Editorial on Ollie Firing.

[champs99and04]

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. 

Legally, that might all be correct. Ollie and his agent may have messed up and they might pay dearly for it.

Insofar as the public can observe the practical consequences of that reality, I would hope it occurs to them that this exposes a dangerous trend and threatens the protection of the worker on the most fundamental level. Contracts are intended to reflect the market value of the work you are being hired to and are negotiated and formalized beforehand to protect that labor from the emotions of dissatisfied investors. There is a reason they call it an investment. When the negotiation process becomes corrupted by self-interest and dishonesty, the entire system collapses. This is a particularly dangerous precedent because you have an already dangerous cartel - the NCAA - being leveraged by the schools to further displace money from the people actually generating it and into the hands of corporate types who want to sell tickets. I get that it seems like we shouldn't be throwing a pity party for a guy who is rich and may not have emptied the tank for us the last couple years, but this is a misguided way to go about fixing it because it applies a vengeful reboot to a system that only the open market can vindicate.

If you want to take the "stop crying about it, he signed the contract" stance, I get it...but it doesn't make the school any less culpable and it makes me really uneasy about rooting for the program moving forward. It's not an ethical stance it's just the reality.

 

[champs99and04]

That's absolutely correct. They are two different things. So you can sanction a NCAA violation in various ways depending on the totality of the circumstances.

I will continue to point out the hypocrisy of those posters who say Ollie's contract must be followed to letter, but only when it favors him and that any provisions that favor the university must be ignored. It is logically inconsistent and frankly childlike. Both KO and UConn had counsel who reviewed the terms. They were acceptable when it was executed. Neither were forced into signing it. To sit on the sidelines and say "well it says that but I don't think they should abide by it" is foolish.

You can follow the contract to the letter, but it doesn't mean the public shouldn't call it as being the sham that it is and more of everything that is wrong with college sports.

They are sitting on the sidelines and saying that because they were not born yesterday. They know this is about money and so do the guys he's recruiting against. You can't separate the NCAA from the school on this or say "the NCAA is corrupt, but that's not our problem." It is our problem. The school and the NCAA are both complicit because the school is using the guise of the NCAA to influence public opinion on matters of fair pay. When you use a corrupt and dishonest organization as part of your cause for getting out of a contract that was going to kill your bottom line to keep on the books, what does that say about the merit of this operation at large?

 

[Stainmaster]

2. Because Kevin Ollie isn't acting like he is guilty of a serious offense.

Kevin Ollie has demonstrated a very low self-awareness of his own actions in more than one way.

 

[polycom]

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.

Are we sure we win lipscomb’s conference tourney?

 

[crewbear742]

The rationalizations and obfuscations on this thread are pretty impressive:

1. It was his legal team's fault.
2. Wouldn't his poor performance technically count as just cause?
3. He was coaching so badly, he was just stealing his check anyways.
4. UConn is just following the contract to the letter and protecting its interests.
5. He didn't accept a buyout.
6. It's a game of chicken between the two sides.
7. UConn is saving taxpayer money.

What all of these excuses have in common is that they tacitly admit this is all about money. It's a prima facie case. Is there one person on this board who believes the Kevin Ollie would have been fired is he had won 25 games and was currently in the NCAA Tournament? Can you say that and keep a straight face? Because if you can't, you are explicitly admitting that UConn doesn't care a tinker's dam about these alleged ethical violations. You are admitting that you know this is all about $10 million.

Yes, ethics are really important. Especially when they can be used as leverage in a dispute over 10 million precious dollars the university hopes to spend in the next coach.

 

[UCDaveD]

What all of these excuses have in common is that they tacitly admit this is all about money.

Of course it's about money. What do you think the entire purpose of firing someone for Cause is? Just to publicly shame them? Give me a break.

 

[CTMike]

Legally, that might all be correct. Ollie and his agent may have messed up and they might pay dearly for it.

Insofar as the public can observe the practical consequences of that reality, I would hope it occurs to them that this exposes a dangerous trend and threatens the protection of the worker on the most fundamental level. Contracts are intended to reflect the market value of the work you are being hired to and are negotiated and formalized beforehand to protect that labor from the emotions of dissatisfied investors. There is a reason they call it an investment. When the negotiation process becomes corrupted by self-interest and dishonesty, the entire system collapses. This is a particularly dangerous precedent because you have an already dangerous cartel - the NCAA - being leveraged by the schools to further displace money from the people actually generating it and into the hands of corporate types who want to sell tickets. I get that it seems like we shouldn't be throwing a pity party for a guy who is rich and may not have emptied the tank for us the last couple years, but this is a misguided way to go about fixing it because it applies a vengeful reboot to a system that only the open market can vindicate.

If you want to take the "stop crying about it, he signed the contract" stance, I get it...but it doesn't make the school any less culpable and it makes me really uneasy about rooting for the program moving forward. It's not an ethical stance it's just the reality.

KO signed a contract saying he would follow all the rules and somehow this is “a dangerous trend and threatens the protection of the worker on the most fundamental level. ”

Following NCAA rules is a very, very basic requirement. This being part of his contract shouldn’t be controversial in any way.

“Oh, but breaking THAT rule shouldn’t be a reason to terminate”

Funny how that escape clause isn’t in there.

Follow all the rules, get $10 mil. Pretty simple.

 

[Huskybass]

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.

I don't care how Lipscomb made the NCAA tournament. They are in the tourney and UConn didn't even make the NIT in consecutive years. Lipscomb won their conference tournament, UConn didn't even win one game in the AAC tournament. There are schools we have never even heard of before making the NCAA tournament and we couldn't win a single game in the AAC tourney nor win enough games to make the NIT. UConn didn't beat a single NCAA tournament team all season. That certainly supports my argument about being irrelevant.

That said, a good coach can get the team back to being relevant fairly soon, especially if he can retain some of the better players on the team.

 

[mauconnfan]

I don't care how Lipscomb made the NCAA tournament. They are in the tourney and UConn didn't even make the NIT in consecutive years. Lipscomb won their conference tournament, UConn didn't even win one game in the AAC tournament. There are schools we have never even heard of before making the NCAA tournament and we couldn't win a single game in the AAC tourney nor win enough games to make the NIT. UConn didn't beat a single NCAA tournament team all season. That certainly supports my argument about being irrelevant.

That said, a good coach can get the team back to being relevant fairly soon, especially if he can retain some of the better players on the team.

Never mind you are back at the agenda making no sense. We all know he sucked but Lipscomb analogy is as bad as he is, but by all mean keep kicking.

 

[mauconnfan]

Are we sure we win lipscomb’s conference tourney?

Nope

 

[champs99and04]

KO signed a contract saying he would follow all the rules and somehow this is “a dangerous trend and threatens the protection of the worker on the most fundamental level. ”

Following NCAA rules is a very, very basic requirement. This being part of his contract shouldn’t be controversial in any way.

“Oh, but breaking THAT rule shouldn’t be a reason to terminate”

Funny how that escape clause isn’t in there.

Follow all the rules, get $10 mil. Pretty simple.

Even if we were to assume for a second that an organization currently being investigated by the FBI (and that's what it's about, regardless of whatever front is being sold to the public now) is doing everything on the up-and-up, the problem with the terminology of the contract is still the conflict of interest it presents. The verbiage provides real, monetary incentive to the school to self-report if not outright create violations that the head coach could be liable for. That places not only the worker at risk but the customer (fan) as well, since the ability to re-solidify a previous revenue stream (get out of the buyout and find a winning coach) is being prioritized over the reputation of the school (whatever the impending results of the investigation are).

People aren't making the connections. The NCAA does not discriminate in their exploitation and neither do the schools. Otherwise, the NCAA would have been gone a long time ago. Whereas the NCAA sees Marcus Camby driving a nice car and plots to re-locate the profits of the UMass head coach to a new area code, they work tirelessly to uphold the pretense of nobility and prestige that play into the branding of UNC and Duke. The NCAA rulebook was not written with the intentions of preserving business, it was written to be the business. They use moralistic rhetoric to distract fans from the reality of the sham while creating infighting amongst them. I'm as guilty as anyone but they've pushed a bit too far with this newest trick.

The problem is that I saw this coming. I saw it coming like an airplane out of the horizon. We needed to fire the coach and we couldn't because we couldn't pay the buyout. Then miraculously in January after it's long been clear the season is over, this drops from the sky...and I haven't been able to shake the queasy feeling in my stomach since because everything has gone down exactly the way I thought it would.

We'll see what happens. I certainly don't have all the facts. Maybe KO screwed himself and that's life. But on a basic level, when the fans have incentive for something to happen, and so does the school, and so does the NCAA, and so does ESPN...you're putting together a pretty lousy picture of how this stuff works.

 

[CL82]

You can follow the contract to the letter, but it doesn't mean the public shouldn't call it as being the sham that it is and more of everything that is wrong with college sports.

They are sitting on the sidelines and saying that because they were not born yesterday. They know this is about money and so do the guys he's recruiting against. You can't separate the NCAA from the school on this or say "the NCAA is corrupt, but that's not our problem." It is our problem. The school and the NCAA are both complicit because the school is using the guise of the NCAA to influence public opinion on matters of fair pay. When you use a corrupt and dishonest organization as part of your cause for getting out of a contract that was going to kill your bottom line to keep on the books, what does that say about the merit of this operation at large?

It's a contractual provision, not a proxy for all that ails society. In the event of a early termination of his contract (note my maturity in not referring to it as a premature discharge) UConn agreed to pay Ollie in full for the remaining term of his contract, provided that Ollie was fully compliant with the NCAA rules. If Ollie didn't, UConn isn't required to make the payment.

Geesh, this stuff isn't hard.