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

[UCONN in OKC]

If I am not mistaken... didn't the AD and KO had a meeting and KO assured he didn't commit NCAA violations... and AD kept him until he got the report and decided to move on.... As a boss if i go to employee and he lies to me about an incident when I ask directly about it.... I would also take measure to let him go WITH OUT PAY if I could

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

No, I'm not reading what I want. You don't seem understand the implications of UConn doing what you want them to do.

They can't say what you want them to say . If they did, they'd have to pay him $10 million. No arbitrator in the world is going to find in UConn's favor. If they say anything about his performance they would have been better off paying him the buyout and making this all go away, just like they did with Diaco.

How do you not understand that?

And quite frankly, he doesn't deserve the $10 million, so no, I don't agree that they are being hypocritical. The environment in which Ollie broke the rules was much different than the one in which Calhoun did so.

 

[Rico444]

No, I'm not reading what I want. You don't seem understand the implications of UConn doing what you want them to do.

They can't say what you want them to say . If they did, they'd have to pay him $10 million. No arbitrator in the world is going to find in UConn's favor. If they say anything about his performance they would have been better off paying him the buyout and making this all go away, just like they did with Diaco.

How do you not understand that?

Of course I understand that. Read my last post.

And quite frankly, he doesn't deserve the $10 million, so no, I don't agree that they are being hypocritical. The environment in which Ollie broke the rules was much different than the one in which Calhoun did so.

It's definitely hypocritical, but it's OK if you want to bury your head in the sand on this one. I'm used to it on this board: 40% of the board thinks UConn handled this perfectly and deserves no criticism, 40% thinks Ollie did nothing wrong and deserves every penny. Every KO thread is a disaster, and I regret that I posted anything in this one and wasted my whole day arguing on an internet message board.

 

[CL82]

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.

Um, you realize they wrote to Ollie with a list of the events that precipitated his dismissal, right? That letter has been FOIA'd and circulated.

 

[mauconnfan]

Dimauro can do what he wants no doubt but his timing to throw this out completely blows as we slowly bring a positive vibe around the program again. But again, it's best for him to write this now .

I took away 2 things:

I think less of Dimauro for his timing but that's just me.

I think much less of KO and the way his dealings were as he was failing more and digging his own hole. Seems there was a pattern which wasn't going to ever allow him to keep his job.

 

[ctchamps]

No, the media wants to present “this is just UConn being ‘scummy’” again, as if it’s a continuation of institutional mismanagement.

Not exactly. I think it simply he's resented KO for not allowing him the opportunity to cover the men's bb program. UConn men's bb is the primary sport for Connecticut and the primary focus for his vocation. He should be angry but I don't believe his column had any other intention than payback and emotional satisfaction.

The vast majority of fans in this thread support his right to do so because it supports their anger towards KO and the abysmal record over the past few seasons. Hypocrisy runs deep on all levels. We took the opposite approach to Jacobs when he hit Calhoun over the APR penalties.

But I'm surprised that the resentment is so strong against KO the majority of posters have not taken Dimauro to task for essentially supporting the position the NCAA should hit UConn for lack of institutional control. Bringing up St. Mary's presents the argument that the NCAA should hit UConn with similar sanctions. And what happens to Dimauro if something like that happens? Or us fans? That column will teach KO a lesson?! I think not.

Outside of the need to satisfy our wounded souls and hit the refresh "Let's deride KO and all those who defend him" button, column's such as this accomplish nothing other than maybe giving the NCAA cover for penalties. If the sentiment is strong in UConn's back yard (as presented by us fans and our local press corps) that major infractions happened, it's very unlikely that the rest of the country will counter that argument.

Edit: Forgot Dimauro is a BC hack and @BUConn10 is most likely correct the article has an anti UConn agenda. All the more reason for people in this thread to quit supporting him.

 

[Rico444]

Um, you realize they wrote to Ollie with a list of the events that precipitated his dismissal, right? That letter has been FOIA'd and circulated.

Of course that's what they said, and it's their official, legal stance, but I think most people on this board would agree that if Ollie was coming off of back-to-back NCAA Tournament appearances, that he wouldn't have been let go. Do you believe they would have fired him for cause in that hypothetical situation?

 

[CL82]

UConn firing Ollie for cause and saying performance had nothing to do

When exactly did they say that? They listed the grounds that triggered a "just cause" dismissal, but nowhere did they every say "and have two losing seasons in a row and kids transferring in droves had nothing to do it." Nor is that particularly relevant.

 

[Towney007]

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.

I think at the end of the day - Kevin Ollie is a great dude who was really, really, really out of his depth and as the years went on, more and more layers of the onion peeled off. I don't think any of the 'bad stuff' he did was necessarily him being nefarious or malicious - I think it's just a result of a guy who just didn't know what he was doing and who wasn't motivated enough to get a handle on what he should be doing.

There were issues with boundaries. From infighting with the coaching staff, players feeling slighted or that there were favorites, rumors of him partying and being out and about - nothing scathing or wildly inappropriate - but just a consistent theme across a lot of instances. And boundaries kill coaches. Kevin was a former player. From what I can gather just based off my own intuition based on the information gathered over the years, he sounded less like a mentor-coach, and more like a mentor-player... that 15 year NBA vet showing the young kid the ropes. Instead this time he couldn't buy them the right suit or take them out to dinner to talk about life on the road... college hoops programs need Dad, not big brother Kevin. And I think that problem alone is what was kind of central to everything that happened.

I also think there was a lack of motivation, too. Or burn out. Who knows. But the effort wasn't there on the recruiting trail. The effort wasn't there with the media. His game planning was... I don't even know, to be honest. Those last 2-3 years - he might actually be the worst in-game coach i've ever seen at this high of a level. It was 1,000% crystal clear there wasn't any meaningful development happening behind the scenes. Guys would come back close to, if not exactly - the same guy they were the year before. The team would have the same problem month after month, year after year. The recruiting was a constant duct tape job. There was no identity to any of his teams post-2014 and even that team had it's issues. Whatever the reasoning was - whether it was personal distractions, feeling like he was impervious to being fired, too much money, flat-out not caring or burn out - the energy, motivation and effort required to run a team at this level wasn't there.

There was also just a level of stubborness that was evident. The offense was the same non-existent mess for four years. It was an NBA, positionless style that I mean... that can work with NBA guys, but not college kids who need direction and lack the overall basketball IQ to execute that. And even if you're 100% confident that you can recruit college players with the capacity to do that, the guys he was bringing in didn't fit that mold at all. Maybe Daniel Hamilton - but that was literally the only guy who could do that. There was no unique match-ups or approaches to any of his opponents. The Syracuse game in the garden last year stuck out in particular when the commentary team was flat out mocking the team for asking if they had prepared to see a 2-3 zone at all that week. The advanced scouting wasn't there, the ability to game plan for opponents, exploit weaknesses, effective substitutions... he legitimately lacked all the X's and O's skills to coach at this level. All of them.

And you could tell just looking at the kids. They looked more and more helpless and resigned to their fate every year - every passing game. Same. Exact. Song. Every year.

So when you mix in a guy who culturally wasn't a good fit for college, couldn't establish boundaries, lacked an attention to detail/work ethic required to maintain a program like this at this level and was flat-out not close to ready for this level tactically - that results in a pretty nasty cocktail. So these violations - if they're true - I mean I don't know how anyone would be surprised. They're exactly the kinds of violations i'd expect that Kevin would get caught up in. Not being a nefarious jerk looking to get an edge - but just by his general work ethic and displayed behaviors as a coach.

The guy has done more than his part for the program. He was a sensational player. He was a great ambassador for the program throughout his years as a pro player. He came back, stayed here, stayed loyal and was a killer assistant under Calhoun. He blocked the dam from completely caving in when the program was in it's other darkest hour and hey - motivated a good group of kids to a wild run in an NCAA tournament and gave us a national title. Everyone in the game LOVES the guy, so it should speak to what kind of person he is. But all that created rose colored glasses for his massive shortcomings and people didn't realize it until it was too late - for him and the program.

He just wasn't ready for this job.

 

[CL82]

Of course that's what they said, and it's their official, legal stance, but I think most people on this board would agree that if Ollie was coming off of back-to-back NCAA Tournament appearances, that he wouldn't have been let go. Do you believe they would have fired him for cause in that hypothetical situation?

I don't know but I'll agree it would be substantially less likely to happen.

This has been addressed ad nauseum here but the Cliff Notes version is

1) If you don't want to be fired, don't suck at your job.
2) If you do suck at your job and don't want your contract to terminate upon firing, don't do the things listed in your contract that specifically allow that to happen.

 

[Towney007]

As to him returning calls to other coaches over the media...

I mean if you're Kevin, who would you rather talk to? Pretty simple. But at some point, you call the dude at the paper back.

 

[Rico444]

I don't know but I'll agree it would be substantially less likely to happen.

This has been addressed ad nauseum here but the Cliff Notes version is

1) If you don't want to be fired, don't suck at your job.
2) If you do suck at your job and don't want your contract to terminate upon firing, don't do the things listed in your contract that specifically allow that to happen.

I agree with all of this, except for your first three words. I think it's obvious to most people on this board that Ollie wouldn't have been fired if he was winning (since the school didn't fire Calhoun for committing violations when he was winning, and most schools don't fire their successful head coaches for recruiting violations). I would also add that if Ollie didn't have any buyout in his contract, he definitely would've been fired this offseason for his performance.

I find what UConn did hypocritical, but at the same time the best thing it could have done for the state, university, and basketball program. I probably would have done it if I was Benedict/Herbst, but at the same time I would understand that I was being hypocritical.

 

[Towney007]

I agree with all of this, except for your first three words. I think it's obvious to most people on this board that Ollie wouldn't have been fired if he was winning (since the school didn't fire Calhoun for committing violations when he was winning, and most schools don't fire their successful head coaches for recruiting violations). I would also add that if Ollie didn't have any buyout in his contract, he definitely would've been fired this offseason for his performance.

I find what UConn did hypocritical, but at the same time the best thing it could have done for the state, university, and basketball program. I probably would have done it if I was Benedict/Herbst, but at the same time I would understand that I was being hypocritical.

For starters, people are going berzerk with half the information. We still don't have a 100% crystal-clear view of what the actual violations were. My guess is - they're not good. As this comes into clearer focus, it's obvious that's the case.

Second, looking like a hypocrite would be the one thing on my list of 'to-do's' I couldn't care less about.

If you're winning and in the tournament - and you let the booster/shoot around stuff to happen - you're still a hypocrite.

He was a incredibly bad basketball coach. There was a consistent pattern of behaviors that contributed to that. Doesn't make him a bad person - but he clearly wasn't ready for the job and his pattern of behaviors in that job - lack of attention to detail, etc - are what lead to violations like that more often than not. So you get a good person who can't do the nuts and bolts of the job and is blindly walking to violation poles left and right - that's not a guy fit to be running your program.

And not worthy of being paid out a huge chunk of money to not run your program, too.

 

[BlueMAB]

Of course I understand that. Read my last post.



It's definitely hypocritical, but it's OK if you want to bury your head in the sand on this one. I'm used to it on this board: 40% of the board thinks UConn handled this perfectly and deserves no criticism, 40% thinks Ollie did nothing wrong and deserves every penny. Every KO thread is a disaster, and I regret that I posted anything in this one and wasted my whole day arguing on an internet message board.

It's strange because you keep saying UConn should do something you say you understand they can't do. Just so you can "feel better", but others have their head buried.

You can bury your head in the sand and pretend the fact that Ollie committed a major violation AFTER the NCAA had clearly demonstrated a willingness to punish UConn more severely than other schools for similar (or worse) transgressions, shouldn't lead UConn to respond to those transgressions differently than they did with Calhoun. You can pretend that UConn didn't already have a target on its back, and that firing Ollie wouldn't help them avoid further recruiting penalties that would hamstring a coach who was already failing.

But UConn made a business decision because Ollie screwed up. Plain and simple.

 

[CL82]

I agree with all of this, except for your first three words. I think it's obvious to most people on this board that Ollie wouldn't have been fired if he was winning (since the school didn't fire Calhoun for committing violations when he was winning, and most schools don't fire their successful head coaches for recruiting violations). I would also add that if Ollie didn't have any buyout in his contract, he definitely would've been fired this offseason for his performance.

I find what UConn did hypocritical, but at the same time the best thing it could have done for the state, university, and basketball program. I probably would have done it if I was Benedict/Herbst, but at the same time I would understand that I was being hypocritical.

Ah, we were so close to reaching agreement...

I'll respectfully submit that UConn isn't hypocritical for abiding by the terms of the contract, rather Ollie's representations is when they say you have to follow the sections of the contract that would pay Keving $10M but must ignore the sections of contract that say you do not have to pay him.

I get your point regarding a superstar having leeway, but if your employer says when you are hired, you absolutely must not do X,Y and Z or you will be fired without benefits and you do X,Y, and Z you are taking a very big gamble that more often than not you will lose.

 

[UConnLen]

Having lived in SE CT most of my life and having been a subscriber to the Day most of that time, Mike is first and foremost a BC fan, a NL fan and most recently a guy who likes to put politics in his columns, which many of us feel we don’t need his leftist opinions in his columns. As a result I AND MANY of my friends have cancelled our subscriptions. Of course The Day has offered us subscriptions for like $30 for a year, which is really funny after paying 10x that for years (customer since the 60’s). No bite! I’m sorry to read today that The Day is making company wide layoffs because most of these employees don’t write the crap that fills the paper and they deserve better. But if I wanted a subscription to the Washington Post I would have ordered one. Meanwhile, Mike was the straw that broke the camels back for many of us.

 

[Paesano]

*Lots of good stuff*

He just wasn't ready for this job.

He will never be ready for this job. It doesn't fit him and never will. He NEEDS to be an NBA assistant coach. That is where he can do what he does best. Yeah, the pay is nowhere as good but it is what he is good at and what he would probably be happy doing. He won a miracle championship and made a ton of money for doing it. Move on Kevin.

 

[ctchamps]

Having lived in SE CT most of my life and having been a subscriber to the Day most of that time, Mike is first and foremost a BC fan, a NL fan and most recently a guy who likes to put politics in his columns, which many of us feel we don’t need his leftist opinions in his columns. As a result I AND MANY of my friends have cancelled our subscriptions. Of course The Day has offered us subscriptions for like $30 for a year, which is really funny after paying 10x that for years (customer since the 60’s). No bite! I’m sorry to read today that The Day is making company wide layoffs because most of these employees don’t write the crap that fills the paper and they deserve better. But if I wanted a subscription to the Washington Post I would have ordered one. Meanwhile, Mike was the straw that broke the camels back for many of us.

Just as you were writing this I recalled Dimaura is an anti UConn hack. Can't believe the hatred is so strong against KO that people in this thread missed out on his agenda to get UConn hit with sanctions.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Having lived in SE CT most of my life and having been a subscriber to the Day most of that time, Mike is first and foremost a BC fan, a NL fan and most recently a guy who likes to put politics in his columns, which many of us feel we don’t need his leftist opinions in his columns. As a result I AND MANY of my friends have cancelled our subscriptions. Of course The Day has offered us subscriptions for like $30 for a year, which is really funny after paying 10x that for years (customer since the 60’s). No bite! I’m sorry to read today that The Day is making company wide layoffs because most of these employees don’t write the crap that fills the paper and they deserve better. But if I wanted a subscription to the Washington Post I would have ordered one. Meanwhile, Mike was the straw that broke the camels back for many of us.

One of two particularly interesting additions since I came out as OK with locking the thread.

I didn't need the WaPo/liberal swipe, as that was of a piece w/DiMauro's overreach in thickly calling "hypocrisy" when the article could have stood on its own dialed back a notch. We can all benefit from keeping a tighter rein on the gratuitous.

 

[AntG168]

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.

i dont think UConn comes out looking bad at all i when you know the facts

 

[HooperScooper]

If I am not mistaken... didn't the AD and KO had a meeting and KO assured he didn't commit no NCAA violations... and AD kept him until he got the report and decided to move on.

Ah, I figured this out. KO pulled the old double negative trip on Benedict. So KO was really admitting he did commit NCAA violations but Benedict thought Ollie was saying he didn't. So KO didn't lie!

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Just as you were writing this I recalled Dimaura is an anti UConn hack. Can't believe the hatred is so strong against KO that people in this thread missed out on his agenda to get UConn hit with sanctions.

Fair enough, though the 'hatred'-as-blinder seems beyond the scope of the essential argument that an Op-Ed is just that, and the PR move backfired in this instance.

Maybe there will be those charmed by the press releases to counteract this published piece.

Maybe things will move toward settlement. I can only state my wish and hope.

 

[superjohn]

Just as you were writing this I recalled Dimaura is an anti UConn hack. Can't believe the hatred is so strong against KO that people in this thread missed out on his agenda to get UConn hit with sanctions.

 

[UCONN in OKC]

Ah, I figured this out. KO pulled the old double negative trip on Benedict. So KO was really admitting he did commit NCAA violations but Benedict thought Ollie was saying he didn't. So KO didn't lie!

did not see that... corrected now thank for the check

 

[Ewekon]

No, I'm not reading what I want. You don't seem understand the implications of UConn doing what you want them to do.

They can't say what you want them to say . If they did, they'd have to pay him $10 million. No arbitrator in the world is going to find in UConn's favor. If they say anything about his performance they would have been better off paying him the buyout and making this all go away, just like they did with Diaco.

How do you not understand that?

And quite frankly, he doesn't deserve the $10 million, so no, I don't agree that they are being hypocritical. The environment in which Ollie broke the rules was much different than the one in which Calhoun did so.

Bingo. It's a business period.