Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="8893, post: 2720827, member: 93"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach