- Joined
- Jan 31, 2018
- Messages
- 2,201
- Reaction Score
- 6,934
Silly argument. If he went full Pitino and paying for hookers and handing over a briefcase full of cash to recruits, of course he would have been fired. Now if you arguing that there is no NCAA violation that you'd tolerate in a successful coach but would be the final straw for an unsuccessful coach... still just silly.Would he have been fired for ethical violations if his team had been winning? Of course not. This is a strategy to save money. Whatever he is accused of doing, his discharge is about nothing but money. The basic thesis of that article is irrefutable.
If he went full Pitino and paying for hookers and handing over a briefcase full of cash to recruits, of course he would have been fired.
There has been no hint of anything like that. The actual charges are going to be minor. This is nothing more than "UConn doesn't want to honor its contract and is looking for a way to save $10 million."
Yeah kinda missed the point chief.There has been no hint of anything like that. The actual charges are going to be minor. This is nothing more than "UConn doesn't want to honor its contract and is looking for a way to save $10 million."
Deadspin may be the worst website on the internet.
Barstool is 1000000x worse. I read deadspin every day, I didn't realize so many of you disliked them.I’m not a fan of Deadspin (the shtick is tired), but it’s not even close to being even the worst sports site on the web. Barstool is much worse..
Silly argument. If he went full Pitino and paying for hookers and handing over a briefcase full of cash to recruits, of course he would have been fired. Now if you arguing that there is no NCAA violation that you'd tolerate in a successful coach but would be the final straw for an unsuccessful coach... still just silly.
If NCAA violations are just the cost of doing business, then it's on the former coach's agent/legal team for letting such a vague provision into the contract in the first place. At the time, the former coach was negotiating from a position of strength and should have insisted on a more narrow definition of "cause." The deck wasn't rigged, the former coach and his team just screwed up. Refusing to tolerate a violation and terminating somebody's contract based on a violation are two very different things. The issue, as the article lays out very well, is with programs rigging the deck during negotiations by giving themselves an out in case things go south.
Probably it isn’t hard for a school to spin various acts and events up into fireable offenses, if the contract is sufficiently vague; certainly that is something they are more likely to do in the case of a coach whose performance is below expectations. It’s a lousy, dishonest, and unfair practice, of course: schools benefit enormously when a coach’s ethical transgressions yield, say, four straight Sweet-16s at Memphis, but stand ready to use recruiting violations as a pretense for “for cause” firings if the results don’t measure up.
NCAA violations in college basketball are a lot like head injuries in football in that they are an unavoidable expense of the occupation. Most people who are not UConn fans are going to notice the astounding coincidence that this particular "cause" comes during a time when the University had needed some money to miraculously come off the books so that they could preserve their most reliable source of revenue.
That is a very interesting question. The fact that UConn didn't even make the NIT two years in a row when teams like Lipscomb are in the NCAA tournament truly speaks to how irrelevant UConn has become.Losing the "viability" and "relevance" of the program through poor performance after your boss put you on a performance improvement plan just cause?
That is a very interesting question. The fact that UConn didn't even make the NIT two years in a row when teams like Lipscomb are in the NCAA tournament truly speaks to how irrelevant UConn has become.
Fortunately better days are ahead soon.
Again would Ollie have been fired if we had a 20 win season for a minor violation? My suspicion is no. He is being fired for the poor performance of the team. The rest is about UConn trying to get away as cheaply as possible.Silly argument. If he went full Pitino and paying for hookers and handing over a briefcase full of cash to recruits, of course he would have been fired. Now if you arguing that there is no NCAA violation that you'd tolerate in a successful coach but would be the final straw for an unsuccessful coach... still just silly.
There has been no hint of anything like that. The actual charges are going to be minor. This is nothing more than "UConn doesn't want to honor its contract and is looking for a way to save $10 million."
So what. He cut the deal and he's been cashing big checks for many years. The school should be doing everything possible to pay as little as it can. It's like KO is somehow not responsible for ageeing to terms which are plain on their face. The terms were you get paid out if you and your guys don't break the rules. The rules were broken. I'm actually amazed at how many are bought into the University of Ollie instead of UConn.Would he have been fired for ethical violations if his team had been winning? Of course not. This is a strategy to save money. Whatever he is accused of doing, his discharge is about nothing but money. The basic thesis of that article is irrefutable.
if Ollie accepted the $0.40-0.50 cents on the dollar they likely offered him.