KO - Victim of discrimination and denied due process?

[August_West]

I hope you mean because they couldn't pay him the $10M, and not because you think the powers that be at UConn actually give two ___ about NCAA violations if they're not a potential lever by which to avoid paying a guy on his way out the door.

 

[CL82]

I hope you mean because they couldn't pay him the $10M, and not because you think the powers that be at UConn actually give two ___ about NCAA violations if they're not a potential lever by which to avoid paying a guy on his way out the door.

I mean what I said. If Ollie hadn't given them grounds for a just cause dismissal, he'd still be the head coach.

As I've posted elsewhere, the notion that a $4B entity with $1B in annual income "couldn't pay $10M" is silly. That doesn't mean that would have paid it, nor should they, but they certainly could have.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

I mean what I said. If Ollie hadn't given them grounds for a just cause dismissal, he'd still be the head coach.

As I've posted elsewhere, the notion that a $4B entity with $1B in annual income "couldn't pay $10M" is silly. That doesn't mean that would have paid it, nor should they, but they certainly could have.

That's sort of a word salad. If the team was good last year do you think they fire Ollie because of these purported NCAA issues?

 

[fatlucy]

That's sort of a word salad. If the team was good last year do you think they fire Ollie because of these purported NCAA issues?

Of course not. But they weren’t required to either. It’s at their discretion.

 

[UCDaveD]

That's sort of a word salad. If the team was good last year do you think they fire Ollie because of these purported NCAA issues?

This question is as irrelevant now as it was the first time million times it's been asked.

 

[HuskyHawk]

That's sort of a word salad. If the team was good last year do you think they fire Ollie because of these purported NCAA issues?

No, and it does not matter. Not one little bit. If you are a fantastic contributor, a company will overlook certain things. If you are a poor contributor, they will hold you to every detailed obligation.

It is that way for everybody. Ollie is no different. If you are going to violate rules, it's best that you don't suck at your job. This is the real world. I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

This is the key point for me... if the University can definitively show/prove that those two? reported meetings where “zero tolerance” was discussed with the two people who hired him indeed occurred, KO’s team will have a very tough time in an AAA arbitration hearing scenario proving that just cause wasn’t met.

Didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn nor even in a $500/day Hilton Garden hotel in Portland last night, but ...

In particular regarding the reported “zero tolerance” meetings involving Herbst, what's the likelihood zero minutes exist or the importance of “zero tolerance” was not highlighted in minutes?

Setting aside individual feelings regarding perceived underlying reasons for the departed's firing or UConn's enforcement of his specific contract's just cause language, documented minutes of Susie's or ex-AD Warde Manuel's "zero tolerance" meetings could potentially be damning in arbitration or court proceedings. If no such minutes exist ...

If written documentation exists validating sign off regarding full compliance with UConn, NCAA, etc. rules and/or at least 3 reported instances of misrepresenting the truth to UConn Compliance and/or Manuel, AD DB, et al, additional challenges may exist for the prospective complainant or plaintiff and his attorneys. If no such written documentation exists ...

 

[CL82]

That's sort of a word salad. If the team was good last year do you think they fire Ollie because of these purported NCAA issues?

No, why would they? But you understand the test isn't whether the NCAA the sole grounds for dismissal, right? The test is whether NCAA violations occurred. They did.

I know you aren't a fan of reading the contract language, but I suggest you refer to it.

 

[CL82]

So except for the losing, KO's a winner. Ah, got it.

 

[CL82]

Didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn nor even in a $500/day Hilton Garden hotel in Portland last night, but ...

In particular regarding the reported “zero tolerance” meetings involving Herbst, what's the likelihood zero minutes exist or the importance of “zero tolerance” was not highlighted in minutes?

Setting aside individual feelings regarding perceived underlying reasons for the departed's firing or UConn's enforcement of his specific contract's just cause language, documented minutes of Susie's or AD DB's "zero tolerance" meetings could potentially be damning in arbitration or court proceedings. If no such minutes exist ...

If written documentation exists validating sign off regarding full compliance with UConn, NCAA, etc. rules and/or at least 3 reported instances of misrepresenting the truth, additional challenges may exist for the prospective complainant or plaintiff and his attorneys. If no such written documentation exists ...

Fortunately there is written proof that NCAA violations would be considered just cause for dismissal by KO and the university. Link

 

[huskymedic]

... or documented minutes of Susie's or AD DB's "zero tolerance" meetings ...

For clarification > The meetings/conversations referenced would have been with Herbst and Manuel.

 

[Pudge]

No, and it does not matter. Not one little bit. If you are a fantastic contributor, a company will overlook certain things. If you are a poor contributor, they will hold you to every detailed obligation.

It is that way for everybody. Ollie is no different. If you are going to violate rules, it's best that you don't suck at your job. This is the real world. I don't have a problem with it.

Yeah but ...

The criteria in your brain is wrong. If you actually go to trial in a civil litigation, with 12 average jurors, the actual narrative is that University of Connecticut did this because of the two bad years; and THEY do not want to think too hard about your "just cause" complaint.

If I am UCONN, I settle way before this point. AAA arbitration? Well ... KO keeps this going beyond.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

"So, you're telling me that if players transfer out, and we lose our top recruit, and fill out the roster with transfers and other late recruits, and the injured guys we retain aren't full capacity and one guy even reinjures himself and misses the season and we get blown out like nobody's seen in decades, and I keep playing the grad transfer from Cornell, and I don't seem fully engaged on the bench at times, and I shy away from the press and keep saying "We just gotta do better," and the season finishes with a worse record than the year before... I get have another year at the helm, or they have to pay me $10 million?"

"Yep."

"No strings attached?"

"Just gotta be in compliance with all NCAA rules and articulated standards of conduct according to the contract that guarantees the money."

"And I get all the money?"

"As long as everything is totally clean."

"Even if the school is being investigated?"

"As long as everything is clean."

"And I can play Onourah as much as I want?"

"As long as everything is clean."

"All mine?"

"Like I told you."

"And the union's got my back? Even if the fans and admin and boosters and players have lost confidence in me? Even if there are rumors about stuff outside of work? Even if there's bad press? Even if I look like I've lost my motivation? There's no way I don't get all the money?"

"Unless there's a suitable violation for which they could terminate you 'for cause'."

"They wouldn't try any funny business, would they? I mean I get the $10 million, right?"

"Or more years coaching."

"Yeah,well,whatever,either way I get the money, right?"

"As long as there's no violations. Are there any?"

"Small ones, nothing to speak of, stuff I've seen other guys do."

"What? Do they know? Did they ask you? Are you clean?"

"Well, I certified."

"So all's clean?"

"Yeah, I get to come back and try again or I get to walk with a fortune, and nobody's gonna stop me, right?"

"Well, if the season tanks and they're unhappy, they'll probably want to settle for a lesser amount. It's pretty common."

"Less than all? Can they do that?"

"" Are you 100% clean?

"" Who's 100%?"

"Are you?"

"Why do you keep asking that?"

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

For clarification > The meetings/conversations referenced would have been with Herbst and Manuel.

Edited post. Thanks for the helpful correction. And, inserted communication or statements about purportedly validating or misrepresenting facts rules compliance with UConn Athletics' Compliance or Manuel, AD DB, et al

 

[UCDaveD]

Yeah but ...

The criteria in your brain is wrong. If you actually go to trial in a civil litigation, with 12 average jurors, the actual narrative is that University of Connecticut did this because of the two bad years; and THEY do not want to think too hard about your "just cause" complaint.

If I am UCONN, I settle way before this point. AAA arbitration? Well ... KO keeps this going beyond.

Lol @ just assuming the jury won’t do their job.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

No, why would they? But you understand the test isn't were the NCAA the sole grounds for dismissal, right? The test is whether NCAA violations occurred. They did.

I know you aren't a fan of reading the contract language, but I suggest you refer to it.

I'm not taking issue with the notion that NCAA violations provide grounds to terminate for cause. Anyone who's seen the contract would agree with that. I'm asking whether you agree with me that the University is invoking purported NCAA violations that they would unquestionably ignore (and have previously ignored) had last year's team won more games. When you strip away your snide comments it sounds like you agree with me. You and your buddies in this thread seem obsessed with whether or not UConn is technically correct in claiming cause - that doesn't seem like a very hard question to me.

I'm more interested in why everyone outside of UConn seems to see UConn, as opposed to Ollie, as the bad actor in this scenario. Might be the same reason why schools don't typically dig their heels in on ____ like this.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Lol @ just assuming the jury won’t do their job.

You ever tried a case to a jury?

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

This question is as irrelevant now as it was the first time million times it's been asked.

Again, all this "are they technically right" bull___ misses the point.

 

[UCDaveD]

Again, all this "are they technically right" bull___ misses the point.

When talking about legality, no it doesn’t. I’m sorry you see it as ethically wrong, but that doesn’t matter one iota.

 

[UCDaveD]

You ever tried a case to a jury?

Juries can be unpredictable, but assuming that they’re too stupid to understand the black and white definition of Cause in Ollie’s contract is ridiculous. My 6 year old nephew read it and concluded that Cause exists.

 

[BlueMAB]

i don't read every post in every thread. nor do i generally take strangers' posts as facts.

except for @huskymedic 's, he's legendary

 

[auggie22]

I'm not taking issue with the notion that NCAA violations provide grounds to terminate for cause. Anyone who's seen the contract would agree with that. I'm asking whether you agree with me that the University is invoking purported NCAA violations that they would unquestionably ignore (and have previously ignored) had last year's team won more games. When you strip away your snide comments it sounds like you agree with me. You and your buddies in this thread seem obsessed with whether or not UConn is technically correct in claiming cause - that doesn't seem like a very hard question to me.

I'm more interested in why everyone outside of UConn seems to see UConn, as opposed to Ollie, as the bad actor in this scenario. Might be the same reason why schools don't typically dig their heels in on ____ like this.

Seems to me like the overwhelming majority of those on this board would come down in favor of the defendant here. And I suspect there are a good percentage of those that are vocal on the other side of the argument that are just playing a contrarian role. I am really not sure - other than the lawyers being lawyers - that there are more than a few people here who would argue for Ollie’s position on the principal.

A jury pool would be drawn from CT citizens, not national media members that have been primed ( either by friendship or at the urging of publicists ) to speak out on Ollie’s behalf. What exactly do you mean by “everyone outside of Uconn”?

 

[CL82]

I'm not taking issue with the notion that NCAA violations provide grounds to terminate for cause. Anyone who's seen the contract would agree with that.

I'm glad you (finallly) agree that UConn is entitled to discharge Ollie under the contracts "for cause" provisions. That's pretty much the point.

I'm asking whether you agree with me that the University is invoking purported NCAA violations that they would unquestionably ignore (and have previously ignored) had last year's team won more games.

I've already answered you. Why would they fire an unsuccessful employee? It makes zero sense. Of course they wouldn't. That's really not much a point though is it? It it were, it would protect every bad employee. "Why did they fire Jimmy? If he was good at his job they wouldn't have."

I'm more interested in why everyone outside of UConn seems to see UConn, as opposed to Ollie, as the bad actor in this scenario. Might be the same reason why schools don't typically dig their heels in on ____ like this.

That's a pretty open question and it is based on a false premise. Other schools do invoke penalty provisions to reduce liquidated damages clause. Pitt and Stallings is a recent example with similar facts. So what you are really asking me is why aren't you aware of these examples? Hard to say, but it is likely rooted in a few factors. The first is that you don't root for those teams so you aren't paying as close attention. The second is that the vast majority of coaches would go away quietly knowing that they are incredibly unlikely to prevail and wishing to avoid the notoriety that comes from fighting such losing causes. That doesn't mean that most institutions would pay an employee $10M that they are not entitled to. It just means that other similar disputes wouldn't hit your radar for whatever reason.

I hope that answers your questions.