KO - Victim of discrimination and denied due process?

[CL82]

What horse is that exactly?

Everyone is aware of KO's contribution. It currently being overshadowed by his the threat to smear two beloved HOF coaches unless he is paid money that we all now agree he is not owed. I hope that Kevin will realize that he is only damaging his own legacy in a losing cause and the healing process can begin.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

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

@CL82 Noting the departed coach's contract linked again in your preceding message, its' existence and language considered justifying "just cause" for dismissal are different topics than the topics/questions previously raised. Specifically, the possible existence and potential impact of the following:

1) Meeting minutes, follow up email summary, etc. in which "zero tolerance" of rules infractions' was emphasized by Herbst with the departed ex-coach and separately by ex-AD Warde Manuel with the fired coach, and

2) written documentation of the departed's reported sign-off on at least a few occasions regarding full compliance with UConn, NCAA, etc. rules and/or at least 3 reported related instances of misrepresentation of the truth to athletic department staff.

 

[CL82]

@CL82 Noting the departed coach's contract linked again in your preceding message, its' existence and language considered justifying "just cause" for dismissal are different topics than the topics/questions previously raised. Specifically, the possible existence and potential impact of the following:

1) Meeting minutes, follow up email summary, etc. in which "zero tolerance" of rules infractions' was emphasized by Herbst with the departed ex-coach and separately by ex-AD Warde Manuel with the fired coach, and

2) written documentation of the departed's reported sign-off on at least a few occasions regarding full compliance with UConn, NCAA, etc. rules and/or at least 3 reported related instances of misrepresentation of the truth to athletic department staff.

The contract has zero tolerance language in it. Ollie certifies NCAA compliance annually.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

The contract has zero tolerance language in it. Ollie certifies NCAA compliance annually.

No kidding the contract states or minimally implies zero tolerance. Again, I asked about potential relevant supporting meeting notes, follow up emails, etc. Above and beyond the contract's lingo, such written documentation might (or perhaps not) be a potential relevant differentiator post-NCAA APR concerns compared with prior or current coaches' contracts, contract discussions, etc. Likewise, written versus verbal annual NCAA compliance sign-off, alleged misrepresentation of facts, etc.

 

[Goat]

Absolutely! Well except that the "just cause" is a defined term under the contract and Ollie has met the elements of it... but other than that spot on.

There have been no factual findings, no stipulation as to facts. There is evidence from Miller who is a disgruntled former employee and a witness who only testified on condition of immunity. There are several treatises dedicated to challenging the credibility of witnesses with each of those frailties.

What don't you understand about the burden of proof?

 

[CL82]

There have been no factual findings, no stipulation as to facts. There is evidence from Miller who is a disgruntled former employee and a witness who only testified on condition of immunity. There are several treatises dedicated to challenging the credibility of witnesses with each of those frailties.

What don't you understand about the burden of proof?

That's an incredibly low standard. It's been met.

 

[David 76]

Race has absolutely played a role in our reaction to everything that's happened.

I'm usually very open to the role race plays in our society, but I don't see it here. The trajectory of Calhoun's coaching is not comparable to the trajectory of Ollie's.

It is a bit ironic because Ollie never brought in a white coach or scholarship player. In the world of college basketball, I don't think that shows prejudice, but it looks worse than the Administration's treatment of JC vs KO

 

[Goat]

View attachment 32724
That's an incredibly low standard. It's been met.

The first sentence in (d) does not appear to be a complete sentence. I understand you to be pointing to the words "a violation by the coach of ... official interpretation of the University...." In order for the dismissal to be for cause, the University has the burden of establishing a violation. The language does not mean that the University, conference or NCAA is allowed to dismiss an employee by edict based on its interpretation, which is why the matter is proceeding.

 

[Mokum]

Race has absolutely played a role in our reaction to everything that's happened.

I have been married to a woman of color for 41 years, together for 44. I know what racism is. And I see absolutely no evidence of it in the treatment of KO.

 

[Huskybass]

There have been no factual findings, no stipulation as to facts. There is evidence from Miller who is a disgruntled former employee and a witness who only testified on condition of immunity. There are several treatises dedicated to challenging the credibility of witnesses with each of those frailties.

What don't you understand about the burden of proof?

So the trip to Atlanta with impermissible benefits didnt happen? Ok. The phonecall involving Ray Allen didnt happen either? Wow.

Nice revisionist history you have created.

 

[pj]

The second is that the vast majority of coaches would go away quietly knowing that they are incredibly unlikely to prevail and that the notoriety that comes from such losing causes. That doesn't mean that most institutions would pay someone $10M that you now agree Ollie is not entitled to. It just means, again, that they wouldn't hit your radar for whatever reason.

Ollie got a job (head coach) above what he can now obtain and a pay level far above what he can now earn. Other coaches don't contest being fired because in a year or a few they can get a similar job. Ollie cannot, he may be able to earn $300k at most the rest of his career. So $10 mn looks large to him -- 30 years of earnings, more than the rest of his life's earnings.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

Twelve average jurors see a multimillionaire state employee seeking to be paid for the next three years of a job he has been fired from. Yeah, I'll take my chances that few of those jurors will muster any sympathy for the employee, when it would be their tax dollars that flow to him.

I think the average person can accept the narrative that he was fired for being bad at his job, and in being bad at his job, he also broke rules, so the university doesn't have to pay him not to coach for the next three years. It's an easy sell. And it is the truth.

It's Ollie who cannot afford discovery and the public airing of any more of his time as coach at UConn. He thinks somehow UConn is attacking his character now? Just by responding to a FOIA request? Wait until trial.

 

[champs99and04]

I'm usually very open to the role race plays in our society, but I don't see it here. The trajectory of Calhoun's coaching is not comparable to the trajectory of Ollie's.

It is a bit ironic because Ollie never brought in a white coach or scholarship player. In the world of college basketball, I don't think that shows prejudice, but it looks worse than the Administration's treatment of JC vs KO

I didn't mean to imply that race was the reason he was fired. He was fired because he did a really bad job. Collectively, I think this board is further along than most when it comes to identifying racial bias.

But I think it played a role here just because it plays a role in everything, especially the coaching profession, where investments still tend to be tied up disproportionately in white men. There are legitimate reasons for why that is still the case and then there are other reasons that are less valid but also impossible to qualify. We can play the "how would the reaction be different if he was white?" game all day, but it would be mostly futile because whatever lingering discrimination persists is buried under a bunch of far more thoughtful arguments that can't be dismissed.

I don't think the school is motivated by anything other than money on this one. The NCAA, on the other hand, has notoriously handled their business in a way that is, if not explicitly racist, then certainly problematic. The school hitching their wagon to that particular horse has always been what bugs me the most.

 

[MadDogRevival]

Heat check.

 

[Mokum]

While I get it concerning this as a legal strategy, there is no way I am buying into the idea that any of this has to do with him being black, white , an Eskimo or a man from Mars. It has to do with Uconn not wanting to pay him, and were it a white guy, they would not want to pay him either. I'm sure this is the lawyers idea ( well pretty sure) and
I see this kind of crap as very disrepectful to the people who fought for civil rights all those decades ago,putting their lives on the line. I personally witnessed and even participated in marches in the 60's. This is not what those people had in mind, using racism as a legal tool everytime a black person doesn't get what they want. Does anyone really believe, in 2018, that educated people, president of a university and so on, behind closed doors are saying, screw him, he's just a blankety blank? I don't.

 

[CL82]

The first sentence in (d) does not appear to be a complete sentence. I understand you to be pointing to the words "a violation by the coach of ... official interpretation of the University...." In order for the dismissal to be for cause, the University has the burden of establishing a violation. The language does not mean that the University, conference or NCAA is allowed to dismiss an employee by edict based on its interpretation, which is why the matter is proceeding.

The NCAA isn't allowed to dismiss Ollie at all. It isn't a party to the employment contract. The language absolutely means that if Ollie violates any law, rule, regulation, policy or university's official interpretation it is grounds for a just cause under the contract.

The matter "is proceeding" because Ollie has administrative review options under his contract and is exercising them.

Ollie has not yet asked for arbitration. If he does, which we should know shortly, then the arbitrator will make a determination whether just cause exists. I don't think there is anyone out there who seriously believes that will not happen. Do you?

 

[Goat]

The NCAA isn't allowed to dismiss Ollie at all. It isn't a party to the employment contract. The language absolutely means that if Ollie violates any law, rule, regulation, policy or university's official interpretation it is grounds for a just cause under the contract.

The matter "is proceeding" because Ollie has administrative review options under his contract and is exercising them.

Ollie has not yet asked for arbitration. If he does, which we should know shortly, than the arbitrator will make a determination whether just cause exists. I don't think there is anyone out there who seriously believes that will not happen. Do you?

Not sure I understand the question, but agree arbitration will occur if demanded.
If arbitration proceeds we will hear a defense, learn the opposing position and the arbitrators decision.

 

[CL82]

Ollie got a job (head coach) above what he can now obtain and a pay level far above what he can now earn. Other coaches don't contest being fired because in a year or a few they can get a similar job. Ollie cannot, he may be able to earn $300k at most the rest of his career. So $10 mn looks large to him -- 30 years of earnings, more than the rest of his life's earnings.

Fair point, but that presumes that KO's max salary is $300K, which may or may not be true. The comparison to $10M is a false one because he was unlikely to get the full amount but that may well have been his thinking. The thing is, his best chance to get cash in hand was earlier on so UConn and he could have a shared narrative that worked for everyone. I'm not sure why that didn't happen. We will probably will never know.

 

[pj]

Fair point, but that presumes that KO's max salary is $300K, which may or may not be true. The comparison to $10M is a false one because he was unlikely to get the full amount but that may well have been his thinking. The thing is, his best chance to get cash in hand was earlier on so UConn and he could have a shared narrative that worked for everyone. I'm not sure why that didn't happen. We will probably will never know.

Agreed. However, if KO needs money, and UConn didn't make a large settlement offer, it's easy to see why he's fighting.

Bottom line, he appears to have found he didn't enjoy being a college head coach. If he can't succeed as a college head coach, the chances he will succeed as an NBA head coach are slim. Therefore his ceiling is assistant coach. Entry level NBA assistants, which is what KO can hope for next and which he may or may not succeed at, make $300k or so. College assistant coaches, the other option, make $100-250k. So his earning prospects are $100k-$300k for 3-4 years until he either washes out or proves himself, with a chance at more or a chance at less. Unless he gets a big paycheck from UConn, he is going to have to radically pare back his lifestyle and his sense of entitlement.

KO is 45 years old. If he works until 65, he has 20 years of potential $200k/year earnings or $4 mn in future earnings, but a lot of hard work to get it. If he thinks a lawsuit might get him a significant fraction of $10 mn, say $3-4 mn, he's doubling his lifetime income. If he loses, and if his lawyers are working on contingency, then he's only lost his pride and maybe a slight hit to future earnings through reputational loss. He may feel that by fighting he's risking 10% of $4 mn future earnings to win a labor-free $4 mn. He only needs a 10% chance of winning to make the fight worthwhile.

 

[Mokum]

Clearly not an ideal tactic and will breed all kinds of resentment with the public. They may well have been doing all the things you said behind Ollies back while he was still coaching. I would be surprised if they were not, but I find it hard to believe that anyones race factors into this. But yes, crying racial discrimination is a tactic now days and can backfire. I guess we just all have to wait and see.