Conditional Verbals?

[60'sfan]

This whole concept makes no sense to me. Why would we ever want to put into the head of a young kid that he is more important than the program? What might logically follow is another kid would say that unless I start and get 30 minutes a game I want to be free to transfer at any time. No player should be considered that important.

As to Kevin Ollie and his contract, I think it is fair. I also think that it will be extended once he has proven himself as a coach. We need to remember that Kevin has never coached a college game. He has never been in a position where he has to sit a star for some violation of team rules. He has never had to make end-of-game decisions. He has never had to deal with the press after a stretch of losses. I think he will do fine. I know some of you who are complaining about the short contract, might be among those who would complain if he got fired after one year and Uconn had to pay him for two or three more years.

 

[upstater]

I know some of you who are complaining about the short contract, might be among those who would complain if he got fired after one year and Uconn had to pay him for two or three more years.

I don't think so. In fact, it's the reverse. Those complaining about taxpayer money want Pasqualoni fired.

 

[DogMania]

Not so sure about that, I think once you sign a LOI if you change schools you have to miss a year. And what was outlawed was putting an "X will be the coach" clause in the LOI like Memphis did with Calipari.

What's not allowed now are conditions to an LOI outside the standard ones. As for releasing a recruit from his signed LOI, it's up to each school to decide. The school probably has to file it with the NCAA but the decision is theirs.
If they decide not to release the recruit, that recruit will have to sit out a year, or maybe even two if they commit to a program within the same conference...though I might be confusing the latter part with transfer rules.

 

[8893]

I know some of you who are complaining about the short contract, might be among those who would complain if he got fired after one year and Uconn had to pay him for two or three more years.

Not me. I'd only complain if I didn't think he deserved to be fired, but I would never complain about the buy-out. It's part of the deal. And the amount they are paying Kevin is small beans compared to what they would have been paying anyone else.

I think it's much more likely that the ones who think the 7-month contract is fair are the same ones who will be complaining that it's Ollie's fault if we don't have a decent recruiting class coming in next year.

And that really is the only thing that bothers me about the interim coach thing. I prepared myself to write off one season and enjoy it for what it is; the sanctions are what they are and there is precious little we can do about them now. I am not nearly as sanguine about writing off another season because we miss a recruiting cycle or two while our head coaching position for 2013 and beyond is vacant. That is something that could have easily been avoided. Everyone else seems to understand that except Warde Manuel and several posters on this board.

 

[freescooter]

What's not allowed now are conditions to an LOI outside the standard ones. As for releasing a recruit from his signed LOI, it's up to each school to decide. The school probably has to file it with the NCAA but the decision is theirs.
If they decide not to release the recruit, that recruit will have to sit out a year, or maybe even two if they commit to a program within the same conference...though I might be confusing the latter part with transfer rules.

Right. And naming the coach is NOT a standard condition. The NCAA's position rightly is that you commit to a school, not a coach. that was breached by Memphis/Calipari/Kentucky so the the NCAA issued a clarification if you will, that such additional conditions are not allowed.

 

[freescooter]

Not me. I'd only complain if I didn't think he deserved to be fired, but I would never complain about the buy-out. It's part of the deal. And the amount they are paying Kevin is small beans compared to what they would have been paying anyone else.

I think it's much more likely that the ones who think the 7-month contract is fair are the same ones who will be complaining that it's Ollie's fault if we don't have a decent recruiting class coming in next year.

And that really is the only thing that bothers me about the interim coach thing. I prepared myself to write off one season and enjoy it for what it is; the sanctions are what they are and there is precious little we can do about them now. I am not nearly as sanguine about writing off another season because we miss a recruiting cycle or two while our head coaching position for 2013 and beyond is vacant. That is something that could have easily been avoided. Everyone else seems to understand that except Warde Manuel and several posters on this board.

But you're not sanguine about writing them off because Ollie turns out to be a horrible coach? Or for that matter because nobody knew what or if Jim Calhoun was going to coach until mid-September? Cry me a river...if Ollie turns out to be a bum, the next guy, if he's any good, will have us back in the recruiting wars within a season.

 

[8893]

But you're not sanguine about writing them off because Ollie turns out to be a horrible coach? Or for that matter because nobody knew what or if Jim Calhoun was going to coach until mid-September? Cry me a river...if Ollie turns out to be a bum, the next guy, if he's any good, will have us back in the recruiting wars within a season.

No. I know it is asking a lot of you, but please try to apply at least some semblance of logic, reason and coherence if you are responding to one of my posts.

Calhoun's retirement and Ollie's coaching ability have no effect on the fact that we cannot play in the post-season. Zero. Zip. Nada. That's what I meant by preparing myself to write this season off, because we can't dance no matter what.

If anything, I believe the season has more meaning now than it did before JC retired. It's a fresh start and a new chapter with a guy I love leading a team I love for the University I love, and it's exciting to me in a way that it wouldn't have been otherwise. But we still can't play in the post-season, and we still have a thin lineup by any standard.

As for next season, well let's just say we have a ways to go recruiting-wise until we have improved the outlook significantly imo. If we don't, and Kevin remains in limbo, yeah I'll be pissed at the prospect of writing off another season, because it could have been avoided easily by giving potential recruits some measure of assurance that Kevin will be their coach.

I know you did not and do not support Kevin. You have made that abundantly clear. Don't worry, there will still be plenty of room on the bandwagon for you and everyone else who will claim that they did. I did not weigh the possibility of Kevin failing to be a good coach because I am certain that is not going to be the case. Whether he's the one who Manuel chooses is another issue, but I am still buying stock in Kevin Ollie. Every. Single. Day.

 

[freescooter]

No. I know it is asking a lot of you, but please try to apply at least some semblance of logic, reason and coherence if you are responding to one of my posts.

Calhoun's retirement and Ollie's coaching ability have no effect on the fact that we cannot play in the post-season. Zero. Zip. Nada. That's what I meant by preparing myself to write this season off, because we can't dance no matter what.

If anything, I believe the season has more meaning now than it did before JC retired. It's a fresh start and a new chapter with a guy I love leading a team I love for the University I love, and it's exciting to me in a way that it wouldn't have been otherwise. But we still can't play in the post-season, and we still have a thin lineup by any standard.

As for next season, well let's just say we have a ways to go recruiting-wise until we have improved the outlook significantly imo. If we don't, and Kevin remains in limbo, yeah I'll be pissed at the prospect of writing off another season, because it could have been avoided easily by giving potential recruits some measure of assurance that Kevin will be their coach.

I know you did not and do not support Kevin. You have made that abundantly clear. Don't worry, there will still be plenty of room on the bandwagon for you and everyone else who will claim that they did. I did not weigh the possibility of Kevin failing to be a good coach because I am certain that is not going to be the case. Whether he's the one who Manuel chooses is another issue, but I am still buying stock in Kevin Ollie. Every. Single. Day.

But so far there is precious little evidence that the lack of a contract is holding back Ollie as a recruiter. Can't recall anyone saying that. We have not landed anyone so far who we shouldn't be able to land with Johnathan the Husky doing our recruiting. We keep hearing what a great recruiter Ollie is, how Ollie is loved by recruits, but so far he hasn't landed anyone. he might going forward. But the contract situation won't be the reason he succeeds or doesn't succeed.

 

[8893]

But so far there is precious little evidence that the lack of a contract is holding back Ollie as a recruiter. Can't recall anyone saying that. We have not landed anyone so far who we shouldn't be able to land with Johnathan the Husky doing our recruiting. We keep hearing what a great recruiter Ollie is, how Ollie is loved by recruits, but so far he hasn't landed anyone. he might going forward. But the contract situation won't be the reason he succeeds or doesn't succeed.

You have convinced me. Can the bum. Get Sendek on the line.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Right. And naming the coach is NOT a standard condition. The NCAA's position rightly is that you commit to a school, not a coach. that was breached by Memphis/Calipari/Kentucky so the the NCAA issued a clarification if you will, that such additional conditions are not allowed.

If a kid wants out of his LOI because a coach leaves, the school will release the kid. That's just an unwritten rule. It happened last year with Montrezl Harrell who was a former Va Tech signee. There are hundreds of other examples.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

If a kid wants out of his LOI because a coach leaves, the school will release the kid. That's just an unwritten rule. It happened last year with Montrezl Harrell who was a former Va Tech signee. There are hundreds of other examples.

Exactly. The official NCAA language says that LOIs are binding even if there is a coaching change, but that's not what happens in practice. If the coach leaves and a player asks to be released from his LOI, that release is almost always granted. The school gets nothing but bad press (not to mention an angry player) for forcing a kid to stay against his will.

 

[8893]

If a kid wants out of his LOI because a coach leaves, the school will release the kid. That's just an unwritten rule. It happened last year with Montrezl Harrell who was a former Va Tech signee. There are hundreds of other examples.

Exactly. The official NCAA language says that LOIs are binding even if there is a coaching change, but that's not what happens in practice. If the coach leaves and a player asks to be released from his LOI, that release is almost always granted. The school gets nothing but bad press (not to mention an angry player) for forcing a kid to stay against his will.

I agree, but our situation is a little different. Anyone signing a LOI before Ollie is extended (if he is) will being doing so with full knowledge that he is not under contract to be our coach beyond April 2013, and that the position is presently vacant for the period for which they are committing to the school. As a practical matter you're still dealing with the same issues (i.e., kid wants out because of coaching change, otherwise you get bad press, angry kids, etc.), but I wonder if that distinction would make a difference here. I hope we don't get the chance to find out.

 

[freescooter]

Look, there is no such thing as a guarantee that any head coach will be there beyond when he's there...it sounds crazy, but coaches leave all the time for all sorts of reasons...Ollie might be fired. Ollie might get recruited to coach Georgia Tech, Ollie might get recruited to coach the Oklahoma City Thunder in the NBA...He might for all that slip into wet concrete while checking out the practice gym construction and be found frozen in concrete the next morning (It happened on Bones once, so who knows...) You have to be able to recruit with uncertainty.

 

[8893]

Look, there is no such thing as a guarantee that any head coach will be there beyond when he's there...it sounds crazy, but coaches leave all the time for all sorts of reasons...Ollie might be fired. Ollie might get recruited to coach Georgia Tech, Ollie might get recruited to coach the Oklahoma City Thunder in the NBA...He might for all that slip into wet concrete while checking out the practice gym construction and be found frozen in concrete the next morning (It happened on Bones once, so who knows...) You have to be able to recruit with uncertainty.

No one is suggesting a guarantee. I am talking about reasonable expectations, which, in the situation we're discussing here, relates to whom you would reasonably expect to be the head coach next season at the time that you sign a LOI.

If Kevin Ollie had a contract that extended beyond April 2013, it would be reasonable to expect that he would be the head coach next season, and it would be reasonable for a recruit to rely on that expectation when signing a LOI to come here. To me, that would seem to mitigate in favor of letting a kid out of a LOI if Ollie was fired, hired away by GT or OKC, or buried alive in concrete.

As of now, Kevin Ollie is not the head coach of UConn for 2013-14 and beyond. That is the fact, and any recruit signing a LOI while that remains the case knows that. While they may expect or believe that Kevin will be extended, it is not something on which they can reasonably rely when they sign the LOI, because they know it's not the case presently. And I am wondering whether that would make a difference if a recruit wanted to be released from a LOI if Kevin is not extended.

 

[60'sfan]

I don't think so. In fact, it's the reverse. Those complaining about taxpayer money want Pasqualoni fired.

Don't you think it is more probable that those complaining about tax payer money, would rather have had a one year contract than a five-year deal. As is stands, if they fire Pasqualoni now, Uconn will be obligated to pay him through 2015.

 

[Waquoit]

As is stands, if they fire Pasqualoni now, Uconn will be obligated to pay him through 2015.

I though he had a reasonable buy-out.

 

[mauconnfan]

I realize they aren't made of money but no matter, he needs to go. They're awful, he is old in football thought and strategy and will not change. If Warde is fine being a MAC team then fine, otherwise no need to wait. Nice man, awful coach, awful game plans, awful asst's minus Brown maybe Hughes - everyone else OUT........so painful to watch them.

 

[upstater]

Don't you think it is more probable that those complaining about tax payer money, would rather have had a one year contract than a five-year deal. As is stands, if they fire Pasqualoni now, Uconn will be obligated to pay him through 2015.

If those people are thinking you can run athletic departments at the highest level by giving coaches 1 year contracts, I don't know what to tell them. The point is, they are not so concerned about taxpayer money anymore.

 

[60'sfan]

If those people are thinking you can run athletic departments at the highest level by giving coaches 1 year contracts, I don't know what to tell them. The point is, they are not so concerned about taxpayer money anymore.

I am not suggesting that all coaches get one-year contracts. Certainly Geno, Jim Calhoun and even Randy Edsall have earned multi-year contracts. However, it is too early for Kevin Ollie and Pasqualoni's contract was probably a poor choice. Hopefully, Uconn has a buyout provision. If he loses to his old team this week, it could get ugly.

 

[upstater]

I am not suggesting that all coaches get one-year contracts. Certainly Geno, Jim Calhoun and even Randy Edsall have earned multi-year contracts. However, it is too early for Kevin Ollie and Pasqualoni's contract was probably a poor choice. Hopefully, Uconn has a buyout provision. If he loses to his old team this week, it could get ugly.

But no big school in the country hires coaches without giving them multi-year contracts, even if you're not established like the 3 you mentioned. It's just not done, for obvious reasons. Also, I'm not getting on people for drawing distinctions between Pasqualoni (an established coach) and Ollie. I'm referring to this bogus taxpayer money argument. Not the differences in the contracts.