KO - Victim of discrimination and denied due process?

[Pudge]

KO is getting more than $0.

Purely because the State of Connecticut and UCONN does not want to go through the excruciating process of discovery and public disclosure beyond what has already been placed in public. And ... unlike some on the Boneyard, it is simply not pro forma. It is penny ante stuff in the whole realm of litigation. You can make this into a mountain ... from its molehill beginnings; but, KO has a NC and several good years of records. Simply put: He was not fired - clearly - because of the compliance issues.

I think he should be placed in the "Huskies of Honor" for the NC. And there ... 90% of you can get upset. But, what's our $ output on that. And probably gives this recently divorced recently fired tough times Kevin Ollie a saving grace. And it is deserved.

There is nothing comparable to Kevin Ollie in my years of watching CBB. Since the Astrodome Game of Elvin Hayes and Lew Alcindor. Steve Fisher (?) at Michigan and then resurrected at San Diego State. But, you simply don't have an Alum lead you to a unreal National Championship and then fall so dramatically. Settle. Whatever he turned down in February is probably acceptable today.

 

[BlueMAB]

Many years ago I mistakingly attended a workshop for school administrators. All presenters were lawyers, with administrators in the chairs.

I stayed to hear what they had to say, mostly because I wasn't supposed to be there.

A common theme was, "be consistent when enforcing rules and regulations. Failure to do so will likely result in legal action, and you'll lose."

No university would look favorably when put under a microscope. My guess is UConn will not only settle, the NCAA will make it worth their time in doing do.

Ollie's lawyer has a legitimate argument that the school was inconsistent in their treatment of the coaches.

However; UConn has a legitimate defense by arguing 1) due to NCAA sanctions, they had to change the way they responded to violations; 2) the NCAA sanctions stemmed from, and specifically applied to, the men's basketball program, 3) further violations by the men's program would lead to increasingly harsh punishments, and 4) these are the reasons the contract language in Ollie's contract is/was stronger than prior contracts; and a zero-tolerance policy was required.

Ollie's only argument at that point is, "show us Hurley's contract".

If it doesn't have the same/very similar language, then the school is inconsistent, and Ollie finally has a shot at actually winning something again.

 

[CL82]

Many years ago I mistakingly attended a workshop for school administrators. All presenters were lawyers, with administrators in the chairs.

I stayed to hear what they had to say, mostly because I wasn't supposed to be there.

A common theme was, "be consistent when enforcing rules and regulations. Failure to do so will likely result in legal action, and you'll lose."

No university would look favorably when put under a microscope. My guess is UConn will not only settle, the NCAA will make it worth their time in doing do.

The argument that other coaches were not fired for secondary offenses is probably Ollie's best should at this point in time. I doubt it will carry the day though. It may not even be addressed in arbitration.

I don't see how the NCAA will be involved in this grievance. They aren't a party and in any event they are unlikely to act while it is pending.

 

[temery]

Ollie's lawyer has a legitimate argument that the school was inconsistent in their treatment of the coaches.

However; UConn has a legitimate defense by arguing 1) due to NCAA sanctions, they had to change the way they responded to violations; 2) the NCAA sanctions applied stemmed from, and specifically applied to, the men's basketball program, 3) further violations by the men's program would lead to increasingly harsh punishments, and 4) these are the reasons the contract language in Ollie's contract is/was stronger than prior contracts; and a zero-tolerance policy was required.

Ollie's only argument at that point is, "show us Hurley's contract".

If it doesn't have the same/very similar language, then the school is inconsistent, and Ollie finally has a shot at actually winning something again.

Ollie's lawyer has a legitimate argument that the school was inconsistent in their treatment of the coaches.

However; UConn has a legitimate defense by arguing 1) due to NCAA sanctions, they had to change the way they responded to violations; 2) the NCAA sanctions applied stemmed from, and specifically applied to, the men's basketball program, 3) further violations by the men's program would lead to increasingly harsh punishments, and 4) these are the reasons the contract language in Ollie's contract is/was stronger than prior contracts; and a zero-tolerance policy was required.

Ollie's only argument at that point is, "show us Hurley's contract".

If it doesn't have the same/very similar language, then the school is inconsistent, and Ollie finally has a shot at actually winning something again.

It's not Hurley's contract that matters as much as Calhoun's. If Calhoun wasn't fired after the loss of scholarships and post season play, then Ollie has a solid case.

Pay Ollie, and let's move on.

 

[mrl2016]

It's not Hurley's contract that matters as much as Calhoun's. If Calhoun wasn't fired after the loss of scholarships and post season play, then Ollie has a solid case.

Pay Ollie, and let's move on.

His entire post was about how it's not Calhoun's contract that matters. You either missed or ignored the point he was trying to make. I for one think he's making an extremely objective argument.

 

[BlueMAB]

It's not Hurley's contract that matters as much as Calhoun's. If Calhoun wasn't fired after the loss of scholarships and post season play, then Ollie has a solid case.

Pay Ollie, and let's move on.

You're right, I'm operating under the assumption that Calhoun didn't have that language in his contract. If it did, which IMO is very unlikely, then Ollie should be paid.

 

[BlueMAB]

His entire post was about how it's not Calhoun's contract that matters. You either missed or ignored the point he was trying to make. I for one think he's making an extremely objective argument.

No, he made a fair point, Calhoun's contract matters. He broke the rules and wasn't fired. But I'm assuming his contract didn't contain language as strong as Ollie's. I think that's a very safe assumption, but I've never seen his contract.

 

[HuskyHawk]

UConn was "awash in Big East money" in its prime, yet retained Calhoun even after a bad season or two.

I'm not saying he was fired because he's black, but Calhoun had bad seasons, and he was retained without question.

I believe a new coach was needed, and Ollie could be as successful elsewhere

, if given a fresh start. I also believe Ollie is owed every penny of the contract signed by the university.

I was at UConn when Calhoun arrived. I watched Perno coach for several years, and saw Calhoun's two worst teams up close. None of those teams, not Calhoun's first two, or those Perno teams, were as poorly coached as UConn was the last two years. Some were less talented, and JC certainly faced a much tougher schedule.

This wasn't "had bad seasons". He was the worst coach in D1 basketball last year. After the injuries of 2016-17, I was hoping he'd pull together and make the changes in his approach that he talked about in the offseason. He didn't. The team was unprepared for almost every opponent, the personnel usage was incredibly bad, and the team was completely lacking in discipline, energy, toughness and every other hallmark of a well coached team.

He violated the terms of the contract quite clearly, and so is not owed a penny.

 

[DMIL]

Chief you've been highly concerned and working overdrive to convince people that Miller was a Benedict Arnold the entire time, and convincing us that Ollie should be payed the buyout money because he's a good guy.

Ollie should be thanking Calhoun and UCONN for making him tens of millions over his career.

PS: It came to this from UCONN's side because Ollie would not leave voluntarily and wouldn't cooperate with the university. That's typically what happens everywhere in life when you don't cooperate with your employer. Don't feel sorry for Ollie: he's good. He never has to work a day in his life again.

That is not the argument he was making "because he's a good guy". Are you a corporation or are you a human being? Do you believe human beings should have rights as well as employees of corporations? Who are you to say or determine if he is "Good" or not. That's not your call.

We should be thankful for Ollie's contribution to the University and the great state of Connecticut. He never had to come across the country to Storrs. Ollie had plenty of options. He contributed 4 years as a player for a number of those successful teams in the early 90's. He contributed as an Alumni, as a UCONN advocate in the NBA for 13 years, as a recruiter, as a Connecticut resident, as a sponsor and chair of numerous charitie, as an Assistant Coach on our 2011 National Title, as our Head Coach in a penalty ridden banned from the tournament year as Head Coach literally stopping our program from falling completely on it's face acting as a bridge for the post Calhoun years, as a Head Coach for our 2014 National Title. Kevin should be getting a plaque from UCONN within 10 to 15 years and not when he is 85 years old.

To the contrary....he's not only thanked UCONN, UCONN NATION, the state of Connecticut and Jim Calhoun but has contributed significantly and none of that can be erased with a couple of bad years. JC knew what he was getting when he recruited K.O. and our Great University and the state of Connecticut benefited greatly. 2 tough years with K.O. as head coach is not going to erase all of his contributions. This is a UCONN family dispute. Don't make it more than what it is. We should be grateful for Ollie's contribution and continued support of the state, University and his charities. The last few years has been a stain, that's it.

 

[mrl2016]

No, he made a fair point, Calhoun's contract matters. He broke the rules and wasn't fired. But I'm assuming his contract didn't contain language as strong as Ollie's. I think that's a very safe assumption, but I've never seen his contract.

I see. I missed the part about assuming Calhoun's contract had similar just cause language. If that's what he's assuming it is a fair point- just something I find highly unlikely.

 

[temery]

I was at UConn when Calhoun arrived. I watched Perno coach for several years, and saw Calhoun's two worst teams up close. None of those teams, not Calhoun's first two, or those Perno teams, were as poorly coached as UConn was the last two years. Some were less talented, and JC certainly faced a much tougher schedule.

This wasn't "had bad seasons". He was the worst coach in D1 basketball last year. After the injuries of 2016-17, I was hoping he'd pull together and make the changes in his approach that he talked about in the offseason. He didn't. The team was unprepared for almost every opponent, the personnel usage was incredibly bad, and the team was completely lacking in discipline, energy, toughness and every other hallmark of a well coached team.

He violated the terms of the contract quite clearly, and so is not owed a penny.

Had Ollie poorly coached a winning team, he'd still have a job. Let's not pretend this has to do with anything other than record and post season play.

 

[CL82]

It's not Hurley's contract that matters as much as Calhoun's. If Calhoun wasn't fired after the loss of scholarships and post season play, then Ollie has a solid case.

Pay Ollie, and let's move on.

I don't think it is quite that simple. First you'd have to look at JC's contract that was in effect at the time of his the NCAA violations to see if the language is substantially similar. If it is, and I can't find his pre-2010 contract so I don't know whether it is, then you have show that the reason why Ollie was treated differently was because of an impermissible basis, such as race. That is an extraordinarily huge hurdle, especially given the different circumstances and different management.

Barring a finding of discrimination, the notion that an arbitrator or court is going recharacterize UConn stated reasons for discharge isn't likely so long as there is bona fide ground for just cause under the contract. There is.

 

[CL82]

Had Ollie poorly coached a winning team, he'd still have a job. Let's not pretend this has to do with anything other than record and post season play.

Disagree. I think Ollie is still the head coach next year if there wasn't grounds for just cause dismissal.

 

[husky8273]

I don't think it is quite that simple. First you'd have to look at JC's contract that was in effect at the time of his the NCAA violations to see if the language is substantially similar. If it is, and I can't find his pre-2010 contract so I don't know whether it is

see attached JC contract through 2010

 

[BlueMAB]

Calhoun's contract language looks similar to Edsall's, and much less strict than Ollie's. In fact, it basically defers the consequences to those set forth in NCAA procedures. Ollie's doesn't do that. It also doesn't have the "significant or repetitive" language, it says "any... ...violation"

If arbitration is winner take all, i'd put Ollie's chances at significantly less than 50%, they should be looking to settle this.

 

[CL82]

see attached JC contract through 2010

Thanks, just took a quick look at it. The language is similar.

 

[BlueMAB]

Thanks, just took a quick look at it. The language is similar, but has a significant difference in the old contract appears to require a "knowing" violation but the new contract does not.

4.4 is the key difference IMO. it defers to the NCAA, Ollie's doesn't. Unless i'm reading one or both wrong.

 

[CL82]

4.4 is the key difference IMO. it defers to the NCAA, Ollie's doesn't. Unless i'm reading one or both wrong.

Take a look at 10.1 (d) above. It's pretty close.

 

[DMIL]

No, he made a fair point, Calhoun's contract matters. He broke the rules and wasn't fired. But I'm assuming his contract didn't contain language as strong as Ollie's. I think that's a very safe assumption, but I've never seen his contract.

It's been reported on this board that the contract language is similar if not generally the same as JCs with the only difference being specific directives in person by Susan and the AD.

 

[Yorkeez4]

I truly do not understand those that say pay Ollie. I thought his first two years he did an outstanding job coaching and was rewarded with a nice contract. Somewhere along the way things changed. I’m not sure anyone knows exactly why but there has been a great deal of speculation.

What I do know is that his coaching the last two years did not warrant the contract he got. I was a long time holdout that it was just bad luck with injured players but after watching games last year I realized it was poor coaching. The substitution patterns were poor. The players had no idea if they would get minutes or not and unproductive players with eligibility running out were getting major minutes.

He also had three players transfer after one year. Of those players one would think Dunham would gave felt some obligation to stay since UConn honored his scholarship after he was injured,but he still left. It was also rumored that a recruit changed his mind because Ollie did not pay any attention to him after he committed.

I believe Ollie was offered a reduced buyout and chose not to accept it. As a result we now have a drawn out battle that is not good for either side. If he were a winning coach would we be in this postion - no. But it is the decision of the injured party whether to invoke a contract penalty or not. In this case I believe (no evidence either way) UConn made an offer, was rejected, and decided to invoke the contract language in termination. My feeling is that Ollie already was pay a substantial amount of money for under performing. That said I wish they would settle.

 

[HuskyHawk]

It's been reported on this board that the contract language is similar if not generally the same as JCs with the only difference being specific directives in person by Susan and the AD.

I'm sure it is. Not sure why anyone thinks it matters. You're not required to treat them the same. As I said before. Kevin was fired for being bad at his job. He was fired for cause, because he violated rules.

Calhoun wasn't fired for cause, even if he could have been, because he was good at his job. They didn't want to fire him at all.

People are acting as if UConn can only invoke the for cause firing if that is the only reason they have for firing him. It simply isn't true at all. It merely has to be one of the reasons.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Disagree. I think Ollie is still the head coach next year if there wasn't grounds for just cause dismissal.

Yes, but only because they couldn't afford to pay him.

 

[huskymedic]

It's been reported on this board that the contract language is similar if not generally the same as JCs with the only difference being specific directives in person by Susan and the AD.

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.

People tend to forget that UConn and specifically the MBB program was on NCAA probation when KO was hired (and he was part of the staff when the violations resulting in probation occurred).

Weirder things have happened in arbitrations but...

 

[billybud]

I think that if the Elite Eight had been reached, there would have been no firing.

Thus, if that premise is indeed correct, Ollie was fired for poor performance.

All else is an attempt to avoid paying millions.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Disagree. I think Ollie is still the head coach next year if there wasn't grounds for just cause dismissal.

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.