Breaking news regarding KO on espn

[CL82]

The Stan Simpson Show: UConn vs. Kevin Ollie

Anyone watch this and want to summarize?

Watched a bit of the last one. Simpson asked the attorney given the NCAA allegations what is your settlement position. The attorney say $5M over a number of years. That's crazy. Maybe this is worth that on day one if KO makes nice and walks away quietly, but not now. (I think that was high even then, but not all that high.)

FWIW, I've talked about my view that KO's representation really misplayed this thing with the media releases and FOIA request (and especially releasing that to the media) but I also think that UConn representation made a huge tactical error in their announcement that they were firing KO for just cause. There's no need to say that publicly. Just announce that you are firing him. It may not have mattered, but it might have contributed to KO being on the defensive from day one. I recognize that both comments are Sunday morning quarterbacking though.

 

[Storrs South]

Anyone watch this and want to summarize?

Watched a bit of the last one. Simpson asked the attorney given the NCAA allegations what is your settlement position. The attorney say $5M over a number of years. That's crazy. Maybe this is worth that on day one if KO makes nice and walks away quietly, but not now. (I think that was high even then, but not all that high.)

FWIW, I've talked about my view that KO's representation really misplayed this thing with the media releases and FOIA request (and especially releasing that to the media) but I also think that UConn representation made a huge tactical error in their announcement that they were firing KO for just cause. There's not need to that publicly. Just announce that you are firing him. It may not have matter, but it might have contributed to KO being on the defensive from day one. I recognize that both comments are Sunday morning quarterbacking though.

Amore said a couple times that now KO is losing in the court of public opinion based on recent findings by NCAA, attorney said it is not a slam dunk UConn wins every with recent findings. They can still settle, they can even bring in a mediator to give a non-binding ruling before going to an arbitration (which is binding). Talked about what context the arbiter would and would not take into account. Noted that UConn did include KO dishonesty in notice of termination, which is consistent with NCAA. The attorney again made the laughable comment that of course the NCAA is going to side with UConn (someone doesn't pay attention to college sports).

The whole time it felt like they were trying to make something seem closer to 50/50 than it actually is, then again I'm not an attorney so maybe it isn't a slam dunk for UConn even with the NCAA sending out the Notice of Allegations that cites KO for lying and misleading the university and NCAA.

 

[huskymedic]

...but I also think that UConn representation made a huge tactical error in their announcement that they were firing KO for just cause. There's no need to say that publicly. Just announce that you are firing him.

They had to set the narrative from the beginning and you know deep down that just announcing he was terminated would be followed by "So are you paying him the remaining money owed per contract". No dancing around that answer.

 

[CL82]

They had to set the narrative from the beginning and you know deep down that just announcing he was terminated would be followed by "So are you paying him the remaining money owed per contract". No dancing around that answer.

I'm not sure that they did have to set to narrative. My answer to that question would be "The University of Connecticut doesn't answer questions about ongoing personnel negotiations. Once the issue is resolved a statement will be issued."

 

[BlueMAB]

I'm not sure that they did have to set to narrative. My answer to that question would be "The University of Connecticut doesn't answer questions about ongoing personnel negotiations. Once the issue is resolved a statement will be issued."

I thought there were no negotiations? The school fired him, and had no intention of paying him, so why introduce the idea that you're negotiating a settlement when you aren't? Do we know they were negotiating a buy-out? Also, I think the tougher stance on KO helps us with the NCAA.

 

[huskymedic]

I'm not sure that they did have to set to narrative. My answer to that question would be "The University of Connecticut doesn't answer questions about ongoing personnel negotiations. Once the issue is resolved a statement will be issued."

... Why would you set the tone and publicly tell folks that maybe you aren't sure about your case and that you are negotiating? The Union and Ollie's team would have immediately gone public that Ollie was unjustly terminated. There was no tactical disadvantage to UConn by saying Ollie screwed up, they had the goods and he was being terminated for cause.

 

[CL82]

I thought there were no negotiations? The school fired him, and had no intention of paying him, so why introduce the idea that you're negotiating a settlement when you aren't? Do we know they were negotiating a buy-out? Also, I think the tougher stance on KO helps us with the NCAA.

Do we know it? I'm going with no. Did they happen, almost certainly. Maybe someone else has a better recollection than I do.

Agree with your point on the NCAA.

 

[CL82]

... Why would you set the tone and publicly tell folks that maybe you aren't sure about your case and that you are negotiating? The Union and Ollie's team would have immediately gone public that Ollie was unjustly terminated. There was no tactical disadvantage to UConn by saying Ollie screwed up, they had the goods and he was being terminated for cause.

Uh because there is zero utility in being a hardass about it? The tactical advantage is it takes away any argument from KO that UConn damage his reputation. Not that I think he'd prevail.

I'd agree to changing "negotiations" to "matters" though. It's better wording.

 

[WallStreetHusky]

I thought there were no negotiations? The school fired him, and had no intention of paying him, so why introduce the idea that you're negotiating a settlement when you aren't? Do we know they were negotiating a buy-out? Also, I think the tougher stance on KO helps us with the NCAA.

I agree that I don't think there are any negotiations. I think this is a case of Ollies lawyers trying to, again, influence this through the press. If you are the university, why the heck would you negotiate against yourself? Ollie has been exposed, he has nuthin'. Why would you negotiate with someone who has no cards? It takes two willing parties to negotiate. I would just keep smiling and tell them I will see them in front of the arbitrator. Other than a minor nuisance value to the case, I don't see him getting a sniff near $5m. He will be lucky to get $1m. This game is over, Ollie is just going through the motions. He has no other choice, his Hail Mary didn't even hit the backboard. This will get "settled" before it goes to the arbitrator. The school will pay a pittance, the settlement will be agreed to be confidential (subject to whatever union regs there are), to save Ollie the humiliation.

 

[BlueMAB]

Uh because there is zero utility in being a hardass about it? The tactical advantage is it takes away any argument from KO that UConn damage his reputation. Not that I think he'd prevail.

I'd agree to changing "negotiations" to "matters" though. It's better wording.

There is some utility when you're setting the tone for the NCAA that it was for cause, not performance.

 

[CL82]

There is some utility when you're setting the tone for the NCAA that it was for cause, not performance.

Would it make more sense to that via his termination letter, which you could make available to the NCAA?

 

[BlueMAB]

Would it make more sense to that via his termination letter, which you could make available to the NCAA?

Why is it either/or instead of both?

 

[CL82]

Why is it either/or instead of both?

Because both ways notify the NCAA but one gives a better likelihood of working with KO for a quiet resolution.

 

[BlueMAB]

Because both ways notify the NCAA but one gives a better likelihood of working with KO for a quiet resolution.

Okay I get where you're coming from. I think UConn has no intention of paying and never did, quiet resolution or not. I think they only way they pay is if they lose in binding arbitration. I think they were far more concerned about the NCAA, and they should be.

 

[CL82]

Okay I get where you're coming from. I think UConn has no intention of paying and never did, quiet resolution or not. I think they only way they pay is if they lose in binding arbitration. I think they were far more concerned about the NCAA, and they should be.

That's possible but I'd be surprised if UConn's attorney's didn't have a settlement mark. There is value in doing this quietly, it just isn't $10M.

 

[Chief00]

I'm not sure that they did have to set to narrative. My answer to that question would be "The University of Connecticut doesn't answer questions about ongoing personnel negotiations. Once the issue is resolved a statement will be issued."

The less personnel matters play out in public usually the best for all involved.