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.
