Change Ad Consent
Do not sell my data
Reply to thread | The Boneyard
Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Chat
UConn Football Chat
UConn Men's Basketball
UConn Women's Basketball
Media
The Uconn Blog
Verbal Commits
This is UConn Country
Field of 68
CT Scoreboard Podcasts
A Dime Back
Sliders and Curveballs Podcast
Storrs Central
Men's Basketball
News
Roster
Schedule
Standings
Women's Basketball
News
Roster
Schedule
Standings
Football
News
Roster
Depth Chart
Schedule
Football Recruiting
Offers
Commits
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
UConn Athletics
UConn Men's Basketball Forum
Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Chuck, post: 3242793, member: 1646"] I would think it's a victory for Ollie, but either way, "just cause" had to be defined somehow and the definition in the contract above doesn't seem unreasonable. That could be why the arbitrator ruled that way (so as not not to be overruled). It's not like it limited "just cause" to killing someone. It specifically referenced "serious noncompliance with NCAA rules or regulations." UConn definitely seems to have some good evidence that Ollie committed "serious noncompliance" considering the NCAA's findings. And the noncompliance was committed at the time of the violation, not at the time of the NCAA findings. Also, being an undefined term, it's arguable that the NCAA's findings, alone, show the noncompliance was serious. It doesn't matter if the NCAA was right or wrong, or if UConn fought the NCAA hard enough. KO gave UConn just cause by taking the actions (or omissions) in question. We lost a scholarship and are on probation due to KO's actions or omissions, which means they were serious. KO was clearly in a better position prior to the NCAA findings. He had the argument that they violations weren't true OR they weren't serious. I guess he can still say they weren't true, but that's tough. I'd think that KO's only defenses are: i) UConn fired him before the violations were known to be true/serious and he should have been suspended (with pay) until that time. ii) UConn deliberately rolled over and let the NCAA do what they wanted just to benefit UConn. That still doesn't mean that KO's actions don't represent serious noncompliance, just that UConn would have to prove it again. iii) JC committed the same/similar level of noncompliance and wasn't fired so the violations must not be serious. iv) even if the violations were serious, JC not being fired shows that the reason KO was fired was performance NOT for cause. That shouldn't matter, but it may being a union contract, plus they are just going for the "looks bad" factor. [/QUOTE]
Verification
First name of men's bb coach
Post reply
Forums
UConn Athletics
UConn Men's Basketball Forum
Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Bottom