Has the gag order been lifted?

[CL82]

Any early settlement where UCONN doesn't just roll over and give Ollie the stated contractual amount would get scrutinized and be open to a FOIA request. The alleged violations would have become public and the crapfest we now find ourselves would have still occurred. The best that can be hoped for at this point is for neither party to go nuclear so as to leave nothing left to salvage.

The violations were reported to the NCAA. They were always going to make there was to the media eventually.

 

[Tenspro2002]

The smart play would have been to negotiate an acceptable settlement number right from the get go. Then UConn and Ollie could have "threaded the needle" in a manner that worked for both of them. Not sure why that didn't happen when it is the obvious optimized solution.

That said, that ship has sailed. There is a narrow optimal window for a negotiated solution before arbitration or litigation. Unless this is being badly mismanaged or the parties have vastly differing viewpoints as to value, we will have a resolution soon.

The problem is that KO knows this is his last chance at an 8-figure payday. His head coaching career is toast unless he's willing to work his way up from Cal State-Riverside (hint: he isn't). As an end-of-the-bench NBA assistant -- which he should have been from the beginning -- it would take him the whole rest of his career.

Alimony and child support ain't cheap.

That said, I don't know why he shouldn't be willing to settle for 3MM, when the alternative is nothing.

 

[Danzz]

You can't even read. Nelson is saying that the university is trying to "destroy" Ollie when all they've done is fire him for committing violations.

Correction. They fired Ollie for losing. The violations provide a way to avoid paying him.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Correction. They fired Ollie for losing. The violations provide a way to avoid paying him.

Would you bet $10 million that your language is the only way to frame it? Would you act differently on the matter of limiting financial obligation from the University if you were in a position of responsibility in the matter? Is it wrong to seek a reason to justify termination with limited financial obligation? Would responsible counsel not explore such options? Is it not in the nature of contract law to behave this way? Are all of these questions irrelevant to you?

I ask with confidence that if the MBB team performed well on the court, won a a suitable number of games, looked well-coached, generated reasonably expected interest and revenue, and reflected well on the University there likely would not have been a coaching change absent strong NCAA action in response to violations whether reported or uncovered.

 

[Danzz]

Would you bet $10 million that your language is the only way to frame it? Would you act differently on the matter of limiting financial obligation from the University if you were in a position of responsibility in the matter? Is it wrong to seek a reason to justify termination with limited financial obligation? Would responsible counsel not explore such options? Is it not in the nature of contract law to behave this way? Are all of these questions irrelevant to you?

I ask with confidence that if the MBB team performed well on the court, won a a suitable number of games, looked well-coached, generated reasonably expected interest and revenue, and reflected well on the University there likely would not have been a coaching change absent strong NCAA action in response to violations whether reported or uncovered.

I never said UConn shouldn't pursue a path that limits their financial obligation.In fact anything else would incompetent. I have no idea where you got that out of my post. You pretty much agreed with me, took two paragraphs to do it and argued points that I never made.

 

[crewbear742]

Are all of these questions irrelevant to you?

They are irrelevant questions if you care about things like "Keeping your word" and "Honoring your promises" and "Doing what you say" and quaint obsolete notions like "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No'." UCONN can sell its reputation for $10 million, but it's not like people will forget it did this. It publicly attacked the character of its coach for doing things it tacitly expected that coach to do. It did so to avoid a buy-out clause in a contract that it signed and subsequently regretted. There is absolutely no doubt that this is what is happening. Who on this board has even denied it? People will remember this. UCONN will eventually realize how it affects the population of people willing to take a job that UCONN offers.

You can do many things with a good lawyer and a big bank account. You can legally rob people blind. You can get people fired for obeying the law. You can void clauses in contracts that you would prefer not be exercised. Doesn't make it right.

 

[JMick]

They are irrelevant questions if you care about things like "Keeping your word" and "Honoring your promises" and "Doing what you say"

Ollie didn't do those things. Why does the school have an obligation to hold up their end of the bargain when he couldn't hold up his?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I never said UConn shouldn't pursue a path that limits their financial obligation.In fact anything else would incompetent. I have no idea where you got that out of my post. You pretty much agreed with me, took two paragraphs to do it and argued points that I never made.

I have no objection to agreement; in fact I prefer it. That said, when offered as a "correction," the precise phrase "avoid paying him" reads differently from limiting financial obligation with legal justification, even if you & I might conclude upon closer look that it pretty much adds up to the same thing.

If neither of two parties who largely agree likes feeling "corrected," think of the possibilities for those nor in agreement.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Danzz]

I have no objection to agreement; in fact I prefer it. That said, when offered as a "correction," the precise phrase "avoid paying him" reads differently from limiting financial obligation with legal justification, even if you & I might conclude upon closer look that it pretty much adds up to the same thing.

If neither of two parties who largely agree likes feeling "corrected," think of the possibilities for those nor in agreement.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem at all.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

They are irrelevant questions if you care about things like "Keeping your word" and "Honoring your promises" and "Doing what you say" and quaint obsolete notions like "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No'." UCONN can sell its reputation for $10 million, but it's not like people will forget it did this. It publicly attacked the character of its coach for doing things it tacitly expected that coach to do. It did so to avoid a buy-out clause in a contract that it signed and subsequently regretted. There is absolutely no doubt that this is what is happening. Who on this board has even denied it? People will remember this. UCONN will eventually realize how it affects the population of people willing to take a job that UCONN offers.

You can do many things with a good lawyer and a big bank account. You can legally rob people blind. You can get people fired for obeying the law. You can void clauses in contracts that you would prefer not be exercised. Doesn't make it right.

You use the phrase "absolutely no doubt" in reference to some thing where I harbor enough doubt to challenge your overreach. I'm not alone, and you:ve likely just read where someone else believes Kevin Ollie himself did not behave in impeccably good faith.

Absolutes reduce the possibility of settlement; too many factors and unknowns are in play for this not to be the preferred outcome. One need not be immoral or amoral to advance this position.

 

[Chief00]

The problem is that KO knows this is his last chance at an 8-figure payday. His head coaching career is toast unless he's willing to work his way up from Cal State-Riverside (hint: he isn't). As an end-of-the-bench NBA assistant -- which he should have been from the beginning -- it would take him the whole rest of his career.

Alimony and child support ain't cheap.

That said, I don't know why he shouldn't be willing to settle for 3MM, when the alternative is nothing.

Eight figures is >$10 million by my math. Ain’t happening. Another factor is his attorney has had some big settlements, so I assume early on that was the expectation. Lots to walk back from.

 

[crewbear742]

Ollie didn't do those things. Why does the school have an obligation to hold up their end of the bargain when he couldn't hold up his?

Because:

1. It's UCONNs reputation that is at stake.
2. Unethical behavior on the part of person A does not justify unethical behavior on the part of person B.
3. If UCONN had substantial grounds for discharging KO with cause, it wouldn't be fooling around with all this trivial horse[excrement].

I have no doubt UCONN has more that substantial grounds to fire him for poor performance. But if you think he violated his promises in the contract, you need to say where. And don't mention the NCAA violations because you've already put paid to them if you admit he wouldn't have been fired on their account if he had been winning.

 

[JMick]

Because:

1. It's UCONNs reputation that is at stake.
2. Unethical behavior on the part of person A does not justify unethical behavior on the part of person B.
3. If UCONN had substantial grounds for discharging KO with cause, it wouldn't be fooling around with all this trivial horse[excrement].

I have no doubt UCONN has more that substantial grounds to fire him for poor performance. But if you think he violated his promises in the contract, you need to say where. And don't mention the NCAA violations because you've already put paid to them if you admit he wouldn't have been fired on their account if he had been winning.

that's not how contracts work. if the parties aren't bound to the terms of the contract then why have one?

 

[UCDaveD]

Lots of people confusing how they would like the world to work with how the world actually works.

 

[JMick]

Lots of people confusing how they would like the world to work with how the world actually works.

I can't fathom how people can make Ollie seem like the poor innocent working class 'Joe' that got laid off. Dude has made millions of dollars. He got handed the keys to a shiny new sports car. Took it for a drive and then accumulated a bunch of speeding tickets all while neglecting any sort of maintenance to the point that it didn't drive any more.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Lots of people confusing how they would like the world to work with how the world actually works.

There are even people who wish you hadn't written that.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I can't fathom how people can make Ollie seem like the poor innocent working class 'Joe' that got laid off. Dude has made millions of dollars. He got handed the keys to a shiny new sports car. Took it for a drive and then accumulated a bunch of speeding tickets all while neglecting any sort of maintenance to the point that it didn't drive any more.

Whoa. Slow down.
Both of your analogies can't support the weight of reality.
Don't even try to fathom either, anybody.

 

[JMick]

Whoa. Slow down.
Both of your analogies can't support the weight of reality.
Don't even try to fathom either, anybody.

You can think what you want, but there have been plenty of people treating Ollie like he's a pauper over the last few days.

 

[crewbear742]

that's not how contracts work. if the parties aren't bound to the terms of the contract then why have one?

You're right. It's the next contract UCONN should be concerned about.

There is "legal" and there is "ethical". Lawyers deal with legal. They don't care about "ethical" if it conflicts with the interest of the client. UCONN and its lawyers just might screw KO into the wall for the sake of $10 million. But people will notice. They will think "If UCONN did that to KO, UCONN will do that to me." How do you suppose that knowledge will be factored into future decisions?

UCONN publicly attacked KOs character and thereby threatened his career in order to void a $10 million buyout. It did so on the basis of charges that would have been ignored if KO had been winning - charges that have already been ignored for winning coaches at UCONN. How can you possibly believe he would have been fired if he had made the tournament? And that's the case you have to make to prove your point - that he would have been fired anyways.

 

[huskymedic]

You're right. It's the next contract UCONN should be concerned about.

But people will notice. They will think "If UCONN did that to KO, UCONN will do that to me." How do you suppose that knowledge will be factored into future decisions?

Would seem that Dan Hurley had no concerns signing on to UConn and he knew UConn had begun procedings to terminate Ollie for just cause. My sense he had full lay of the landscape and even negotiated language in his contract should UConn get whacked by the NCAA.

 

[JMick]

You're right. It's the next contract UCONN should be concerned about.

There is "legal" and there is "ethical". Lawyers deal with legal. They don't care about "ethical" if it conflicts with the interest of the client. UCONN and its lawyers just might screw KO into the wall for the sake of $10 million. But people will notice. They will think "If UCONN did that to KO, UCONN will do that to me." How do you suppose that knowledge will be factored into future decisions?

UCONN publicly attacked KOs character and thereby threatened his career in order to void a $10 million buyout. It did so on the basis of charges that would have been ignored if KO had been winning - charges that have already been ignored for winning coaches at UCONN. How can you possibly believe he would have been fired if he had made the tournament? And that's the case you have to make to prove your point - that he would have been fired anyways.

See the bold - is Hurley not our coach? Did we not beat out Pitt for him?

What is unethical about the scenario? If you want to talk about ethics, how about Jim McElwin getting fired from Florida. He got fired because they said they couldn't corroborate death threats that he received. That's unethical.

Firing someone for breaking rules and the terms of a contract isn't unethical. How has UConn attacked Ollie's character? They fired him for cause because of violations he committed. It sounds like Kevin Ollie ruined his own reputation to me.

 

[UCDaveD]

But people will notice. They will think "If UCONN did that to KO, UCONN will do that to me." How do you suppose that knowledge will be factored into future decisions?

Were you too busy clutching your pearls to realize that UConn already hired another coach? Their #1 target, in fact.

 

[superjohn]

You're right. It's the next contract UCONN should be concerned about.

There is "legal" and there is "ethical". Lawyers deal with legal. They don't care about "ethical" if it conflicts with the interest of the client. UCONN and its lawyers just might screw KO into the wall for the sake of $10 million. But people will notice. They will think "If UCONN did that to KO, UCONN will do that to me." How do you suppose that knowledge will be factored into future decisions?

UCONN publicly attacked KOs character and thereby threatened his career in order to void a $10 million buyout. It did so on the basis of charges that would have been ignored if KO had been winning - charges that have already been ignored for winning coaches at UCONN. How can you possibly believe he would have been fired if he had made the tournament? And that's the case you have to make to prove your point - that he would have been fired anyways.

They didn't publicly attack his character, they gave examples of NCAA rules Ollie broke while head coach, Ollie hasn't disputed he broke those NCAA rules. Ollie told the AD he was always in full NCAA compliance when he wasn't. Being a terrible coach and breaking rules is 100% on Ollie. They haven't attacked his character and have kept all the personal stuff out of it.

 

[Yardigan]

Lots of people confusing how they would like the world to work with how the world actually works.

Yep, big difference between the "unwritten rules" and "rules that apply when lotsa cash is at stake"

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

You can think what you want, but there have been plenty of people treating Ollie like he's a pauper over the last few days.

I'm surprised to find myself in more agreement with you on this matter than I'd have guessed but not here. "Plenty of people" and "pauper" just aren't to be found...and your metaphor reflects how upset you are by KO's performance, but again it's too extreme for me and would serve as an impediment to any best negotiated outcomeiif employed by the parties or their agents.
You're well within your rights not to care what I think. Apparently we're not seeing the same thing here..

 

[Stainmaster]

You can think what you want, but there have been plenty of people treating Ollie like he's a pauper over the last few days.

Give him a couple of years.

 

[Stainmaster]

UCONN publicly attacked KOs character

They haven't attacked his character and have kept all the personal stuff out of it.

Superjohn is right, the character stuff has been pretty much confined to the BY and kept out of all official proceedings. I have a hunch that UConn wants to keep it that way for as long as possible.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Superjohn is right, the character stuff has been pretty much confined to the BY and kept out of all official proceedings. I have a hunch that UConn wants to keep it that way for as long as possible.

Doing so would combine practical business sense and an ethical stance to facilitate negotiations toward settlement, notwithstanding some of the hyperbolic claims still being advanced by people who aren't in the know and aren't parties to the matter.

 

[crewbear742]

Were you too busy clutching your pearls to realize that UConn already hired another coach? Their #1 target, in fact.

I'm not clutching at my pearls. I just didn't go to law school so I don't think like a lawyer. And I've never been particularly impressed with how lawyers handle ethical situations. The arguments against me seem to me nothing but a bunch of lawyer-speak. The difference between us is that I think this behavior is unethical. You counter that its legal and I'm sure you are right. I don't care. My formative experiences were all in the military and we don't deal well with behavior like this.

For the time being, I'm still outside the bubble. My daughter told me again on Friday how interested she is in UConn and how highly she thinks of the school. There's probably a 75% chance she'll be enrolled within a year. But that's in the future. As of right now, I still don't have a vested interest in this case beyond the ethics. I'm telling you how it looks from the outside. And it looks bad.

As for Dan Hurley. I never said no one would come. I said the population of candidates will change. A question and a comment:

1. Why was UConn's top candidate from Rhode Island?

2. I think Hurley is betting on himself. I suspect he thinks UConn is a better long term investment for leveraging himself into a higher stature program. UConn is currently limited in its ceiling but he has more opportunity for producing improvement at UConn than he did at Pitt. I don't think he is at UConn in five years. He's either fired or he's somewhere else.

And then UConn will have to face the consequences. Which is why I said you should worry about the next contract. People won't forget. It will show up in negotiations. The better candidates will demand more protective language, and UConn will have to give if it it wants the hire.

You can't do this kind of stuff and just pretend it won't have an impact.

 

[David 76]

Why is Ollie such a victim to some here? I still like the guy and wish him well.
But he changed:
His work ethic
His morals
His compliance with NCAA rules
His effectiveness as a coach

He deserved to be fired and he violated his contract giving UConn an easy out. UConn is not doing character assassination. They are leaving out the personal and attempting to save money it looks like they don't have to pay.