Bob Huggins says he never resigned, wants reinstatement | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Bob Huggins says he never resigned, wants reinstatement

"...mistake..."!? Alcoholics are hilarious (I get to say that...I've got 30 years sober "by the grace of God" as we say). Actually it's sad. Booze and drugs do not discriminate. AA rooms are filled with millionaires and laborers, high achievers and low achievers and everything in between. The chances of a normal healthy productive life for him are slim at best. I wish him God speed.
 
Sick Puppy said:
"...mistake..."!? Alcoholics are hilarious (I get to say that...I've got 30 years sober "by the grace of God" as we say). Actually it's sad. Booze and drugs do not discriminate. AA rooms are filled with millionaires and laborers, high achievers and low achievers and everything in between. The chances of a normal healthy productive life for him are slim at best. I wish him God speed.
Expand ...
30 years? I thought you were younger than you apparently are. Congratulations on your sustained sobriety.
 
any of our lawyer friends care to chime in? Does he have any chance of pulling off the KO miracle or is he done?
 
huskiesNhoos said:
any of our lawyer friends care to chime in? Does he have any chance of pulling off the KO miracle or is he done?
Expand ...
Not a lawyer but that letter essentials says “hi, deek measuring contest, here’s mine. What kind of second place prize are you looking for?”
 
huskypantz said:
Not a lawyer but that letter essentials says “hi, deek measuring contest, here’s mine. What kind of second place prize are you looking for?”
Expand ...
Is he in a union? Ollie really only won because he was in the union (which is absurd) that represents professors.
 
.-.
huskiesNhoos said:
any of our lawyer friends care to chime in? Does he have any chance of pulling off the KO miracle or is he done?
Expand ...
Guessing if they didn’t get a letter signed by Huggins or an email directly from his account the University may have jumped the gun here. But definitely gonna be interesting to watch this one play out.
 
The university's response provides evidence of multiple written and verbal acknowledgements of the resignation. And it is very clear they don't want him back under any circumstances. Given that they are paying him there's really nothing more for Huggins to do or try. He's done.
 
huskiesNhoos said:
any of our lawyer friends care to chime in? Does he have any chance of pulling off the KO miracle or is he done?
Expand ...

According to WVU, the “University accommodated with Huggins to send the message from his wife’s account because Huggins doesn’t know how to use email.”

He also cleaned out his desk the next day. That’s what we call ratification.

As others have said, he probably got a new lawyer who found out Huggins didn’t sign the letter and thought maybe they could use that to shake down WVU. But Huggins was probably too stupid to tell the lawyer all of the facts.

I haven’t read much about his contract but they probably could’ve fired him for cause and, unlike KO, he’d have no argument that it was pretext. They bent over backwards to keep him after the homophobic stuff.
 
temery said:
I think he got that with his resignation.
Expand ...

I don’t think we know what he got. Perhaps it was negotiated downward. His salary was $3.15M.
 
.-.
Dogdeacon said:
The university's response provides evidence of multiple written and verbal acknowledgements of the resignation. And it is very clear they don't want him back under any circumstances. Given that they are paying him there's really nothing more for Huggins to do or try. He's done.
Expand ...
Yeah. His best bet is to hope for the Liberty job if they crash and burn in the AAC.
 
nomar said:
According to WVU, the “University accommodated with Huggins to send the message from his wife’s account because Huggins doesn’t know how to use email.”

He also cleaned out his desk the next day. That’s what we call ratification.

As others have said, he probably got a new lawyer who found out Huggins didn’t sign the letter and thought maybe they could use that to shake down WVU. But Huggins was probably too stupid to tell the lawyer all of the facts.

I haven’t read much about his contract but they probably could’ve fired him for cause and, unlike KO, he’d have no argument that it was pretext. They bent over backwards to keep him after the homophobic stuff.
Expand ...
They have email in West Virginia??

I kid, I kid
 
nomar said:
According to WVU, the “University accommodated with Huggins to send the message from his wife’s account because Huggins doesn’t know how to use email.”

He also cleaned out his desk the next day. That’s what we call ratification.

As others have said, he probably got a new lawyer who found out Huggins didn’t sign the letter and thought maybe they could use that to shake down WVU. But Huggins was probably too stupid to tell the lawyer all of the facts.

I haven’t read much about his contract but they probably could’ve fired him for cause and, unlike KO, he’d have no argument that it was pretext. They bent over backwards to keep him after the homophobic stuff.
Expand ...
I really believe that not knowing how to use email should disqualify you from essentially all forms of employment. That's a red flag if ever I saw one.
 
nomar said:
If as UConn coach KO used the slurs Huggy used and then followed that up with a DUI, he and his lawyers would have $11M less than they do now.
Expand ...
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. It's been a while since I looked at the collective bargaining agreement, but I'm not confident that either of those meet the undefined standard of "serious" breach of contract.
 
.-.
Huggy has a lawyer named Rocky? This sounds like some bad '70s cop show.

Just take the retirement man. Based on what I've seen recently it's pretty hard not to find work eventually if you want it no matter how terrible you've been.
 
If his team, recruits, students and alumni want him back, he'll be back. It has nothing to do with the law or contracts or WVU administration...
 
wingsfan055 said:
If his team, recruits, students and alumni want him back, he'll be back. It has nothing to do with the law or contracts or WVU administration...
Expand ...
They don't. He won't.
 
CL82 said:
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. It's been a while since I looked at the collective bargaining agreement, but I'm not confident that either of those meet the undefined standard of "serious" breach of contract.
Expand ...

Drunk driving constitutes “serious misconduct,” which is the term in the CBA that Ollie relied on.

Bigotry can also be a basis for termination based on “serious misconduct.”
 
nomar said:
Drunk driving constitutes “serious misconduct,” which is the term in the CBA that Ollie relied on.

Bigotry can also be a basis for termination based on “serious misconduct.”
Expand ...
Does drunk driving constitute serious misconduct under the collective bargaining agreement, particularly if it was done on private time? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if it's not expressly in the CBA the union will fight it. Same thing with an off color comment made off-campus rather than specific acts on campus.

Notes and I'm not defending or justifying either, but if acts that were done directly during KO's job that cost players game eligibility, put the school won probation and got kevin a three-year show cause penalty weren't considered "serious" by the arbitrator, it's not entirely clear to me what would be considered serious.
 
Last edited:
.-.
CL82 said:
Does drunk driving constitute serious misconduct under the collective bargaining agreement, particularly if it was done on private time? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if it's not expressly in the CBA the union will fight it. Same thing with an off color comment made off-campus rather than specific acts on campus.

Notes and I'm not defending or justifying either, but if acts that were done directly during KO's job that cost players game eligibility, put the school won probation and got kevin a three-year show cause penalty weren't considered "serious" by the arbitrator, it's not entirely clear to me what would be considered serious.
Expand ...

The basis for the arbitrator’s ruling, whether expressed or not, was that the stated reason for his termination was pretextual. Which we all know it was. So I wouldn’t look to KO’s case as an instructive example of what constitutes serious misconduct under the CBA.

Bringing embarrassment on your public employer is often grounds for legitimate termination, per the contractual terms.

It’s never black and white, and if there’s any daylight (or none at all) the union will fight it, I totally agree.
 
nomar said:
The basis for the arbitrator’s ruling, whether expressed or not, was that the stated reason for his termination was pretextual. Which we all know it was. So I wouldn’t look to KO’s case as an instructive example of what constitutes serious misconduct under the CBA.

Bringing embarrassment on your public employer is often grounds for legitimate termination, per the contractual terms.

It’s never black and white, and if there’s any daylight (or none at all) the union will fight it, I totally agree.
Expand ...
The basis for the arbitrator's ruling was that an individual employee and an employer cannot mutually agree to modify a collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator did not say that the context for dismissing Ollie was pretextual, rather he determined that the time for dismissal was premature. The arbitrator determined that Ollie's offenses were not serious until after the NCAA gave him a three year show cause ruling. If I recall correctly he expressly stated that had Connecticut waited until after the ruling, then Ollie's ask would be considered "a serious breach" which is the relevant standard under the collective bargaining agreement.

Stop and think about what a bad ruling that is. The actually acts didn't change because of the ruling. They either constituted a serious breach, or they did not. The determination by a third-party that they were so significant that they merited kevin getting a show cause order speaks to frustration of purpose of the contract, or perhaps, Kevin's inability to perform his duties, but does not change the nature of his original acts.
 
After the apocalypse this guy is just going to be sitting on a rock in a barren hellscape arguing to no one about how the Ollie case was wrongly decided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,249
Messages
4,559,843
Members
10,448
Latest member
MillerLitEd


Top Bottom