Calhoun Quotes on Hurley

[8893]

Not in the least. No kidding Ollie was removed because he was bad at winning basketball games. Not one person associated with UConn would tell you otherwise. The difference is, he also failed to follow the rules, which was a contractual stipulation, and therefore fired for cause, as well as removed for being bad at coaching basketball.

The two things are separate and only a complete and utter simpleton would not be able to understand that. If Ollie's representation thinks they're going to make hay relying on people failing to make that distinction, he and they are in for a rude awakening.

It’s a legal theory. I don’t expect you to get it; the first day of Ollie’s tenure as our coach was one day too many for you, and you’ve been blinded by your emotions since.

Well, you actually didn’t even post for the first two seasons, when our success despite your hope for the opposite rendered you speechless.

Those were the days.

 

[Deadrody]

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.

What utter and complete nonsense. Seriously, how many times does this need to be explained to people ??

 

[Deadrody]

I love how its assumed that the guy with the history of public spats, beefs, and pettyness had zero to do with the JC-KO relationship going off the rails...

Wow, sometimes this place amazes me. You're really saying that the HOF, 3 time national championship coach, actually being paid by the university as a consultant, somehow needs to defer in ANY way, shape, or form, to a coach in his 5th season that was - literally - handpicked and placed in his job by that same HOF coach ? Are you seriously kidding me here ?

 

[Deadrody]

It’s a legal theory. I don’t expect you to get it; the first day of Ollie’s tenure as our coach was one day too many for you, and you’ve been blinded by your emotions since.

Well, you actually didn’t even post for the first two seasons, when our success despite your hope for the opposite rendered you speechless.

Those were the days.

Just stop. The notion that I have some kind of personal issue with Kevin Ollie or that I hoped he'd fail, let alone that you'd know this, is laughably stupid. I don't know how much sleuthing you did to see how much I did or didn't post in 2013 or 2014, but every single second you spent on that was vastly too much.

Clearly the imagined "personal investment" you think I had in Kevin Ollie's failure is a massive case of projection.

And, no, it's not a legal theory in any recognizable form. It's moronic.

 

[8893]

Just stop. The notion that I have some kind of personal issue with Kevin Ollie or that I hoped he'd fail, let alone that you'd know this, is laughably stupid. I don't know how much sleuthing you did to see how much I did or didn't post in 2013 or 2014, but every single second you spent on that was vastly too much.

Clearly the imagined "personal investment" you think I had in Kevin Ollie's failure is a massive case of projection.

And, no, it's not a legal theory in any recognizable form. It's moronic.

Breathe. It will be okay. There are some things you don’t understand. This is one of them.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Just stop. The notion that I have some kind of personal issue with Kevin Ollie or that I hoped he'd fail, let alone that you'd know this, is laughably stupid. I don't know how much sleuthing you did to see how much I did or didn't post in 2013 or 2014, but every single second you spent on that was vastly too much.

Clearly the imagined "personal investment" you think I had in Kevin Ollie's failure is a massive case of projection.

And, no, it's not a legal theory in any recognizable form. It's moronic.

You seem great.

 

[intlzncster]

Just stop. The notion that I have some kind of personal issue with Kevin Ollie or that I hoped he'd fail, let alone that you'd know this, is laughably stupid. I don't know how much sleuthing you did to see how much I did or didn't post in 2013 or 2014, but every single second you spent on that was vastly too much.

Clearly the imagined "personal investment" you think I had in Kevin Ollie's failure is a massive case of projection.

And, no, it's not a legal theory in any recognizable form. It's moronic.

No dog in all this, but If I'm head BB coach at a major program, and getting paid 3m per, I sure as !@#$ ain't gonna "defer" to anybody. If I'm going to be held accountable for the results of said program, I'm going to be making all the calls. I mean, JC retired; he gave up control to someone else so they could steer the ship. Nobody wants a backseat driver.

That said, I personally wouldn't have shut JC out. And he'd always be welcome.

 

[CL82]

Breathe. It will be okay. There are some things you don’t understand. This is one of them.

Or, maybe, he just didn't agree with your post that Calhoun proved the KO's attorney's case by JC saying that Ollie had to go?

I don't either, FWIW.

 

[8893]

Or, maybe, he just didn't agree with your post that Calhoun proved the KO's attorney's case by JC saying that Ollie had to go?

I don't either, FWIW.

Nope. Not what I said.

Long ago when I first explained the legal theory you said you thought it was an interesting take. It’s not something to agree or disagree with. It’s a potential strategy that depends on the facts.

We still don’t know the facts, or at least I don’t. But all I have said is that when you fire someone for one thing but say that you fired them for something else, that CAN give rise to legal claims stemming from pretext.

One of those claims is breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing, which would depend on other factors as well, such as what they knew, when they knew it and what they did about it. How they have treated others who are similarly situated could also play a factor.

I think the word “cause” implies that there was actually a causal relationship and he seems to agree that the cause was the poor performance, not the other things being cited.

I don’t know if it would be successful here but it is a valid legal theory.

Taking JC’s statement for what it suggested seemed to help confirm that he was fired for performance and that the decision was made long before the end of the season, that is all.

 

[Chief00]

I guess the question must be asked then, if firing KO at the end of the season for cause was bad timing after what 25 point loss would it have felt right? You have a lot to pick from.
How many KO defenders would have then said, you should not interrupt the continuity of a season with a disruptive firing. It falls in a category of you can’t win.

 

[8893]

I guess the question must be asked then, if firing KO at the end of the season for cause was bad timing after what 25 point loss would it have felt right? You have a lot to pick from.
How many KO defenders would have then said, you should not interrupt the continuity of a season with a disruptive firing. It falls in a category of you can’t win.

I'm not defending KO. I agreed he had to go. I'm interested in the legal stuff as sport because that's the way my mind works. Yes, there appear to have been lots of good potential reasons that he had to go, and you are correct that the end of the season makes sense for a number of practical reasons.

 

[Chief00]

I'm not defending KO. I agreed he had to go. I'm interested in the legal stuff as sport because that's the way my mind works. Yes, there appear to have been lots of good potential reasons that he had to go, and you are correct that the end of the season makes sense for a number of practical reasons.

The UConn union collective bargaining rules don’t really fit the $3 million a year head coach position.
Giving a coach 60 or 90 days warning in the middle of the season would have been loudly criticized as setting KO up to fail and sabotaging the successful Blaze recruiting.

 

[8893]

The UConn union collective bargaining rules don’t really fit the $3 million a year head coach position.

Agreed. But that's the way they drew it up.

 

[CL82]

Nope. Not what I said.

Long ago when I first explained the legal theory you said you thought it was an interesting take. It’s not something to agree or disagree with. It’s a potential strategy that depends on the facts.

We still don’t know the facts, or at least I don’t. But all I have said is that when you fire someone for one thing but say that you fired them for something else, that CAN give rise to legal claims stemming from pretext.

One of those claims is breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing, which would depend on other factors as well, such as what they knew, when they knew it and what they did about it. How they have treated others who are similarly situated could also play a factor.

I think the word “cause” implies that there was actually a causal relationship and he seems to agree that the cause was the poor performance, not the other things being cited.

I don’t know if it would be successful here but it is a valid legal theory.

Taking JC’s statement for what it suggested seemed to help confirm that he was fired for performance and that the decision was made long before the end of the season, that is all.

Not seeing it. JC didn't have direct hire/fire authority. He's just a guy expressing an opinion. Good post though.

(FWIW - The word "cause" isn't an undefined stand alone term subject to common usage interpretation. It is part of the phrase "just cause" which is specifically defined under the contract and has been discussed ad naseum.)

 

[8893]

View attachment 31541

Not seeing it. JC didn't have direct hire/fire authority. He's just a guy expressing an opinion. Good post though.

Your meme is 100% accurate.

As for the rest, I will leave it that I believe JC knows things that may be material to the dispute. I don't want to hypothesize further about what those things may be because I didn't like it when others hypothesized about what KO may or may not have done to warrant a just cause firing under the contract. Once suggested, hypotheticals have a way of taking on a life of their own here, and I don't desire to do that to any of our guys.

For me, this has become a debate team or moot court exercise taken too far. I used to love showing up and being assigned one side of an issue for one debate, and then having to take the other side in the next. You make the best arguments with what you have, but none of us knows what the operative facts really are here. It is fun for me as an exercise, but not so much fun when taken out of context, which is inevitable here--and not fair to the people involved imo.

 

[Chief00]

JC is always guilty as insinuated LOL!