Has the gag order been lifted?

[Yardigan]

More?

That's what keeps it entertaini-, er, interesting. Not "more", but "more?"

 

[Danzz]

Either UConn is trying to win, or it isn't. If UConn is going to do this, then they should leave a smoking hole in the ground where Ollie's career used to be. The worst thing they can do is go to court and lose.

Moot. This is never getting to court. It would be the dumbest thing for either side.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

...especially when the same damn people say the same damn thing and damn everyone who doesn't agree. Yawn.

newsflash - people don't act like saints in the presence of an 8 figure contract. Film at 11.

8 figure contracts came into being because the numbers justified them. The numbers were generated by broadcast revenue derived from mass audiences. Mass audiences like intrigue and drama. Michael Jackson likes his popcorn.

Sometimes the competition (and that's what this is) is more compelling than a Ray Allen dunk mix, a walk in nature, fresh-picked strawberries, your favorite pizza/beer/bourbon/BBQ, nurturing relationships, or any number of available life pleasures.

But I'm repeating myself as well ...

 

[David 76]

More?

Allegedly, yes. But I won't repeat rumors because it only makes it worse for Ollie and UConn. But they don't seem to be NCAA things.

 

[TJT]

Either UConn is trying to win, or it isn't. If UConn is going to do this, then they should leave a smoking hole in the ground where Ollie's career used to be. The worst thing they can do is go to court and lose.

By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.

The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?

 

[JMick]

By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.

The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?

Yes. We shall call it the UConn Cold War.

 

[August_West]

By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.

The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?

Gee who could've predicted that? It's almost like trying to weasel out of a buyout could possibly cause some bigger issues?

UConn path of least resistance was to get rid of Ollie pay the buyout and hire Hurley.

They chose a different strategy. One that may introduce some unsavory stuff.

" Threading the needle" ( was that chiefs originally?) Is really the most apt description of this. They may pull it off yet. We'll see. If that needle isn't threaded it's going to be fugly.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.

The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?

Accusing Ollie of cheating is scorched Earth. What's left? Accusing him of harrassing female employees? Might as well throw that out there too at this point, even if it is not true.

That is about all the leverage the school has left. They can't threaten to slam Ollie in the press since they have already slammed Ollie in the press.

 

[superjohn]

Accusing Ollie of cheating is scorched Earth. What's left? Accusing him of harrassing female employees? Might as well throw that out there too at this point, even if it is not true.

That is about all the leverage the school has left. They can't threaten to slam Ollie in the press since they have already slammed Ollie in the press.

These are rules he's broken which breached his contract, Ollie hasn't denied breaking these rules. They haven't at all gone scorched earth on him.

 

[August_West]

These are rules he's broken which breached his contract, Ollie hasn't denied breaking these rules. They haven't at all gone scorched earth on him.

Yes they did.

 

[intlzncster]

By that logic, one would think the option of KO going nuclear on UConn is there as well. One would think he has plenty of knowledge of things done by other head coaches in Storrs that the school would not want made public.

The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?

If he ever, ever wanted any sort of job in basketball again, he would be wise to not go that route. See Miller, Glen, who's only employed at a lowest level 1st year DIII program because of an extraordinarily loyal old friend, who happens to have unlimited cache.

While not a good look, it's just not the same for a school as it is for a coach.

 

[Chief00]

Gee who could've predicted that? It's almost like trying to weasel out of a buyout could possibly cause some bigger issues?

UConn path of least resistance was to get rid of Ollie pay the buyout and hire Hurley.

They chose a different strategy. One that may introduce some unsavory stuff.

" Threading the needle" ( was that chiefs originally?) Is really the most apt description of this. They may pull it off yet. We'll see. If that needle isn't threaded it's going to be fugly.

Yeah, “threading the needle” were my words and perhaps others used them as well.

I have no idea what Miller was trying to accomplish in his testimony?

He has NCAA immunity but who will hire him, leaving that D3 situation aside, so what good is the immunity?

Between KO’s and GM’s bizarre post season off court moves - it makes it clearer why we didn’t win many games the last two years. These guys react emotionally and have no plan.

 

[CL82]

If he ever, ever wanted any sort of job in basketball again, he would be wise to not go that route. See Miller, Glen, who's only employed at a lowest level 1st year DIII program because of an extraordinarily loyal old friend, who happens to have unlimited cache.

While not a good look, it's just not the same for a school as it is for a coach.

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.

 

[Yardigan]

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
a) being badly mismanaged or
b) the parties have vastly differing viewpoints as to value,

we will have a resolution soon.

"b)" looks like the leader in the clubhpuse....

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

The scorched earth strategy hurts the parties more than it helps them. What good is it if both get destroyed?

Temporary spike in ratings.
Now, why we here would want that is a better question.

 

[Jim]

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.

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.

 

[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.