Calhoun Quotes on Hurley

[8893]

KO's personnel file will dictate the approach that the school uses.

I agree that it should. It would be interesting to see how well--or not--they have papered it.

 

[champs99and04]

This is a great precedent. Go back and read his contract. He can be fired for cause for "underperformance" and not rectifying it, as long as it was brought up as part of his annual review. Just like any other person out there! NCAA violations dont have to have anything to do with his being fired for cause. I think the bigger message to all coaches is that if you don.t get the job done, you wont get the big payouts when you are fired. This is a great message that will be well received by the general public.

Unless Ollie's agent was 11-years-old, the contract would not make that possible in any way, shape, or form. If the buyout can be waived for poor performance, that would, you know, defeat the purpose of the buyout. This is 100% about the NCAA or something similar. We don't know what the NCAA investigation found, but the idea that the school could benefit from that investigation is very unsettling and something people should be talking about more. I know this because I was 0% surprised when an investigation suddenly appeared out of the blue when UConn needed to come up with the money to hire a new coach. This board can do all the mental gymnastics they'd like but it's pretty clear the school was in the wrong here. I'd be upset if I were a student or alum.

 

[Hoophound]

Unless Ollie's agent was 11-years-old, the contract would not make that possible in any way, shape, or form. If the buyout can be waived for poor performance, that would, you know, defeat the purpose of the buyout. This is 100% about the NCAA or something similar. We don't know what the NCAA investigation found, but the idea that the school could benefit from that investigation is very unsettling and something people should be talking about more. I know this because I was 0% surprised when an investigation suddenly appeared out of the blue when UConn needed to come up with the money to hire a new coach. This board can do all the mental gymnastics they'd like but it's pretty clear the school was in the wrong here. I'd be upset if I were a student or alum.

The only reason to be upset by this would be if we now couldn’t hire a good coach because of it. Apparently, Hurley, his agent, his wife, his assistants and most fans are perfectly fine with it. That leads me to believe that the explanation given to the Hurley group was satisfactory and that the the fans believe KO screwed up.

Remember, there is purportedly plenty of other ammo to fire KO with that you are giving absolutely no weight to because they are “unsubstantiated rumors”. Dave Benedict knows a lot about those rumors and they weigh in here too, I’m pretty sure. Your opinion is coming from outside the “courtroom”, we aren’t exactly sure what’s being talked about inside.

 

[HooperScooper]

"But like anything else, change was needed, and we made a change."
I like the use of "we."

Funny that in the Journal Inquirer article it says "they".

“Kevin’s my guy. I’ll continue to say that,” Calhoun said. “But like anything else, change was needed and they made a change. I wish him the best of luck. I’m sure he’ll do well, and Danny’s going to do a great job.”

Calhoun finds himself welcome with Hurley in charge in Storrs

 

[HuskyHawk]

Chief is now revealing what will happen if KO’s legal team’s plan works.

Could we end this silly argument about not being able to find cause? Cause as it relates to the personal employment contract is overwhelming. KO’s team is not actually sincerely disputing it.
Their game plan is to win the employee/labor friendly CBA arbitration by process arguments - get KO reinstated as “head coach” continuing with pay and the contract cause stuff is academic because he will be mostly fully paid before the legal journey takes him to a trial - which will never happen.

Their strategy is to run out the clock not to dispute cause. Every month this goes on, KO has $275,000 more in his pocket before taxes. He has already made $550,000 since he was fired and we are in the early innings.

I find it astonishing that Chief is one of the few people who gets this. Ollie isn't even contesting cause. He's raised a Constitutional Due Process argument that they had to have the hearing before firing him.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Unless Ollie's agent was 11-years-old, the contract would not make that possible in any way, shape, or form. If the buyout can be waived for poor performance, that would, you know, defeat the purpose of the buyout. This is 100% about the NCAA or something similar. We don't know what the NCAA investigation found, but the idea that the school could benefit from that investigation is very unsettling and something people should be talking about more. I know this because I was 0% surprised when an investigation suddenly appeared out of the blue when UConn needed to come up with the money to hire a new coach. This board can do all the mental gymnastics they'd like but it's pretty clear the school was in the wrong here. I'd be upset if I were a student or alum.

That is a completely unfounded assumption. Neither Benedict or UConn has ever said that an NCAA violation has anything to do with their "cause" for firing Ollie. So many people here keep spouting that line as if it is some proven fact. There are dozens of things that could be cause. I don't want to speculate here, but given his alleged behavior, it wouldn't be difficult to think of a few. Not to mention that as @CL82 has shown with the contract language, being bad at his job, as a coach, can also be cause. Maybe you think his agent was an 11 year old, but it is written there in black and white. I don't think any employer would sign any contract where they couldn't fire a terrible employee for just being very bad at their job, and neglecting their duties.

The school is not in the wrong in any way for not wanting to pay a guy who they fired because he stunk, for the years in which he won't have to do any work or coach the team. How is that wrong? Ollie isn't going to have to work for UConn and they don't have to pay him. That's the definition of fair.

 

[jcp33]

As far as I’m concerned Calhoun should be able to do whatever he wants on that campus. Practices, workouts, team meetings, or enter any facility whenever he wants. For what he’s done for this program it’s the very least of what he deserves. It nice to see that Hurley understands that, and it’s fantastic that he’s seemingly involved with the program once again.

 

[freescooter]

Am I the only one who sees how remarkably problematic this is and how dangerous a precedent it sets? Put your thoughts on Ollie to the side for a second and realize that money is literally being put before the reputation of the program and the school, or at the very least configured in such a way as to suggest a conflict of interest.

You're essentially using a neutral party - the NCAA - as an unpaid prosecution team to extort money from an employee. And calling them neutral would be generous when they have every incentive to restore the credibility of a traditional money maker.

Oh man what a crock. You know how much damage this is doing to the programs reputation? About as much as it did to Florida’s when it fired its football coach or Pitt’s when it fired its hoop coach. Get a friggin’ grip. Ollie wasn’t some administrative assistant making 30,000/year. He was highly paid to do a job and that job included on court and off court matters including following NCAA rules and insuring his staff and players did too. If he had gone to the final 4 3 of the last 4 years would UConn have overlooked or imposed a lesser penalty? Most likely they would have. UL overlooked their coach acting as a pimp. But just because you don’t fire a coach doesn’t mean you can’t if he violates his contract.

But st the end of the day, the only damagebto the program was that done by Ollie.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

As far as I’m concerned Calhoun should be able to do whatever he wants on that campus. Practices, workouts, team meetings, or enter any facility whenever he wants. For what he’s done for this program it’s the very least of what he deserves. It nice to see that Hurley understands that, and it’s fantastic that he’s seemingly involved with the program once again.

As is often the case, I had to refresh my memory on the title of this thread, in order to see if this was a relevant comment.

 

[jimva]

NCAA violations are just cause, they just aren't the only one. Here is the language form Ollie's contract that augments the language above:

View attachment 31422

Discharge for just cause terminates the obligations under the agreement.

This is what i am referring to. That reality is that the presence of NCAA violations, or not, are most likely irrelevant to the case of dismissing for cause.

 

[jimva]

Unless Ollie's agent was 11-years-old, the contract would not make that possible in any way, shape, or form. If the buyout can be waived for poor performance, that would, you know, defeat the purpose of the buyout. This is 100% about the NCAA or something similar. We don't know what the NCAA investigation found, but the idea that the school could benefit from that investigation is very unsettling and something people should be talking about more. I know this because I was 0% surprised when an investigation suddenly appeared out of the blue when UConn needed to come up with the money to hire a new coach. This board can do all the mental gymnastics they'd like but it's pretty clear the school was in the wrong here. I'd be upset if I were a student or alum.

Look at CL82 post which has relevant language from contract. NCAA violations are most likely irrelevant.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Does anyone actually believe that KO was fired for an NCAA violation?

If what you're saying is "if KO were winning but the same NCAA violation occurred, would he have been fired?", the answer is clearly "no".

However, that doesn't matter. What matters is that he violated his contract, which was written to give the university all kinds of leeway in what constitutes "cause", and by virtue of doing a horrendous job gave the university reason to fire him.

So the blame is about 80% KO for being an atrocious coach and for violating the terms of the contract, and maybe 20% KO's lawyer who wrote a contract that was so easily exploitable by the university.

 

[nomar]

Take a look at the 8893's post that I replied to. He used the "crappy job" language. That is what I referenced. Have you read the CBA? There is job performance language in there. The highlighted language below would be 8893's "crappy job" clause:
View attachment 31420

Pitino's contract isn't relevant to Ollie's contract. 8893 knows that, his "like" of your post notwithstanding.

I assume that Ollie was a "tenured" member of the faculty?

This is a topic that would normally interest me (as I mentioned, I read Pitino's contract when he got canned), but I've really avoided it because it's depressing.

 

[CL82]

I assume that Ollie was a "tenured" member of the faculty?

This is a topic that would normally interest me (as I mentioned, I read Pitino's contract when he got canned), but I've really avoided it because it's depressing.

I wondered about that too. I think so.

 

[nomar]

I wondered about that too. I think so.

I seem to recall that some of his administrative rights (in terms of appeal) came from him being tenured. It would be ironic if that's what allows UConn to fire him for cause.

 

[Excalibur]

I find it astonishing that Chief is one of the few people who gets this. Ollie isn't even contesting cause. He's raised a Constitutional Due Process argument that they had to have the hearing before firing him.

He's doing both.

 

[huskymedic]

Take a look at the 8893's post that I replied to. He used the "crappy job" language. That is what I referenced. Have you read the CBA? There is job performance language in there. The highlighted language below would be 8893's "crappy job" clause:
View attachment 31420

Pitino's contract isn't relevant to Ollie's contract. 8893 knows that, his "like" of your post notwithstanding.

I don’t believe that is the correct Article/Just Cause language: you need to reference Article 37 (pg 50) which deals w/ the Coaches specifically - not tenured/tenured track faculty which Article 27 references.

UCONN-AAUP-CBA-07-01-17-06-30-17.pdf

 

[CL82]

I don’t believe that is the correct Article/Just Cause language: you need to reference Article 37 (pg 50) which deals w/ the Coaches specifically - not tenured/tenured track faculty which Article 27 references.

UCONN-AAUP-CBA-07-01-17-06-30-17.pdf

I think you’re right. I’m in a bad cell though so I can’t see. I’ll check tonight.

 

[champs99and04]

That is a completely unfounded assumption. Neither Benedict or UConn has ever said that an NCAA violation has anything to do with their "cause" for firing Ollie. So many people here keep spouting that line as if it is some proven fact. There are dozens of things that could be cause. I don't want to speculate here, but given his alleged behavior, it wouldn't be difficult to think of a few. Not to mention that as @CL82 has shown with the contract language, being bad at his job, as a coach, can also be cause. Maybe you think his agent was an 11 year old, but it is written there in black and white. I don't think any employer would sign any contract where they couldn't fire a terrible employee for just being very bad at their job, and neglecting their duties.

The school is not in the wrong in any way for not wanting to pay a guy who they fired because he stunk, for the years in which he won't have to do any work or coach the team. How is that wrong? Ollie isn't going to have to work for UConn and they don't have to pay him. That's the definition of fair.

So you expect me to believe that the NCAA investigation is just completely coincidental and that the school's decision to fire him with cause has nothing to do with compliance? What is the reason then? Nobody is contesting their right to fire Ollie. He had done a poor job over a significant period of time. That's very different from side-stepping a buyout that everyone paying attention to the program knew was the single biggest factor in the case to bring him back.

Nobody is suggesting the school is wrong for not wanting to pay him, but if you're UConn this is a "that's life" moment where maybe you regret the way you negotiated the contract, swallow the buyout, and move on. If they're applying just cause because he violated a workout protocol or something then that's even more petty. Perhaps something comes out that's more egregious concerning his neglecting the fundamental responsibilities of the job, but until then there is no choice but to concede that UConn does not have a case.

 

[August_West]

I’m going to talk to the judge about a writ of habeus corpus. I’ll put the whole system on trial.

 

[champs99and04]

Oh man what a crock. You know how much damage this is doing to the programs reputation? About as much as it did to Florida’s when it fired its football coach or Pitt’s when it fired its hoop coach. Get a friggin’ grip. Ollie wasn’t some administrative assistant making 30,000/year. He was highly paid to do a job and that job included on court and off court matters including following NCAA rules and insuring his staff and players did too. If he had gone to the final 4 3 of the last 4 years would UConn have overlooked or imposed a lesser penalty? Most likely they would have. UL overlooked their coach acting as a pimp. But just because you don’t fire a coach doesn’t mean you can’t if he violates his contract.

But st the end of the day, the only damagebto the program was that done by Ollie.

Ollie's salary is completely irrelevant to the discussion and while I suspect you're not the only person to get hung up on it, it really goes to show how people allow their emotions to seep into something that needs to be evaluated from a distance.

The fact that the investigation hasn't damaged the program is exactly the point. If it had, the loss in revenue would come out of somebody other than Ollie's bank account. It's the enduring hypocrisy of the NCAA - impose rules that selectively enforce the pretense of fairness without disrupting the revenue stream. If Ollie violated rules, it should come out of the pocket of the school, otherwise no school ever has any incentive to follow them. The Louisville situation is perfect. Let me know when the NCAA returns the revenue from the games they vacated.

 

[champs99and04]

If what you're saying is "if KO were winning but the same NCAA violation occurred, would he have been fired?", the answer is clearly "no".

However, that doesn't matter. What matters is that he violated his contract, which was written to give the university all kinds of leeway in what constitutes "cause", and by virtue of doing a horrendous job gave the university reason to fire him.

So the blame is about 80% KO for being an atrocious coach and for violating the terms of the contract, and maybe 20% KO's lawyer who wrote a contract that was so easily exploitable by the university.

And this take is exactly why the NCAA exists.

 

[CL82]

I don’t believe that is the correct Article/Just Cause language: you need to reference Article 37 (pg 50) which deals w/ the Coaches specifically - not tenured/tenured track faculty which Article 27 references.

UCONN-AAUP-CBA-07-01-17-06-30-17.pdf

So here is that language I mentioned that provides for pay in lieu of notice:

 

[huskymedic]

If Ollie violated rules, it should come out of the pocket of the school, otherwise no school ever has any incentive to follow them. The Louisville situation is perfect. Let me know when the NCAA returns the revenue from the games they vacated.

Not sure what you mean by the highlighted sentence but Louisville has to return to the NCAA 4 years of conference/tournament revenue they received through revenue sharing and tournament shares ?

 

[CL82]

And here is just cause definition:

This is supplemented by KO's contract (NCAA violation language.)