Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="DMIL, post: 2773546, member: 8539"] You don’t have to see it. It’s a card to be played when you have similar behavior by different coaches with a clear difference in treatment for those situations. Disputes over money brings the darkness out. If there is data to support a different outcome for prior coaches at UCONN that where white than the outcome for a similar situation with coach Ollie then the card can legitimately be played specifically if there is no other reason that can be found to justify this different outcome for Coach Ollie. It’s that simple. Matter of fact it would not surprise me if there are examples of UCONN settling and providing buyouts of contracts for prior coaches that happen to be white with no prior UCONN ties or contributions with a similar or greater level of alleged transgressions. The NCAA investigation has not concluded and Ollie is entitled to due process. At the end of the day there has to be a reason for the difference in outcome for Ollie relative to prior outcomes for other past UCONN coaches. If you focus on the last 2 years of Ollie’s tenure as head coach it is easy to forget his contributions to the program going back to 1990. You can’t get upset with a man using legitimate defenses and strategies trying to get money he feels is owed based on an executed contract. This has nothing to do with whether he actually earned the remaining money left on the contract or if you think he sucked at coaching. He earned the contract, period. It was market value for his services and has the right to fight for it in it’s entirety. We will find out if there is enough information to support this strategy. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach