or nothing I don't see it being nothing. A settlement in our lifetime would be appropriate.

 

[Deadrody]

Thread #500 on the Ollie termination, and the "pay him nothing" position continues to be based on the fact he was losing. I hope the university lawyers have something better.

Nonsense. The "pay him nothing" position is based on the NCAA banning him from coaching for 3 years for breaking NCAA rules. Ollie's position was at it's peak when UConn fired him. It is considerably worse today because of the NCAA investigation and ruling.

 

[Deadrody]

This is the 172nd post I've made in the three years I've been registered. Do the math. I am extremely selective about the subjects on which I choose to post. And if I choose to post, I guarantee you that I will have thought that post through.

I realize that counting unhatched chickens is more than just a common practice on the BY. It's a veritable art form. It doesn't however count as thinking. So perhaps you should set aside your knee-jerk reaction and ask yourself why the "Hurley came here, didn't he" argument might not be dispositive.

And yet, you still need to be MORE selective.