Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="CL82, post: 3242797, member: 44"]
How is that ironic?  Aren't those two separate points?  1) KO was doing a bad job as coach.  2)[I] UConn[/I] had the right to fire him for cause under the contract.  The existence of one is not mutually exclusive of the other.

IIRC, KO's contract and/or the CBO provide a procedure for the discharge process.  Early on in the process (likely step 1 or 2) UConn had to provide KO with a list of the events that were the basis for just cause.  So the basis for the firing is 'etched in stone.'  UConn can't finesse the facts in light of the arbiter's ruling.

Again, IIRC, they included, several violations of NCAA rules, including illegally (in violation of NCAA rules) paying for illegal  travel, illegal meals and illegal lodging to attend illegal coaching sessions with an illegal coach.  There's more penny ante items as well (included no doubt to show a pattern of ignorance or ignoring of NCAA rules) but that it is the big ticket item.  In addition, UConn cites that KO failed to disclose that the violations had occurred when question by his employer.  Herbst ruling cited these same facts.  They are the same facts that the NCAA listed in ruling on KO.

I don't think it is as close a call as you do.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

First name of men's bb coach