DiMauro: Ollie's recent public relations plan reeks of hypocrisy

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Good call. I took the bait.
I'd still prefer swift settlement.

 

[Tenspro2002]

You're probably one of the worst offenders, so this is great coming from you.

I have called out both sides for being shady and irresponsible in this whole situation. Most people on this board bury their head in the sand and only promote the stories and news snippets that make their side look good, and those are the ones that are mad at me here. Ollie deserved to be fired, but UConn was pretty hypocritical to only care about NCAA violations in this situation when they turned their heads the other way when Calhoun did it in the past (multiple times). I understand why, and Ollie is certainly no saint here, but let's not pretend he's this evil cartoon character while UConn administration is the White Knight just trying to do the right thing.

On the KO vs. JC contract enforcement in context of violations:

I'm pretty sure the contract allows UConn to exercise the firing for clause contract at will. I'm pretty sure they're not obligated to fire for cause when a violation occurs.

So, yes, of course UConn selectively enforced firing for cause to get rid of KO (and not pay him) but not for JC. The contract allows them to do so! What's the controversy here?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

On the KO vs. JC contract enforcement in context of violations:

I'm pretty sure the contract allows UConn to exercise the firing for clause contract at will. I'm pretty sure they're not obligated to fire for cause when a violation occurs.

So, yes, of course UConn selectively enforced firing for cause to get rid of KO (and not pay him) but not for JC. The contract allows them to do so! What's the controversy here?

Dickie V doesn't like it.

 

[Rico444]

On the KO vs. JC contract enforcement in context of violations:

I'm pretty sure the contract allows UConn to exercise the firing for clause contract at will. I'm pretty sure they're not obligated to fire for cause when a violation occurs.

So, yes, of course UConn selectively enforced firing for cause to get rid of KO (and not pay him) but not for JC. The contract allows them to do so! What's the controversy here?

I agree they don't have to, and ultimately I think they're well within their rights to do what they've done. They should come out and say the reason they're choosing to fire Ollie when they didn't Calhoun is because of his terrible record. That's what's hypocritical to me.

 

[upstater]

Wait, there are people here who thought Ollie might not hire lawyers and PR people??????

 

[BlueMAB]

I agree they don't have to, and ultimately I think they're well within their rights to do what they've done. They should come out and say the reason they're choosing to fire Ollie when they didn't Calhoun is because of his terrible record. That's what's hypocritical to me.

LOL. Yeah, sure they should. They should ignore the fact he cheated, and eat $10 million cause you think it makes them look hypocritical.

 

[Rico444]

LOL. Yeah, sure they should. They should ignore the fact he cheated, and eat $10 million cause you think it makes them look hypocritical.

I never said that. I just said they're as hypocritical as Ollie, but for some reason it's not being called out by the anti-Ollie crowd (just like Ollie's hypocrisy isn't being called out by the pro-Ollie crowd).

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I agree they don't have to, and ultimately I think they're well within their rights to do what they've done. They should come out and say the reason they're choosing to fire Ollie when they didn't Calhoun is because of his terrible record. That's what's hypocritical to me.

Ever consider a career as a columnist? I'm watching you grow before my eyes. The more opinions the merrier.

Can we agree that the PR firm probably didn't aim for planting the seed w/DiMauro's editor and getting this coverage on the most passionate & knowledgeable UConn message board?

 

[Rico444]

Ever consider a career as a columnist? I'm watching you grow before my eyes. The more opinions the merrier.

Can we agree that the PR firm probably didn't aim for planting the seed w/DiMauro's editor and getting this coverage on the most passionate & knowledgeable UConn message board?

I would agree with that.

Based on what we know about KO, I would imagine working PR for him is probably a difficult job.

 

[UConnRock]

Remember, as this continues to drag on Ollie is still collecting a paycheck, as he is technically "suspended with pay". Even if he thought there was no chance for a settlement, it behooves Ollie to drag this out as long as possible. He has likely collected a nice chunk of change since his "firing".

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Remember, as this continues to drag on Ollie is still collecting a paycheck, as he is technically "suspended with pay". Even if he thought there was no chance for a settlement, it behooves Ollie to drag this out as long as possible. He has likely collected a nice chunk of change since his "firing".

...though, presumably within parameters, so far, that would be reasonable under most likely settlement terms.

If no settlement can be reached, and KO is due the entire $10 million, then such payments do not matter.

If no settlement can be reached, and KO is due $0, then what KO has received is greater than $0 and can be considered akin to a settlement amount.

Does that sound correct?

 

[Madmannsucks]

Does anyone else feel like we have read this thread at least 4000 times before? Lot's of new information FOR SURE.

 

[Storrs South]

Remember, as this continues to drag on Ollie is still collecting a paycheck, as he is technically "suspended with pay". Even if he thought there was no chance for a settlement, it behooves Ollie to drag this out as long as possible. He has likely collected a nice chunk of change since his "firing".

I believe he stopped being paid on June 19, 2018, when he was officially terminated by the university after going through the appeals process with AD Dave & Susan.

UConn President Says 'Substantial Evidence' Kevin Ollie, Staff Violated NCAA Rules

 

[BlueMAB]

I never said that. I just said they're as hypocritical as Ollie, but for some reason it's not being called out by the anti-Ollie crowd (just like Ollie's hypocrisy isn't being called out by the pro-Ollie crowd).

No. You said they should come out and say they fired him for performance, not for violations. That would inevitably lead to them having to pay him $10 million. So yes, you did say they should just eat the money because you think they're being hypocrites. And no, they didn't just fire him for performance. They fired him for performance AND violations.

 

[gtcam]

No, the columns should be on what he and his editors feel is relevant coverage of athletics in the state. And Ollie's dismissal + subsequent behavior is DEFINITELY relevant. So is the context added by DiMauro's AD friend.

This isn't even that hard to figure out. Honestly you're just having a tantrum here about good journalism. Guess it's the type of thing that's been going around...

good journalism=I like what I read because that is how I feel
"AD friend" yeah OK
Let's move on
KO is gone - you are overjoyed - that's great

 

[Pudge]

I agree with Rico. Too often journalists in this market - I'm thinking of you Jeff - turn this into whether the Coach at UConn made their job too hard to get their writing done. Repeatedly, this happened with Calhoun.

I think Ollie is just a sad story. And there's far more going on that we on this board could have seen. He deserved to be fired for the poor last two seasons and the prospective arc given the recruits were less than our standard. His performance, to me, will always be about a Guy who could coach; but, he was not fully formed to be running a Program like ours.

 

[Dove]

Wait, am I Napolian in this situation?

Vote for Guapo

 

[JB75]

Even tho ollie did his dirty deeds, the NCAA is ridiculous sometimes too. Remember when they suspended Kirk king for the rest of the year for accepting a plane ticket to go home to visit his fam in Georgia over Xmas break? Don’t get me started on the NCAA- they are a Joke.

 

[UCDaveD]

Freakin Dimauro, man. I was just thinking yesterday how nice it's been to not have to re-litigate Kevin Ollie for awhile.

 

[JB75]

Watch the 30 fir 30 called “pony express” about football recruiting in the swc in the early 80s. Freaking Wild West back then. Now it’s gone full swing the other way. Can’t even offer a recruit a piece of gum without getting in hot water.

 

[SoFla Steve]

Freakin Dimauro, man. I was just thinking yesterday how nice it's been to not have to re-litigate Kevin Ollie for awhile.

Agreed!

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Agreed! View attachment 34685

Now that we've gotten to gum, I agree.

 

[Rico444]

No. You said they should come out and say they fired him for performance, not for violations. That would inevitably lead to them having to pay him $10 million. So yes, you did say they should just eat the money because you think they're being hypocrites. And no, they didn't just fire him for performance. They fired him for performance AND violations.

Once again, you're reading what you want out of my post instead of what I actually said. I agree with you that they fired him for performance and violations. What I specifically said, if you go back and read my post, is that the reason Ollie was fired for violations and Calhoun wasn't fired for violations is because of Ollie's record as a coach.

If they're claiming that the only reason they fired Ollie is because he broke violations, but they didn't fire Calhoun for breaking violations, don't you see how that can be considered hypocritical? Again, it's obvious that the awful performance was the deciding factor in why they chose to activate the just cause clause. I don't disagree with the reasoning, but I would feel better about the whole thing if they came out and just said what you and I agree is the truth.

 

[AntG168]

Once again, you're reading what you want out of my post instead of what I actually said. I agree with you that they fired him for performance and violations. What I specifically said, if you go back and read my post, is that the reason Ollie was fired for violations and Calhoun wasn't fired for violations is because of Ollie's record as a coach.

If they're claiming that the only reason they fired Ollie is because he broke violations, but they didn't fire Calhoun for breaking violations, don't you see how that can be considered hypocritical? Again, it's obvious that the awful performance was the deciding factor in why they chose to activate the just cause clause. I don't disagree with the reasoning, but I would feel better about the whole thing if they came out and just said what you and I agree is the truth.

Why in the world would they ever do that? It'd be incredibly idiotic on their part

 

[Rico444]

Why in the world would they ever do that? It'd be incredibly idiotic on their part

I also agree that it would be. I've done a bad job making myself clear in this thread...UConn firing Ollie for cause and saying performance had nothing to do with it while refusing to fire Calhoun for cause is hypocritical. It's obvious what the difference between the two situations was; performance. If UConn comes out and says that, it would severely hurt their chances at keeping Ollie from his $10 million. I'm not saying that they should; my point was that if they want to pretend that the only reason they're firing Ollie is because of violations, then they're being hypocritical.

Ollie benefitting from and exploiting positive media reports after ignoring the same media members during his tenure as a coach is hypocritical, too. Both sides come out of this situation looking bad.