Calhoun Quotes on Hurley

[8893]

Are we sure this isn't your firm doing the representation? Your view seems to have drifted more KO's way since your self-imposed quasi ban on talking about this.

The language in KO's contract is very broad. Just cause includes, NCAA violations, violations of UConn interpretations, and not performing up to generally accepted standards, inappropriate interaction with a student among others. You've read the contract and the CBA so you get that. So doing a crappy job is just cause. That my recollection at least.

Nope not my doing, and your memory is off: I suggested exactly this view months ago, before KO even had legal counsel; and they have gone in a different direction with the due process and potential discrimination angle.

Look it up.

Sorry to have violated my self-ban; I can’t turn my little legal brain off and sometimes it likes to play.

I will try and keep it under wraps again so you and Mr. Ivy can go back to handling this and framing the narrative.

 

[huskysupporter]

I take it you don't mean "doing a crappy job" in terms of wins and losses counts? I remember reading the Pitino contract, which was very broad but was still limited to bad acts, not a bad W-L record.

Yes, I believe “just cause” would not cover poor performance. Has to be something egregious. (i.e. stealing equipment)

 

[Paesano]

Adults do. Take a nap.

Funny stuff coming from the guy that got ejected from a game.

 

[mauconnfan]

Funny stuff coming from the guy that got ejected from a game.

Take a poll and see what people think of his ejection. You will be on the short end of that one I promise. A little passion (and a couple cocktails) never hurt anyone.

 

[8893]

A little passion (and a couple cocktails) never hurt anyone.

Rick Pitino?

 

[mauconnfan]

Rick Pitino?

...add a blonde and an Italian restaurant

 

[jimva]

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.

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.

 

[jimva]

AD Benedict sold the Husky family goodwill for the chance at cutting KO's buy out. The chance to get Hurley was then or maybe never. He is a good fit and wanted to be here. So points to Benedict for that. We don't know how rare that is for a coach of this caliber.

AD will now shine light on anything that sticks to Ollie for money and i object to our AD stabbing his own program inn the back for any reason. Past players must feel this.

Hurley is in a tenuous place regarding the family and needs to keep some distance from Benedict. Calhoun is trying to help. Maybe he is even trying to get Ollie all his money and disprove the adage you can't have Hurley and not eat the money.

Nonsense

 

[dennismenace]

Yes. Exactly the image I have in mind. We’ve seen that movie before.

Wonder if Jack Nicholson studied the JC and Youtube videos with "testy reporters".

 

[CL82]

I take it you don't mean "doing a crappy job" in terms of wins and losses counts? I remember reading the Pitino contract, which was very broad but was still limited to bad acts, not a bad W-L record.

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:

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

 

[CL82]

Nope not my doing, and your memory is off: I suggested exactly this view months ago, before KO even had legal counsel; and they have gone in a different direction with the due process and potential discrimination angle.

Look it up.

Sorry to have violated my self-ban; I can’t turn my little legal brain off and sometimes it likes to play.

I will try and keep it under wraps again so you and Mr. Ivy can go back to handling this and framing the narrative.

Lol, oh by all means, chime in. You know that I actually asked for your opinion on the procedural issues KO's legal team raised like the sufficiency of the Loudermill hearing, which I think can be pretty informal.

I suspect that you won't address that and will just do a periodic drive by comment, which is fine.

 

[Pgh2Storrs]

I love Jim Calhoun.

That is all.

 

[CL82]

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.

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:

Discharge for just cause terminates the obligations under the agreement.

 

[8893]

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 know what Pitino's contract said. I remember scanning the language you've highlighted above when I looked at the CBA a few months ago and wondering whether that was invoked here. I still don't know what has been cited as just cause by the University, but I had been going on the widely-reported suggestion that it was relying on the allegedly self-reported NCAA violations and was not using the job performance language. I know you have advocated for more of a shotgun approach, including alleged relationships with students and the like, which you have referenced above, and which your co-counsel Chief seems to suggest as well. I don't know which approach they have taken, but that would obviously affect KO's response.

As for the administrative law/Laudermill issues, I don't know. They might have legs, and perhaps Chief is right that that is part of the drag-it-out-while-getting-paid strategy. As I've said, it would not have been my first angle, but that's more of my bias because I've never really loved admin law issues; the standards are too mushy and it all seems like a smoke screen with after-the-fact justifications when I read the cases.

I'm sorry for the drive-by comment; I just like unpopular causes and novel legal theories and remain genuinely curious about the one I've suggested, but I suspect it will remain a curiosity because I haven't seen it suggested elsewhere. And that may very well be because you, Chief and Ivy are correct that there is a mountain of documented just cause that KO is ill-equipped to fight.

And now you've made me bored with the armchair lawyering again. Back to the paying gig.

 

[CL82]

I don't know what Pitino's contract said. I remember scanning the language you've highlighted above when I looked at the CBA a few months ago and wondering whether that was invoked here. I still don't know what has been cited as just cause by the University, but I had been going on the widely-reported suggestion that it was relying on the allegedly self-reported NCAA violations and was not using the job performance language. I know you have advocated for more of a shotgun approach, including alleged relationships with students and the like, which you have referenced above, and which your co-counsel Chief seems to suggest as well. I don't know which approach they have taken, but that would obviously affect KO's response.

As for the administrative law/Laudermill issues, I don't know. They might have legs, and perhaps Chief is right that that is part of the drag-it-out-while-getting-paid strategy. As I've said, it would not have been my first angle, but that's more of my bias because I've never really loved admin law issues; the standards are too mushy and it all seems like a smoke screen with after-the-fact justifications when I read the cases.

I'm sorry for the drive-by comment; I just like unpopular causes and novel legal theories and remain genuinely curious about the one I've suggested, but I suspect it will remain a curiosity because I haven't seen it suggested elsewhere. And that may very well be because you, Chief and Ivy are correct that there is a mountain of documented just cause that KO is ill-equipped to fight.

And now you've made me bored with the armchair lawyering again. Back to the paying gig.

I won't look it up now but somewhere, probably the CBA, it provides for pay in lieu of notice. I think the notice is 180 days, so KO is getting paid regardless. (Here's a question for you, does this clause undercut the procedural argument because the contract provides for a specific remedy for it?)

Outside counsel went with the 14th Amendment arguments because the union was handling termination proceedings under the CBA. They specifically excluded that in their letter to UConn.

KO's personnel file will dictate the approach that the school uses. I don't know that I'd call it "shotgun" but listing all the alternative reasons for reasons for discharge makes sense. Most people don't get discharged for a single act. The same is true for KO. But the contract is clear that termination for just cause, which can be a lot things, as shown above, terminates the schools obligations under the contract.

A just cause dismal is an event that triggers termination.

 

[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.