Details on Ollie's firing

[kcc1442]

Here is what the Ollieistas don’t get. If you sign a contract that says you will not do x or we can void the contract, then you do x, how we enforce is t up to you. We can void the contract. We can totally ignore the breach or we can come to you and negotiate a settlement somewhere less than voiding the agreement. And it really doesn’t matter what we did in other cases. Indeed 2 things changed since Calhoun left. First the NCAA changed the rule such that head coaches are responsible for their programs. Second UConn was severely penalized for violations. Thus it is reasonable that UConn would hold Ollie to a hire standard than it had held other coaches who committed violations in the past.

I get it. There are s few remaining holdouts who deep down hope that somehow Ollie magically reappears on the bench for the opener. They will never accept that he should have been fired. (Hi 99 and stairs). But there is no question he broke the rules.

Yeah all the "past practice" talk is bs. There was also a different administration during the Calhoun era. What transpired years ago shouldn't have any bearing on today just because this admin wants to actually enforce the legals in the coaching contract. Set precedent isn't going to hold up in court when the precedent is dodging laws and impermissible benefits.

 

[Candyman]

Your first sentence could be rewritten as, "Please just settle, Ollie, and end this." So far as I know, it would be equally plausible, except that neither party has agreed to unilaterally abandon its claims and adopt the others position. Settlement will require both parties to agree to the same thing. There's still time. It nearly always happen that way. I'm not privy to all of the information, and I don't know how an arbitrator will evaluate things in light of the facts and applicable law. I doubt you do either.

I like my first sentence the way it is. Never said I was privy to anything. I am just pointing out that the longer and more public this goes the more it hurts the program. Ollie doesn't care about the program anymore so yes I am suggesting that UConn budge. My opinion is that Ollie would settle if offered but I could be wrong maybe he wants the full 10mil and then some. I don't care about Ollie or Miller only UConn basketball.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I have that same question. I want to know the chronology/timeline. People are assuming the NCAA investigated and this stuff came out; I am wondering whether we self-reported this stuff after digging it up ourselves, for the precise reason of using it as just cause.

Or maybe some of it came out in an exit interview with Miller? Or Benedict at least knew it was there for the getting?

If UConn dug it up and self reported to avoid the $10M, the word I would use to describe that is "brilliant". There is nothing that looks bad about that, it's savvy. Self reporting also tends to reduce the penalty from the NCAA, as does firing the perpetrator. So they lessen the impact on the next coach and free up enough money to hire a good one, which they did. Win win.

 

[Candyman]

I hear you and agree. But this is getting a lot more play on BY than the real world

Well Jay Bilas just retweeted the article and added his comments to his 2 million followers. It will pick up steam the longer this goes on.

 

[8893]

If UConn dug it up and self reported to avoid the $10M, the word I would use to describe that is "brilliant". There is nothing that looks bad about that, it's savvy. Self reporting also tends to reduce the penalty from the NCAA, as does firing the perpetrator. So they lessen the impact on the next coach and free up enough money to hire a good one, which they did. Win win.

I would use the term “pyrrhic.”

 

[HuskyHawk]

Here is what the Ollieistas don’t get. If you sign a contract that says you will not do x or we can void the contract, then you do x, how we enforce is t up to you. We can void the contract. We can totally ignore the breach or we can come to you and negotiate a settlement somewhere less than voiding the agreement. And it really doesn’t matter what we did in other cases. Indeed 2 things changed since Calhoun left. First the NCAA changed the rule such that head coaches are responsible for their programs. Second UConn was severely penalized for violations. Thus it is reasonable that UConn would hold Ollie to a hire standard than it had held other coaches who committed violations in the past.

I get it. There are s few remaining holdouts who deep down hope that somehow Ollie magically reappears on the bench for the opener. They will never accept that he should have been fired. (Hi 99 and stairs). But there is no question he broke the rules.

Maybe a lot of posters aren't familiar with these kinds of contracts? I'm baffled by people raising that argument. As someone who negotiates contracts for a living, it's something that is always included. You do not waive your rights by failing to assert them. If it is in your benefit to not enforce a contract right you have (against a Hall of Fame coach for example), then you don't. That doesn't mean that you can't enforce that clause against an incompetent slacker.

For those who are still confused, this required a 3 second search on Google and was the first result.
Waiver Sample Clauses

 

[HuskyHawk]

I would use the term “pyrrhic.”

I don't see any cost to UConn here. None. Within 48 hours the greater college basketball community will have moved on. There isn't a D1 university in the country that wouldn't have done what UConn did. There are probably a lot of fired coaches that would have been smarter and taken a settlement though.

 

[Pudge]

And they found reasoning when they discovered numerous NCAA violations. Unless Calhoun had the same clause in his contract (which would be surprising) then it doesn't matter, because we can't use the Ray Allen phone, we can't fly players to Atlanta for workouts, and we can't do the other things Ollie did.

If Calhoun had a similar clause, Ollie will get every cent he's owed. If not, he's looking at $0 or a whole lot less than $10MM.

He is going to get more than $0.

This will settle. But, do not be all high in mighty Boneyard Fans. This was not significant violations - in the whole scheme of Mens and Womens UConn. I accept the Fishy statement = that he was half-ass in his effort/preparation/coaching. AND ... for that, we know that he had never had this progression of coaching up the ranks like most guys. HE must have been damn good to win a NC winning 6 games (and NO ... I don't accept that Shabazz was the coach). But, Kevin Ollie never transformed into a fully developed MBB at this level. And he has himself to blame. He had plenty of people near that could have mentored him.

 

[JMick]

Well Jay Bilas just retweeted the article and added his comments to his 2 million followers. It will pick up steam the longer this goes on.

Why? Do you think the school released this information? This was coming out no matter what. You don't understand how FOIA works

 

[8893]

I don't see any cost to UConn here. None. Within 48 hours the greater college basketball community will have moved on. There isn't a D1 university in the country that wouldn't have done what UConn did. There are probably a lot of fired coaches that would have been smarter and taken a settlement though.

48 hours?!? From your keyboard to God’s ears! Dollars to Warde Manuel’s donuts we will be hearing about this in Every. Single. Broadcast. This. Season. At. Least.

There isn’t a D1 program where you wouldn’t find equal or in most cases far worse if you looked.

I do tend to agree with your last sentence but without any remote sense of what was offered and what was demanded it’s hard to know who was reasonable and who was not. In my experience it takes two to tango and things are seldom black and white.

No matter, I wish it had been settled quietly because this sucks and I fear we haven’t seen the last of the fallout.

 

[Candyman]

Why? Do you think the school released this information? This was coming out no matter what. You don't understand how FOIA works

I undertsand that I was responding to another poster who said this was just a story on the BY and not getting alot of play in the real world.

 

[Fishy]

This is something that no one outside of this board cares about.

Jay Bilas, et al, can tweet about it from now until Doomsday and that won’t change. They do not matter. No one cares.

At the beginning of all this, the hand-wringing was that going to cost UConn in their coaching search. Who would want to work for a school that would refuse to pay a contractual buyout?! And then they hired Hurley and that theory died in its crib.

Now it’s going to cost us with recruits? Please.

There is no scenario where paying that oaf $10,000,000 without a fight makes any sense.

 

[Excalibur]

Maybe a lot of posters aren't familiar with these kinds of contracts? I'm baffled by people raising that argument. As someone who negotiates contracts for a living, it's something that is always included. You do not waive your rights by failing to assert them. If it is in your benefit to not enforce a contract right you have (against a Hall of Fame coach for example), then you don't. That doesn't mean that you can't enforce that clause against an incompetent slacker.

For those who are still confused, this required a 3 second search on Google and was the first result.
Waiver Sample Clauses

Ok I'm a general counsel and senior HR executive. Contract or no contract, inconsistent treatment of like situations is a potential problem in the employment context, particularly when you start dealing with unions and, more importantly, protected classes. That said, I think UConn has a compelling story to tell here. Hall of fame coach retires but leaves behind numerous compliance issues. School articulates importance of strict compliance to new coach. Coach proceeds to not only fail to comply with rules, but then mislead administrators about the nature of the violations. It is the stressing of compliance at the time of hire that, if true (and I think the record supports that it is), is compelling here.

 

[CL82]

I would use the term “pyrrhic.”

I thought about this and I disagree. KO->Dan Hurley is a big victory on it's own. If KO actually paid a player's mom, he's has no defense. And $10M is a material number for this athletic department. It's not optimal because KO is choosing to go down in flames, and because that UConn will get a bit smokey but it isn't a pyrrhic victory by any means.

 

[BlueMAB]

He is going to get more than $0.

This will settle. But, do not be all high in mighty Boneyard Fans. This was not significant violations - in the whole scheme of Mens and Womens UConn. I accept the Fishy statement = that he was half-ass in his effort/preparation/coaching. AND ... for that, we know that he had never had this progression of coaching up the ranks like most guys. HE must have been damn good to win a NC winning 6 games (and NO ... I don't accept that Shabazz was the coach). But, Kevin Ollie never transformed into a fully developed MBB at this level. And he has himself to blame. He had plenty of people near that could have mentored him.

Yeah, will probably get more than $0, but it should be significantly less than $10 mil.

And $30k to the mother of a recruit is a significant violation if it happened.

The rest isn't a big deal, but he made his bed with his actions on and off the court.

 

[CL82]

Ok I'm a general counsel and senior HR executive. Contract or no contract, inconsistent treatment of like situations is a potential problem in the employment context, particularly when you start dealing with unions and, more importantly, protected classes. That said, I think UConn has a compelling story to tell here. Hall of fame coach retires but leaves behind numerous compliance issues. School articulates importance of strict compliance to new coach. Coach proceeds to not only fail to comply with rules, but then mislead administrators about the nature of the violations. It is the stressing of compliance at the time of hire that, if true (and I think the records supports that it is), is compelling here.

I think different contract language may be a material fact as well.

 

[8893]

I thought about this and I disagree. KO->Dan Hurley is a big victory on it's own. If KO actually paid a player's mom, he's has no defense. And $10M is a material number for this athletic department. It's not optimal because KO is choosing to go down in flames, and because that UConn will get a bit smokey but it isn't a pyrrhic victory by any means.

Replacing Ollie with Hurley is a red herring. I agree that’s a win, but they didn’t need to go through this to do that.

It is interesting that the paying the player’s mother hearsay allegation by Miller does not appear to have been used as a basis for the just cause. As they say, there’s a reason for the hearsay rule and that appears to be the vast majority of what Miller provided.

I have no idea what the number would have been if they had reached a deal without going through this and I have yet to hear from anyone who does. I do expect this to have repercussions beyond this week.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Ok I'm a general counsel and senior HR executive. Contract or no contract, inconsistent treatment of like situations is a potential problem in the employment context, particularly when you start dealing with unions and, more importantly, protected classes. That said, I think UConn has a compelling story to tell here. Hall of fame coach retires but leaves behind numerous compliance issues. School articulates importance of strict compliance to new coach. Coach proceeds to not only fail to comply with rules, but then mislead administrators about the nature of the violations. It is the stressing of compliance at the time of hire that, if true (and I think the records supports that it is), is compelling here.

I completely agree that in the context you mention, and specifically with a protected class like Kevin is, you'd need to build the case and not arbitrarily enforce a provision for the wrong reason. That's why most companies build the file needed to terminate poor performers. What I'd disagree with, as raised by some posters (not you), is that generally being bad at your job (Ollie) vs being fantastic at your job (Calhoun), is insufficient as a reason for different treatment.

So aside from your very valid compliance point, I think it is also perfectly legitimate to enforce a clause like that due to general, poor performance. I am sure that UConn's evaluations and personnel records for Ollie will reflect multiple instances of them expecting more from him. UConn would have built that case. I don't think Ollie is even alleging that there is any racial aspect to his termination is he?

 

[Excalibur]

I think different contract language may be a material fact as well.

Calhoun's contract used to be available on the Courant site. It's not anymore, but Geno's 2008 contract is. It has similar cause language regarding NCAA violations. I think it's safe to assume that Calhoun's had it as well.

 

[CL82]

Calhoun's contract used to be available on the Courant site. It's not anymore, but Geno's 2008 contract is. It has similar cause language regarding NCAA violations. I think it's safe to assume that Calhoun's had it as well.

Hadn't seen this. Agree.

Edit:
Calhoun's contract is still on the UConn site - link

Here is the relevant language from Calhoun's contract:

It is interesting that violation isn't the trigger for the termination of the contract, it is the removal of the coach due to just cause that terminates it.

 

[CL82]

Replacing Ollie with Hurley is a red herring. I agree that’s a win, but they didn’t need to go through this to do that.

Disagree. You can't hire Hurley without firing KO.

It is interesting that the paying the player’s mother hearsay allegation by Miller does not appear to have been used as a basis for the just cause.

Yes, it is. Maybe that information wasn't known to the university?

 

[freescooter]

I'm afraid we will remember and care if it scares away all these recruits we are supposed to be close with and that does worry me because it adds to the AAC issue.

Recruits give not $ hi tee one about whether a former coach got fired or paid or dropped off the Brooklyn Bridge. The ones we are now recruiting probably don’t even know who Kevin Ollie is? They know and care about Dan Hurley and what he can do for them. They care about Kevin Ollie and his situation about as much as they care about Burr Carlson’s.

 

[8893]

Disagree. You can't hire Hurley without firing KO

Come’on CL. They could have fired KO for any reason at any time; the just cause simply voids the buyout.

I’m not suggesting that they should have stroked him a check for the full amount. Again I have no idea what was offered or what was demanded, but I have a hard time believing KO demanded it all and wouldn’t budge or that they offered nothing. This to me is the greatest unknown. I want to know what the opportunity cost was for both to avoid this.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[Madmannsucks]

Yeah, UCONN will be paying a decent amount of salary Ollie is owed.

May lose arbitration, but Ollie would probably win in court, based on all the JC stuff.

 

[Waquoit]

He was losing games because he couldn't be bothered to do his freakin job.

 

[Fishy]

Those guys both must post on the Boneyard because no one outside of here cares about this.

No one cares.

Take all the tweets in the universe about it and it they wouldn’t compel a $1,000 payment to Kevin Ollie, let alone $10,000,000.

 

[jimva]

I undertsand that I was responding to another poster who said this was just a story on the BY and not getting alot of play in the real world.

To be clear, I did not say it was just a story on the BY. I said it was getting more attention on the BY than the real world. And this is how it should be so many on here are diservidly sensitive to anything negative after the past couple years. My point is this is not a big deal and will pass sooner than we think - the world has a very short attention span.

 

[MadDogRevival]

DeCourcy wrote: "Kevin Ollie's only "violation" was losing games."
Nice tongue-in-cheek attempt, but Wrong.
It was the pathetic effort and lack of dedication. The "losing games" would have been a lot less rough going down for all of us if KO had looked and behaved like he actually gave a 7uck the last 24 months he was getting paid millions a year.
His "violation" was more "acting like a loser" than "losing." Not the same thing.

 

[tentoes4rings]

KO earned the original 5 year extension but not the additional 3 years. This would be the final year of his original 5 year extension. I think a settlement of $3 million would be fair since he earned those 5 years.