Editorial on Ollie Firing.

[Madmannsucks]

https://deadspin.com/kevin-ollie-will-contest-uconns-dubious-non-specific-1823682657

 

[Deadrody]

LOL... "dubious" "non-specific" just cause

Just hysterical. If they did not provide the specific reason, least of all to slime merchant, rumor mongering Deadspin... therefore... it must be "dubious" ?

Deadspin is politics for jocks.

 

[JMick]

you're a little late

 

[Madmannsucks]

Was this already posted, I can take it down.

 

[UCDaveD]

Glad Deadspin was able to take a moment away from publishing Brett Favre wang pics and Hulk Hogan sex tapes to cover us.

 

[UconnU]

Deadspin may be the worst website on the internet.

 

[willie99]

Since there are no specifics, it can be referred to as uncertain, hence it can be called dubious

At least for the time being

people shouldn't read too much into legal posturing, there's usually a lot of Stop going on there

 

[crewbear742]

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.

 

[CL82]

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.

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.

 

[crewbear742]

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."

 

[Huskybass]

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."

And you are certain that the charges are going to be minor because ?

 

[CL82]

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.

 

[UConnWingman]

Deadspin may be the worst website on the internet.

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..

 

[krinklecut]

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..

Barstool is 1000000x worse. I read deadspin every day, I didn't realize so many of you disliked them.

 

[champs99and04]

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.

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.

 

[UCDaveD]

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.

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. 

 

[Edward Sargent]

Losing the "viability" and "relevance" of the program through poor performance after your boss put you on a performance improvement plan just cause?

 

[Huskybass]

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.

 

[mauconnfan]

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.

Lipscomb bass really? And how are they in the NCAA tournament?

I mean you started with the NIT you should have stayed on point - "when teams like Vermont and Wagner are in the NIT" not a low major who won their conference tourney and has an automatic bid. If you're going to keep kicking him at least get it right.

 

[Danzz]

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.

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.
I don't have a problem with that but to think that this is about an NCAA investigation simply isn't true.

 

[Paesano]

If he had been doing his job and was performing marginally, yeah it would be sleazy. But Ollie was performing horrifically AND, more importantly, was putting in a poor effort. One could argue it is stealing and sleazy to continue to accept a 3+ million salary while barely trying to do the job you were hired for. I have no problem with what the university is doing because Ollie deserves it.

 

[Lefty2one]

Deadpsin is a mix of self-righteous bags and uppity nerds who know little about sports attempting to write about sports. Their original niche as the TMZ of sports was their peak; no one should have to suffer through their editorials.

I've been to Barstool only a handful of times over the years, never seemed worth frequenting.

 

[UconnBoston]

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."

This argument is entirely inconsistent. You are essentially saying that UConn must abide by the strict terms of the contract that includes a buyout of $10M, but cannot exercise a provision enabling them to fire Ollie “for cause” for a low-level NCAA infraction. Of course Ollie is being terminated because of his poor performance, but it’s naive to expect any business to act against its own interest by ignoring the breadth of contractual language that they bargained for. Also, remember that this would be entirely unnecessary if Ollie accepted the $0.40-0.50 cents on the dollar they likely offered him.

 

[BlueDogs]

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.

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.

KO had two options - (a) coach well and win or (b) coach incompetently and abide by the rules and collect a check. He did neither.

 

[August_West]

if Ollie accepted the $0.40-0.50 cents on the dollar they likely offered him.

Im not sure that happened.

And why should he? He's calling Benedicts bluff. Ball is in UConn's court to now prove that Ollie was dirty, which in the process of doing so is going to make our University itself look bad. The more I think about this the more I think that UConn REALLY screwed this up.

If donors were lined up to pay the buyout, they shouldve just paid it and moved on. Because Benedict has now pushed his chips "all in" on cause we are going to end up doing the NCAA's job for them.

Dumb Dumb Dumb.