Has the gag order been lifted?

[August_West]

But he changed:
His work ethic

not trigger for Just Cause

His work ethic

not trigger for just cause

His morals

not trigger for just cause and welcome to the Glen Miller club. Enjoy the company of superjohn and jmick

His compliance with NCAA rules

Probable, likely trigger for just cause. But that application is not without pitfalls (as we are likely seeing)

His effectiveness as a coach

not a trigger for just cause.



Does that explain some posters trepidation about the process?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

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.

Two impressions from your revealing that you have military background. Neither is mean to be a slight:

"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy."

JAG probably encounters and does well enough where law & ethics intersect.

 

[UCDaveD]

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.

1. For the same reason that the Boston Celtics top candidate was from Butler. Because he was the best fit for the job.

2. That flies in the face of everything Hurley himself has said. So you’re essentially calling him a liar.

You’re severely overestimating the extent that anyone outside of the UConn circle cares about this.

 

[David 76]

[QUOTE="August_West, post: 2762168,
not trigger for just cause and welcome to the Glen Miller club. Enjoy your company of superjohn and jmick

Probable, likely trigger [/QUOTE

One trigger is all that is needed. And $10 million is a pretty big consequence too.

No need to go personal AW. This is a difference of opinion. I don't see Ollie as a victim. I think he ruined his marriage and his job. If he committed minor infractions and lied to the AD about some of it, just cause. He may have done worse.

 

[CL82]

Two impressions from your revealing that you have military background. Neither is mean to be a slight:

"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy."

JAG probably encounters and does well enough where law & ethics intersect.

I was going go with an analogy involving violating the Military Code of Justice and lying about it to your CO, in writing, three times, but then I decided it wasn't worth the effort.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

Hurley would have been the top candidate no matter what. He's an ideal fit. The kind of coach we should have hired originally.

There will be no impact or fallout from this. It popped on Reddit CollegeBasketball for all of one day, and is already forgotten. Nobody cares. No coach would be bothered by this, and UConn probably won't be hiring a coach for the next 20 years anyway.

I don't understand the ethical argument. The parties had a contract. The contract said UConn had to pay Ollie a bunch of money, even if it fired him. So he'd be paid despite not having to work. The contract also said they didn't have to pay him if he committed any NCAA infraction. Seems pretty clear to me. He isn't a victim here. He did a lousy job, got paid a ton of money while doing a lousy job, and he violated the terms of the contract. Seeking to be paid the rest of the contract for a job he doesn't have to do anymore, and did badly the last two years, that's the only unethical thing occurring here.

 

[August_West]

No need to go personal AW. This is a difference of opinion. I don't see Ollie as a victim

Thats my problem. No one sees him as a victim. I dont see anyone calling him a victim here. Even the most ardent critic of the process recognizes that he should have been canned for performance reasons. So he is not a victim.

We UConn fans MAY end up being the victims of the process UConn chose to remove him with.

To me that is the crux of the discussion. People cannot be wrong falling on either side of it at this time. But there will be a time in the future where we will be able to judge the actions of the UConn administration on the whole and see if they were cunning geniuses or bumbling idiots.

I have a hard time setting better than even odds on that outcome.

In the meantime this is all just speculation by everyone no matter what your opinion.


And people need to stop with the moral innuendos on here.

Nobody would care of Ollie was Pitino'ing women on Blaze Pizza tables if we were in the tourney annually.

 

[CL82]

I don't understand the ethical argument. The parties had a contract. The contract said UConn had to pay Ollie a bunch of money, even if it fired him. So he'd be paid despite not having to work. The contract also said they didn't have to pay him if he committed any NCAA infraction. Seems pretty clear to me.

What you are missing is that part of the contract where Ollie gets the remaining funds due under his contract is sacrosanct, the holiest of holies, but the part where it states he isn't entitled to that if, among other things, he violates NCAA rules is a mere "technicality" which any moral person must ignore.

 

[CL82]

No need to go personal AW.

Thats my problem.

'nuff said.

 

[August_West]

'nuff said.

Well I didnt want to go there but the only thing that can be construed as "personal" in that post is me comparing him to Superjohn and Jmick.

It's telling that someone would take that as an "insult".

 

[HuskyHawk]

Thats my problem. No one sees him as a victim. I dont see anyone calling him a victim here. Even the most ardent critic of the process recognizes that he should have been canned for performance reasons. So he is not a victim.

We UConn fans MAY end up being the victims of the process UConn chose to remove him with.

To me that is the crux of the discussion. People cannot be wrong falling on either side of it at this time. But there will be a time in the future where we will be able to judge the actions of the UConn administration on the whole and see if they were cunning geniuses or bumbling idiots.

I have a hard time setting better than even odds on that outcome.

In the meantime this is all just speculation by everyone no matter what your opinion.


And people need to stop with the moral innuendos on here.

Nobody would care of Ollie was Pitino'ing women on Blaze Pizza tables if we were in the tourney annually.

Some people certainly see him as a victim. Others think there will be some backlash against UConn from taking this approach.

We are all speculating, but I think the odds of this coming back to haunt UConn are pretty close to zero. I'm not seeing any way that it could. I think the team will be dramatically improved, and Hurley will get credit for that. Ollie will be forgotten pretty quickly, and the lasting impression will be something like "wow, that guy was even worse than we thought".

As to your last point, I don't quite agree. It's certainly true that we'd be far more forgiving of a successful coach than an unsuccessful one. But character matters, more than it once did. I don't have any actual knowledge of what Ollie is rumored to have done or not done. I'm 100% focused on his actions as coach, and he failed in that. There is no need to go beyond that, and UConn hasn't in this proceeding.

 

[David 76]

Thats my problem. No one sees him as a victim. I dont see anyone calling him a victim here. Even the most ardent critic of the process recognizes that he should have been canned for performance reasons. So he is not a victim..

Many people, maybe you, see him as a victim of being deprived of $10 million. Many people, including you, are prejudging UConn's administration of being immoral and/or foolish in this matter. We know Ollie's coaching was bad and we know he behaved foolishly. And he did it with $10 million on the line. And he lied to his boss about it too. I don't think too many people would risk that much money in that way. He gave them grounds to not pay him and they took it.

 

[Danzz]

[QUOTE="August_West, post: 2762168,
not trigger for just cause and welcome to the Glen Miller club. Enjoy your company of superjohn and jmick

Probable, likely trigger [/QUOTE

One trigger is all that is needed. And $10 million is a pretty big consequence too.

No need to go personal AW. This is a difference of opinion. I don't see Ollie as a victim. I think he ruined his marriage and his job. If he committed minor infractions and lied to the AD about some of it, just cause. He may have done worse.

Keep his marriage/divorce out of it. You don't have a clue about it.

 

[Storrs South]

 

[Chief00]

I like KO but this thing is so over.

 

[husky8273]

I like KO but this thing is so over.

It's anything but over.

 

[Vancat]

I like KO but this thing is so over.

I don't like KO (anymore) and I wish it were over.

 

[Chief00]

It's anything but over.

For him the trajectory is known.

 

[David 76]

Keep his marriage/divorce out of it. You don't have a clue about it.

People have been talking about his divorce for four years.
So, not that I don't enjoy being scolded, but could you give and a clue what you are going off about?

 

[HawkHusky]

TheDay's DiMauro: Based on the evidence we've learned, Ollie's dismissal was warranted

Pretty spot on IMO.

 

[Buffett10]

People have been talking about his divorce for four years.
So, not that I don't enjoy being scolded, but could you give and a clue what you are going off about?

Ollie doesn't care he's moved on and found a nice new piece

 

[UCDaveD]

Ollie doesn't care he's moved on and found a nice new piece

Has she graduated yet, or does she still have another semester?

 

[Danzz]

People have been talking about his divorce for four years.
So, not that I don't enjoy being scolded, but could you give and a clue what you are going off about?

I'm not going off at all, just stating a fact. Nobody ever gets all the facts on the reason for a divorce except the two people involved. It sounds as if you are assuming things about which you have no knowledge.

 

[8893]

Has she graduated yet, or does she still have another semester?

Oh snap!

 

[Stainmaster]

Oh snap!

I winced.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I'm not going off at all, just stating a fact. Nobody ever gets all the facts on the reason for a divorce except the two people involved. It sounds as if you are assuming things about which you have no knowledge.

Often, the parties don't know either.

 

[David 76]

I'm not going off at all, just stating a fact. Nobody ever gets all the facts on the reason for a divorce except the two people involved. It sounds as if you are assuming things about which you have no knowledge.

I assume that when a marriage ends, both parties assume some responsibility.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

TheDay's DiMauro: Based on the evidence we've learned, Ollie's dismissal was warranted

Pretty spot on IMO.

Let's get back on track here and leave divorce court to someone else.

The article @HawkHusky linked us to should end the discussion about whether KO should get paid or not. Per a west Coast AD, St Mary's got 5 years probation for the exact same thing as what happened here.

"The violation involving the trainer and the expenses to travel to Atlanta is a serious one," my friend (the AD) said. "I would fire a coach for that. Saint Mary's went on probation for five years for the same thing a few years ago."
Per the NCAA report, St. Mary's coach Randy Bennett "knew of impermissible offseason workouts by Saint Mary's players conducted by outside basketball trainers and conditioning coaches."

Case closed in my mind. Not a dime back!

 

[intlzncster]

I assume that when a marriage ends, both parties assume some responsibility.

From what I've seen, both parties accept no responsibility and put full blame on the other!

 

[Rico444]

From what I've seen, both parties accept no responsibility and put full blame on the other!

Are we still talking about Ollie's marriage...?