Calhoun Quotes on Hurley

[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.)

 

[auggie22]

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.

I am drunk at a bar in RDU, this is probably the best laugh I have had all week. Thank you.

 

[willie99]

Don't think those words diminish the legal posturing at all

Change was needed does not imply just cause doesn't exist, it could be the very reason why change was needed

And I think the just cause argument is nothing more than a negotiated settlement

 

[intlzncster]

Lawyers on this board just loving this topic.

 

[8893]

Lawyers on this board just loving this topic.

Loving the job security, that’s for sure.

 

[champs99and04]

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 ?

I don't know much about the money other than that it doesn't go back to the paying customers. Whether it ends up in the hands of Louisville or the NCAA is besides the point; it's a business model that systematically encourages the breaking of rules. They know fans will continue to get caught up in the finger pointing of micro allegations while missing the overarching hypocrisy. In this case, the NCAA is protecting a business partner - the school - by claiming a false position of authority in order to exonerate them of a financial commitment, meanwhile screwing a coach that had been hurting business. And they don't have to do a single thing to communicate that mutual interest because we've given them that power.

People would heave at this sort of unchecked corruption if it didn't make it possible to hire a new basketball coach.

 

[TheChamps990411]

Wow. That's about as damning as I've ever heard Calhoun be of one of his guys.

Things must have gotten really bad between him and Ollie.

I literally cringed and said Yikes! aloud as i read that. I guess now we know why kids simply werent developing here under Ollie.

 

[Chief00]

He's doing both.

I used the words “KO’s team is not even SINCERELY disputing it (cause)”. Their game plan is to win the CBA arbitration processs argument then run out the clock as KO continues getting paid handsomely. as the case slowly journeys through the court system. KO will win the money game without ever having to win disputing cause as he gets effectively fully paid before the case ever gets to trial and therefore the trial never happens. It’s a moot point.

So IF KO wins the CBA arbitration process argument, he effectively wins the money despite never being able to win the refuting cause argument.

 

[MadDogRevival]

Loving the job security, that’s for sure.

Dude - I have work as long as people continue to make poor decisions.
Who you bettin' on? People stopping the bad decision making?
Lol. Sad but true.
I quote Jim Carrey in Liar Liar when asked by a client what to do after being arrested yet again for suspicion of some crime: "Stop breakin' the law!"

 

[selles]

In this case, the NCAA is protecting a business partner - the school - by claiming a false position of authority in order to exonerate them of a financial commitment, meanwhile screwing a coach that had been hurting business. And they don't have to do a single thing to communicate that mutual interest because we've given them that power.

People would heave at this sort of unchecked corruption if it didn't make it possible to hire a new basketball coach.

Unless you alleged the involvement of aliens, I don't think it would be possible to say anything more ridiculous on the subject than this.

 

[jimva]

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.

Read contract. Just cause could be as simple as follows:

2016 a bad year, with mass exodus at end of year. KO has annual review and is put on notice
2017 another bad year and recruiting doesn't look to be improving. UCONN basketball becoming irrelevant on national scene.

KO released for cause.

 

[fatlucy]

I used the words “KO’s team is not even SINCERELY disputing it (cause)”. Their game plan is to win the CBA arbitration processs argument then run out the clock as KO continues getting paid handsomely. as the case slowly journeys through the court system. KO will win the money game without ever having to win disputing cause as he gets effectively fully paid before the case ever gets to trial and therefore the trial never happens. It’s a moot point.

So IF KO wins the CBA arbitration process argument, he effectively wins the money despite never being able to win the refuting cause argument.

So if this plays out the way you describe, KO will be money grabbing his way out of "the family", at least in my eyes. If he genuinely was the great, dedicated, team first guy, he would admit to doing a crappy job and negotiate a settlement. In my book, and I've backed this up in my career multiple times when I've made mistakes, if you don't do your job as expected, you don't get paid, or you don't get paid as much. Between his deteriorating relationship with Calhoun and now the money grab, his true character may be showing.

 

[Stainmaster]

So if this plays out the way you describe, KO will be money grabbing his way out of "the family", at least in my eyes. If he genuinely was the great, dedicated, team first guy, he would admit to doing a crappy job and negotiate a settlement. In my book, and I've backed this up in my career multiple times when I've made mistakes, if you don't do your job as expected, you don't get paid, or you don't get paid as much. Between his deteriorating relationship with Calhoun and now the money grab, his true character may be showing.

KO’s not going to be able to get full-time employment anytime soon. Of course he’s chasing the money.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

That may be one of the causes they are claiming. There are probably several others. Possibly neglect of duties. Possibly other things...perhaps behavioral issues. Look at clause iv in the piece of the contract @CL82 posted. My guess is that they didn't put all of their eggs in one basket, and probably have several examples that could constitute "cause" under his contract.

Everybody but you, including Ollie's lawyers given his lawsuit, seem to think UConn has a case, and a very good case. Ollie doesn't raise that ridiculous lawsuit arguing a Constitutional due process violation unless he knows they have cause, and that he's likely to lose in arbitration.

 

[HuskyHawk]

He's doing both.

Yes, contesting cause in the hearings and eventual arbitration sure. But the lawsuit isn't about that. That's my point. And he doesn't file that lawsuit unless he's in bad shape in his attempt to dispute cause in the arbitration.

 

[CL82]

Read contract. Just cause could be as simple as follows:

2016 a bad year, with mass exodus at end of year. KO has annual review and is put on notice
2017 another bad year and recruiting doesn't look to be improving. UCONN basketball becoming irrelevant on national scene.

KO released for cause.

If UConn met the standards for documenting that and communicated it to KO, yep.

 

[Chief00]

So if this plays out the way you describe, KO will be money grabbing his way out of "the family", at least in my eyes. If he genuinely was the great, dedicated, team first guy, he would admit to doing a crappy job and negotiate a settlement. In my book, and I've backed this up in my career multiple times when I've made mistakes, if you don't do your job as expected, you don't get paid, or you don't get paid as much. Between his deteriorating relationship with Calhoun and now the money grab, his true character may be showing.

Chief not passing judgement in this thread - just delivering the information. It’s best not to get too emotional about legal disputes. The emotion may be justified but it’s usually not productive.

 

[8893]

I guess the reporters who have been covering this could be wrong, but I've seen this reported consistently in one form or another from the start:

The dispute began on March 10, two days after UConn finished its second consecutive losing season under Ollie and announced it was initiating disciplinary procedure to terminate his employment for “just cause.” The school cited an ongoing NCAA investigation into the program.

 

[CL82]

I used the words “KO’s team is not even SINCERELY disputing it (cause)”. Their game plan is to win the CBA arbitration processs argument then run out the clock as KO continues getting paid handsomely. as the case slowly journeys through the court system. KO will win the money game without ever having to win disputing cause as he gets effectively fully paid before the case ever gets to trial and therefore the trial never happens. It’s a moot point.

So IF KO wins the CBA arbitration process argument, he effectively wins the money despite never being able to win the refuting cause argument.

Don't think so, at least not until 180 days have run. As we discussed previously KO was entitled to 180 days notice. If UConn didn't provide him that, then he is entitled to pay in lieu of notice. See below from the CBA:

So delay doesn't put more money in KO's pocket until after that. Note that this also undercuts the argument that due process was somehow side stepped because Hurley was hired prior to the hearings since the contract specifically lists this possibility and provides for a remedy for it, pay in lieu of notice.

 

[Chief00]

That may be one of the causes they are claiming. There are probably several others. Possibly neglect of duties. Possibly other things...perhaps behavioral issues. Look at clause iv in the piece of the contract @CL82 posted.
Everybody but you, including Ollie's lawyers given his lawsuit, seem to think UConn has a case, and a very good case. Ollie doesn't raise that ridiculous lawsuit arguing a Constitutional due process violation unless he knows they have cause, and that he's likely to lose in arbitration.

So true.

 

[ctchamps]

So if this plays out the way you describe, KO will be money grabbing his way out of "the family", at least in my eyes. If he genuinely was the great, dedicated, team first guy, he would admit to doing a crappy job and negotiate a settlement. In my book, and I've backed this up in my career multiple times when I've made mistakes, if you don't do your job as expected, you don't get paid, or you don't get paid as much. Between his deteriorating relationship with Calhoun and now the money grab, his true character may be showing.

Same here.

Of course I never posted on the Boneyard while at work so I never had to deduct my salary for that reason. What’s the over/under that the lawyers in this thread claim their time here as billable to their clients?