Kevin Ollie’s lawyers ask for depositions from NCAA president Mark Emmert and national search firm as contract dispute with UConn

[Zissou]

80% of the contract? And what pray tell are you basing that on? How would paying $8.8M thtit does not owe save the university millions? How, exactly,has the university "gone scorched earth?

Paying 80% honors the contract, gives a small penalty for the clause claim, avoids all of the legal costs, and avoids all of the bad blood with others around the program. UConn went scorched earth by low balling the offer and working with the NCAA to throw Kevin under the bus.

 

[superjohn]

Nova fan trolling again.

 

[Zissou]

Nova fan trolling again.

Seemed like you needed some perspective outside of the homer club

 

[CL82]

Paying 80% honors the contract, gives a small penalty for the clause claim, avoids all of the legal costs, and avoids all of the bad blood with others around the program. UConn went scorched earth by low balling the offer and working with the NCAA to throw Kevin under the bus.

Lol, it absolutely does not honor the contract because Kevin is owed nothing under the contract. What do you do for a living? At any place I've ever worked, paying someone nearly $9M that they are not owed would cost you your job.

UConn didn't low ball Kevin, since he is owed nothing under the contract. And are you seriously suggesting a conspiracy between UConn and the NCAA. SMH. How old are you?

 

[Zissou]

Lol, it absolutely does not honor the contract because Kevin is owed nothing under the contract. What do you do for a living? At any place I've ever worked, paying someone nearly $9M that they are not owed would cost you your job.

UConn didn't low ball Kevin, since he is owed nothing under the contract. And are you seriously suggesting a conspiracy between UConn and the NCAA. SMH. How old are you?

Well, we don’t know what is owed yet as the decision is still pending. We shall see the outcome.

imo it is better to settle and not have the legal fees and bad blood and scorched earth and risk of outcome. Pay and move on.

 

[superjohn]

Seemed like you needed some perspective outside of the homer club

We don't weigh in on your former coaches, don't weigh in on ours.

 

[mussels]

I think the analysis is more like this:

Employee X is a bad employee and is not meeting their objectives. Employer discovers that employee X not only is a poor employee, but also has been breaking outside regulations which could cause the business to be sanctioned. Employer then finds out that employee X has been lying to them about these violations and then finds out that employee X has also been lying to regulatory authorities who sanction both employee X and the business.
Employee X gets fired 10 times out of 10, regardless of the business.

The suggestion that the University of Connecticut has done something wrong in following exactly this pattern seems like a pretty big stretch, don’t you think? The notion that employee X wants to be paid in full for not working, after performing so poorly and jeopardizing the business seems ridiculous, don’t you think?

Your logic is sound, but the scenario used as example is more applicable to the typical professional level employee "at will" (not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, or any other type of contact). In the case at hand, employee X has a contract that doesn't stipulate anything about performance on the court.

In college sports, coaches in demand have leverage to get contracts that pay them for a pre-determined period, regardless of the outcome on the court/field etc. Further, its a common practice, that when results aren't what was expected, coaches are either paid the remainder of their contract or something is negotiated.

So lets see what we have here: A coach, not in a protected class, who's team was found to have violated NCAA rules resulting in them being banned from post season play. Resultant discipline to the coach, or anyone else associated with the program - nothing; and a coach in a protected class, who violated NCAA rules. Resultant discipline to the coach - termination with no buyout.

Not a lawyer (or HR person), so not sure if this can go to a jury; but assuming it can, imagine presenting your "ironclad" case to a jury with some members used to finding that all the "small print" and rules always seem to stack the deck against them.

Still feeling 10 out of 10 ?

 

[Chief00]

9.999 times out of 10? Note that there were five elements. 1), being a bad employee, 2) breaking rules, 3) lying to your employer about it, 4) lying to an outside regulating authority, and 5) having both the employee and the entity be punished for it. Do you know what? I think I’ll go back to my original 10 times out of 10. It is egregious conduct that would inevitably move an employer to action.

I know Chief would get fired where I work if those 5 things happened Or likely if even one of them happened.

 

[Chief00]

Your logic is sound, but the scenario used as example is more applicable to the typical professional level employee "at will" (not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, or any other type of contact). In the case at hand, employee X has a contract that doesn't stipulate anything about performance on the court.

In college sports, coaches in demand have leverage to get contracts that pay them for a pre-determined period, regardless of the outcome on the court/field etc. Further, its a common practice, that when results aren't what was expected, coaches are either paid the remainder of their contract or something is negotiated.

So lets see what we have here: A coach, not in a protected class, who's team was found to have violated NCAA rules resulting in them being banned from post season play. Resultant discipline to the coach, or anyone else associated with the program - nothing; and a coach in a protected class, who violated NCAA rules. Resultant discipline to the coach - termination with no buyout.

Not a lawyer (or HR person), so not sure if this can go to a jury; but assuming it can, imagine presenting your "ironclad" case to a jury with some members used to finding that all the "small print" and rules always seem to stack the deck against them.

Still feeling 10 out of 10 ?

I think you are missing the fact the regulator not only punished him but banned him from coaching for 3 years. UConn literarily could not have had him coach.

 

[mussels]

I think you are missing the fact the regulatory not only punished him but banned him from coaching for 3 years. UConn literarily could not have had him coach.

Did they fire him before or after that was determined ? (being banned for three years)

Edit: added parentheses to hopefully clarify

 

[CL82]

Well, we don’t know what is owed yet as the decision is still pending. We shall see the outcome.

imo it is better to settle and not have the legal fees and bad blood and scorched earth and risk of outcome. Pay and move on.

I’m pretty confident that legall fees aren’t going to approach $8M. Just sayin.

 

[Peacefrog]

I don't think my beliefs help Ollie's legal case in any way.

 

[CL82]

Your logic is sound, but the scenario used as example is more applicable to the typical professional level employee "at will" (not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, or any other type of contact). In the case at hand, employee X has a contract that doesn't stipulate anything about performance on the court.

In college sports, coaches in demand have leverage to get contracts that pay them for a pre-determined period, regardless of the outcome on the court/field etc. Further, its a common practice, that when results aren't what was expected, coaches are either paid the remainder of their contract or something is negotiated.

So lets see what we have here: A coach, not in a protected class, who's team was found to have violated NCAA rules resulting in them being banned from post season play. Resultant discipline to the coach, or anyone else associated with the program - nothing; and a coach in a protected class, who violated NCAA rules. Resultant discipline to the coach - termination with no buyout.

Not a lawyer (or HR person), so not sure if this can go to a jury; but assuming it can, imagine presenting your "ironclad" case to a jury with some members used to finding that all the "small print" and rules always seem to stack the deck against them.

Still feeling 10 out of 10 ?

Yep. Keep in mind that Ollie was advised that there was a zero tolerance for NCAA violations when he was hired. He went on to have multiple violations, lied to UConn about it, lied about it to the NCAA, and got the school and himself sanctioned. Tough to say that there wasn’t a basis for discharge.

 

[Huskybass]

Paying 80% honors the contract, gives a small penalty for the clause claim, avoids all of the legal costs, and avoids all of the bad blood with others around the program. UConn went scorched earth by low balling the offer and working with the NCAA to throw Kevin under the bus.

80% is a preposterous figure given the relative strength of the parties' cases. Something like 20% would make sense simply to end the saga, and even at that it's basically a gift to Ollie since his case is so weak. Violations by Ollie constitute "cause" and the 3 year show cause penalty he recieved from the NCAA is certainly ample grounds that violations took place. Is that really that difficult to comprehend?

 

[mussels]

Yep. Keep in mind that Ollie was advised that there was a zero tolerance for NCAA violations when he was hired. He went on to have multiple violations, lied to UConn about it, lied about it to the NCAA, and got the school and himself sanctioned. Tough to say that there wasn’t a basis discharge.

So why do you think that Ray Allen, Caron Butler, and others feel differently? It open and shut right? Are you really confident that you can convince a jury ?

 

[CallMeBruce]

So why do you think that Ray Allen, Caron Butler, and others feel differently? It open and shut right? Are you really confident that you can convince a jury ?

good thing those guys can't be on a jury

 

[casual-yardin]

Kevin, loss his focus and did not put the work in. He had a good thing going but he thought Calhoun was getting too much credit for his success. So he kicked Calhoun out of practices and listening to his counsel - and the downhill descent began, further turbo charged by personal issues. KO would have been so much better off sharing some credit and keeping that old MF*er around. He would still be making $3.5 million a year.

Someone else "getting too much credit" for your success is bad for your wallet. If this was the case (and I have very little confidence that anything you say is accurate) after winning the Natty in '14 Calhoun should have completely removed himself and Ollie would have wanted to be on his own. Your scenario, real or imagined,
is actually a worse look for Calhoun.

"Not a dime back"

 

[superjohn]

Someone else "getting too much credit" for your success is bad for your wallet. If this was the case (and I have very little confidence that anything you say is accurate) after winning the Natty in '14 Calhoun should have completely removed himself and Ollie would have wanted to be on his own. Your scenario, real or imagined,
is actually a worse look for Calhoun.

"Not a dime back"

This is an unbelievably dumb take. Worked out great for Ollie and his wallet.

 

[casual-yardin]

It's been reported that KO got a offer to settle in the 2-3M range.

Do you have a link? The only "report" I've ever seen is a that he was offered ~$1M and that "source" isn't exactly credible.

PS: If he was able to get $3M he probably should have taken it.

 

[casual-yardin]

This is an unbelievably dumb take. Worked out great for Ollie and his wallet.

I'm talking 2014. Ollie had the College BB world at his feet. You were probably first in the BY line back then to blow the guy. When the way to get more money is to continually draw more interest from other programs or the NBA being dependent on a mentor lowers your value. i assure you that Jim Calhoun understands this.

 

[superjohn]

I'm talking 2014. Ollie had the College BB world at his feet. You were probably first in the BY line back then to blow the guy. When the way to get more money is to continually draw more interest from other programs or the NBA being dependent on a mentor lowers your value. i assure you that Jim Calhoun understands this.

Yep, worked out great for him and his wallet. That acupuncture money is bigger than that NBA money.

 

[casual-yardin]

We've been over this. The guy made ~$11M the next 3 years from UConn and was proly worth at least $20M pre divorce.

I'm talking about almost 6 years ago. He was a young, black, "cool", former NBA player, friends with Lebron and Durant, coming off a National Championship in his 2nd year, college basketball coach. Only a person with absolutely no self confidence would want any doubt that their future was their own doing.

 

[Zissou]

80% is a preposterous figure given the relative strength of the parties' cases. Something like 20% would make sense simply to end the saga, and even at that it's basically a gift to Ollie since his case is so weak. Violations by Ollie constitute "cause" and the 3 year show cause penalty he recieved from the NCAA is certainly ample grounds that violations took place. Is that really that difficult to comprehend?

If even 20% was offered... that did not get it done. So we prefer these current events?

maybe they were $6 or $7M apart?

The NCAA is not a court. Kevin was fired before the show cause punishment. The NCAA is notorious for capricious rulings. Don’t assume the court will see the facts in the same light as the NCAA. A 3 year penalty on Kevin does not seem to fit the infractions. (Compare this to Will Wade and Sean Miller).

They should have paid him, avoided further cost and BS, and moved on.

I’ve had lawyers very confident in their cases lose. We’ll see if Ollie’s case is so weak, but I’d caution being overly confident. Most cases settle because of the great uncertainty of outcomes.

 

[Huskybass]

If even 20% was offered... that did not get it done. So we prefer these current events?

maybe they were $6 or $7M apart?

The NCAA is not a court. Kevin was fired before the show cause punishment. The NCAA is notorious for capricious rulings. Don’t assume the court will see the facts in the same light as the NCAA. A 3 year penalty on Kevin does not seem to fit the infractions. (Compare this to Will Wade and Sean Miller).

They should have paid him, avoided further cost and BS, and moved on.

I’ve had lawyers very confident in their cases lose. We’ll see if Ollie’s case is so weak, but I’d caution being overly confident. Most cases settle because of the great uncertainty of outcomes.

If you took the time to actually read the contract at issue, you would see that it clearly states that violations of NCAA rules constitute "cause". The infractions were not only committed, but both Ollie and the school recieved corresponding penalties.

Does the case have some settlement value, simply to make it go away? Sure. But that number is nowhere near the amount you stated. UConn's case is FAR stronger than Ollie's. Any objective party can see that.

 

[Zissou]

Something to think about

What is the legal relationship between UConn and the NCAA?

Once Kevin was fired, the NCAA imposed higher penalties in the coach then on the school. UConn and the NCAA both benefited from this action.
There is a lot of ground to cover here for the legal teams. Keep the meter running.

UConn’s fees are likely not capped. I wonder if Kevin’s team is on partial contingency.