KO - Victim of discrimination and denied due process?

[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.

 

[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.

 

[DMIL]

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.

Sure..the coaching was suspect at times but that is going to be the case when you don't have the horses needed to run what you are trying to run and he ended up putting too much pressure on players that couldn't or weren't ready to deliver in prime time. The 2 years were predictable simply with the departures and injuries however they should not have been worse than .500 any of those years.

The other point I'll make is that Kevin Ollie was a winning student athlete for UCONN, a winner in the NBA, a winner recruiting initially, a winner as an assistant UCONN coach and a winner as a UCONN Head Coach with contributions of 2 National Titles for our great university. Were there years where he under-performed? Yes. Were there years where he over-performed? Yes. Were there years where it was kind of a "Meets Expectations" for the talent we had and related circumstances? Yes.

Despite the last 2 years Kevin Ollie is a winner. This is simply a fact.

 

[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]

Despite the last 2 years Kevin Ollie is a winner. This is simply a fact.

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