Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CL82, post: 2773311, member: 44"] 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'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." 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. [URL='http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/Pitt/2018/02/23/Kevin-Stallings-pitt-panthers-basketball-vanderbilt-ncaa-wade-baldwin-fbi-investigation-corruption/stories/201802230241']Pitt and Stallings is a recent example with similar facts.[/URL] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach