- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 13,217
- Reaction Score
- 32,469
Good call. I took the bait.
I'd still prefer swift settlement.
Good call. I took the bait.
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.
Dickie V doesn't like it.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?
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?
Ever consider a career as a columnist? I'm watching you grow before my eyes. The more opinions the merrier.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?
...though, presumably within parameters, so far, that would be reasonable under most likely settlement terms.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".
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".
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...
Vote for GuapoWait, am I Napolian in this situation?
Now that we've gotten to gum, I agree.Agreed! View attachment 34685
Why in the world would they ever do that? It'd be incredibly idiotic on their partOnce 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