New court filings name former UConn standouts Rodney Purvis, Sterling Gibbs, Terry Larrier in Kevin Ollie case

[UCDaveD]

Yeah I’m not sure how 90% of the people here don’t get they can’t claim ‘for cause’ and offer a settlement that undermines that position.

Come on man, you're smarter than that. Settlement offers get made all the time even when the entity offering believes they'd eventually prevail in court. Sometimes it's worth the settlement money just to make the situation go away. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

 

[whaler11]

Come on man, you're smarter than that. Settlement offers get made all the time even when the entity offering believes they'd eventually prevail in court. Sometimes it's worth the settlement money just to make the situation go away. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

I’ve been told here a thousand times it’s an open and shut case and that Ollie gets nothing legally.

Why would broke arse UConn offer 2.5 million if that were true?

I’ve been told the FOIA docs would be worse for Ollie. Why fight the release then?

 

[UofCT]

I’ve been told here a thousand times it’s an open and shut case and that Ollie gets nothing legally.

Why would broke arse UConn offer 2.5 million if that were true?

I’ve been told the FOIA docs would be worse for Ollie. Why fight the release then?

Perhaps Danny Hurley went to the AD and President and said this "end this ollie stuff or I'm gone"

 

[intlzncster]

Think about how ridiculous hundreds of hours of tape is for, facetime, shooting baskets in pants and 3 kids maybe getting an tiny extra benefit for travel and lodging for a handful of days in Atlanta.
Every P5 program in the country has committed worse violations in the last 48 hours.

And some get burned for that. The NCAA totally dings some guys for nothing, probably to make them look tough on crime. And once you lie to the NCAA, they bring out the axe. Maybe the NCAA got Ollie lying early in the process? Who knows?

Seems for lying, the NCAA brings out the axe (from wiki because):

Bruce Pearl – The former coach of the Tennessee Volunteers received a three-year show-cause penalty (which expired on August 23, 2014) for lying to the NCAA about an impermissible visit by prospective recruit Aaron Craft (who eventually went to Ohio State) to Pearl's home. While this was only a minor violation, the NCAA felt Pearl's lies elevated it to a major one

Todd Bozeman – Former coach for the California Golden Bears, who had paid for a player's parents to watch their son play and lied about it to school and NCAA officials. He was forced to resign in 1996 and was handed an eight-year show-cause penalty, which expired in 2004.

I do know one thing, I would not be surprised at all if the NCAA looked into UCONN a bit more thoroughly than maybe another school. We were just post sanctions, and it does seem that Emmert has a bit of a hard on here. Maybe they were fishing, got a nibble, and kept casting lines.

 

[intlzncster]

I’ve been told here a thousand times it’s an open and shut case and that Ollie gets nothing legally.

Why would broke arse UConn offer 2.5 million if that were true?

I’ve been told the FOIA docs would be worse for Ollie. Why fight the release then?

They don't want this PR headache?

 

[whaler11]

And some get burned for that. The NCAA totally dings some guys for nothing, probably to make them look tough on crime. And once you lie to the NCAA, they bring out the axe. Maybe the NCAA got Ollie lying early in the process? Who knows?

Seems for lying, the NCAA brings out the axe (from wiki because):

Bruce Pearl – The former coach of the Tennessee Volunteers received a three-year show-cause penalty (which expired on August 23, 2014) for lying to the NCAA about an impermissible visit by prospective recruit Aaron Craft (who eventually went to Ohio State) to Pearl's home. While this was only a minor violation, the NCAA felt Pearl's lies elevated it to a major one

Todd Bozeman – Former coach for the California Golden Bears, who had paid for a player's parents to watch their son play and lied about it to school and NCAA officials. He was forced to resign in 1996 and was handed an eight-year show-cause penalty, which expired in 2004.

I do know one thing, I would not be surprised at all if the NCAA looked into UCONN a bit more thoroughly than maybe another school. We were just post sanctions, and it does seem that Emmert has a bit of a hard on here. Maybe they were fishing, got a nibble, and kept casting lines.

And in their efforts proved that Ollie was running a really clean program in relation to other power conference programs.

 

[whaler11]

They don't want this PR headache?

They are doing a bang up job then.

 

[intlzncster]

And in their efforts proved that Ollie was running a really clean program in relation to other power conference programs.

Again man, Pearl got a 3 year show cause for a minor violation (impermissible visit). Because he lied about it. That's less of a violation than Ollie paying for recruits to train with a special trainer in Atlanta (I personally don't care about this, just saying).

I don't know the timing of the whole thing.

And as I said, I wouldn't be surprised if Emmert had a little hard on for UCONN. Give investigators the ol' "keep digging". Who knows?

 

[UCDaveD]

I’ve been told here a thousand times it’s an open and shut case and that Ollie gets nothing legally.

Why would broke arse UConn offer 2.5 million if that were true?

I’ve been told the FOIA docs would be worse for Ollie. Why fight the release then?

The University can believe they have an incredibly strong case, but you never know what a jury or arbiter will do. Sometimes it's wiser to attempt to mitigate the risk. It's really not a hard concept to grasp, and I think you know this.

 

[whaler11]

Again man, Pearl got a 3 year show cause for a minor violation (impermissible visit). Because he lied about it. That's less of a violation than Ollie paying for recruits to train with a special trainer in Atlanta (I personally don't care about this, just saying).

I don't know the timing of the whole thing.

And as I said, I wouldn't be surprised if Emmert had a little hard on for UCONN. Give investigators the ol' "keep digging". Who knows?

Pearl got a career achievement award.

 

[intlzncster]

Pearl got a career achievement award.

And following on the end of my last post:

I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA doesn't tack on to UCONN's self imposed penalties. Just because.

 

[whaler11]

And following on the end of my last post:

I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA doesn't tack on to UCONN's self imposed penalties. Just because.

Which is why I’ve thought it partially odd that many people don’t mind the rat.

 

[Kathy]

A whole lot of whataboutism coming from the Ollie defenders.

Can you honestly say that if KO had been winning they would have fired him for these allegations? That's BS and you know it. He was fired for losing - the allegations wouldn't have seen the light of day if he was still winning after the NC and if they did UConn would have slapped him on the wrist and let him continue coaching like they did with Calhoun after his 'issues' with compliance.
KO did need to move on because he was an ineffective coach but don't pull the high and mighty stance that his violations were why he was fired. You and most everyone else on the BY would have looked the other way if he was giving you what you wanted on the court and in the win column.
So go ahead pile on - KO apologist, KO's mom whatever - just look in the mirror and admit you would tolerate violations if he was winning.

 

[UCDaveD]

Can you honestly say that if KO had been winning they would have fired him for these allegations? That's BS and you know it. He was fired for losing - the allegations wouldn't have seen the light of day if he was still winning after the NC and if they did UConn would have slapped him on the wrist and let him continue coaching like they did with Calhoun after his 'issues' with compliance.
KO did need to move on because he was an ineffective coach but don't pull the high and mighty stance that his violations were why he was fired. You and most everyone else on the BY would have looked the other way if he was giving you what you wanted on the court and in the win column.
So go ahead pile on - KO apologist, KO's mom whatever - just look in the mirror and admit you would tolerate violations if he was winning.

I have never once claimed that I care about cheating. Hell, I'd love it if we had our own bag men. What I have continuously said is that if you're going to suck at your job, you better be following the terms of your contract. Kevin didn't. And regardless of how "minor" you perceive those rules violations to be (and to be clear, none of our opinions on the severity matter one iota), they were enough to remove him and withhold the buyout according to the language in his contract. Pointing to this coach, and that coach, and that program, and that recruit is irrelevant. The terms of Kevin's contract were clear. Of course if he was winning I wouldn't have cared about the violations. I don't care about them now. For me it was a means to an end, and I'm perfectly alright with that. Never claimed otherwise.

 

[Walker11]

The way people talk about KO's indiscretions seems so overblown. The stuff I have been PM'd makes me very happy he isn't our coach but people are acting like the details of his personal life would bring down the university. There are very loud rumors of guys coaching football/basketball in the SEC having affairs with sorority girls. No one cares. Sark slurred his way through a public address. He is now the OC at Bama. KO liked to party and enjoyed his life as a single local celebrity. The vague allusions e.g "its best no one ever knows" irrationally irritates me.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Can you honestly say that if KO had been winning they would have fired him for these allegations? That's BS and you know it. He was fired for losing - the allegations wouldn't have seen the light of day if he was still winning after the NC and if they did UConn would have slapped him on the wrist and let him continue coaching like they did with Calhoun after his 'issues' with compliance.
KO did need to move on because he was an ineffective coach but don't pull the high and mighty stance that his violations were why he was fired. You and most everyone else on the BY would have looked the other way if he was giving you what you wanted on the court and in the win column.
So go ahead pile on - KO apologist, KO's mom whatever - just look in the mirror and admit you would tolerate violations if he was winning.

Can't win if you don't do your job, can't get paid if you don't do your job. Expand on your statement; in what specific ways was he an ineffective coach?
Doesn't ineffective coaching contradict what he was to do per his contract (a rhetorical question),
To be an effective coach should you abide by ncaa rules?
To define and enforce "effective coaching" is the purpose of the contract. For goodness sake, enough.

 

[Stainmaster]

Can't win if you don't do your job, can't get paid if you don't do your job. Expand on your statement; in what specific ways was he an ineffective coach?
Doesn't ineffective coaching contradict what he was to do per his contract (a rhetorical question),
To be an effective coach should you abide by ncaa rules?
To define and enforce "effective coaching" is the purpose of the contract. For goodness sake, enough.

If every bad coach can be fired for cause, what's the point of even putting a cause provision into a contract?

 

[Kathy]

Can't win if you don't do your job, can't get paid if you don't do your job. Expand on your statement; in what specific ways was he an ineffective coach?
Doesn't ineffective coaching contradict what he was to do per his contract (a rhetorical question),
To be an effective coach should you abide by ncaa rules?
To define and enforce "effective coaching" is the purpose of the contract. For goodness sake, enough.

Plenty of good coaches don't play by the rules and NO ONE cares as long as they are winning and bringing in money. Just don't tell me that these violations would matter if he was winning and bringing in money because that is BS. Said all along if you want to fird him for not winning have the guts ri be honest about it - there was nothing honest in this process from JC courting Hurley all season to the reason they fired him. He was gone anyway, Miller just gave them an easy out. Wondered how this would have all gone down had he never fired Miller.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Can you honestly say that if KO had been winning they would have fired him for these allegations? That's BS and you know it. He was fired for losing - the allegations wouldn't have seen the light of day if he was still winning after the NC and if they did UConn would have slapped him on the wrist and let him continue coaching like they did with Calhoun after his 'issues' with compliance.
KO did need to move on because he was an ineffective coach but don't pull the high and mighty stance that his violations were why he was fired. You and most everyone else on the BY would have looked the other way if he was giving you what you wanted on the court and in the win column.
So go ahead pile on - KO apologist, KO's mom whatever - just look in the mirror and admit you would tolerate violations if he was winning.

You're absolutely right I would tolerate violations if he were winning, and so would UConn. That doesn't matter. It is entirely UConn's prerogative whether to invoke "for cause" termination because of the violations.

KO signed a contract that gave UConn wide discretion on this. If he were merely a losing coach who didn't cheat, he'd get fired, but would be paid. If he were a winning coach who committed violations, he'd still be employed. His problem is he was a losing coach who also cheated, and gave UConn ability to invoke "for cause". UConn has done nothing that their contract didn't allow.

 

[uconnbill]

UConn should have thought of that before they took $10 million that was due to him and then accused him of doing something that would make it impossible for him to ever get another job. If UConn wanted to negotiate the buyout, it should have negotiated the buyout.

He doesn't deserve the $10 million and that is on him, not UConn. You win and don't commit NCAA violations and you would still have job. This crap show is on Ollie and no one else.

I will tell you from what I heard when this all went down, he wanted the entire $10 million. At that time I would have said give him half, but after everything else, he should get no more than a million maybe two. Not sure he deserves that much

 

[uconnbill]

Think of this from KO's perspective. Why is the NCAA knocking on his door? Because Glenn Miller spoke up, and then worked for JC, who did much shadier things than what this is. It all looks like a well-designed plan to push him out and not pay him.

He certainly feels (rightly!) that the school tried to find a way to push him out. Asked and answered many times before: would we have fired JC for this? No. NCAA probably wouldn't have even found out.

So...what's different? JC won and he was losing. But if you're KO you're thinking injuries stopped you, and that with a healthy team, Akinjo and the incoming recruits, he's going to have a chance at turning this around.

I'm happy KO is gone. I wish we did it in a way that was cleaner, because KO is doing what we'd all do despite these protestations.

I disagree that we would all do what he is doing. I would have fought it from behind the scenes and not where public opinion would come out against me worse than it already was.
If I had the funds I would offer UConn a million or so to kill this as it is not good for Ollie or UConn.

 

[Engineer90]

You can't possibly believe this. Arizona is dropping bags of cash in hotel rooms.

Are you one of those guys that thinks every great recruiter is cheating?

 

[bobbyinaz]

You're absolutely right I would tolerate violations if he were winning, and so would UConn. That doesn't matter. It is entirely UConn's prerogative whether to invoke "for cause" termination because of the violations.

KO signed a contract that gave UConn wide discretion on this. If he were merely a losing coach who didn't cheat, he'd get fired, but would be paid. If he were a winning coach who committed violations, he'd still be employed. His problem is he was a losing coach who also cheated, and gave UConn ability to invoke "for cause". UConn has done nothing that their contract didn't allow.

I'm not so sure it's their prerogative to enforce specific contract language against an African American coach when they chose to not enforce the same language against a Caucasian coach.

I'm not defending the job Ollie did because there is no defense for it. He deserved to be fired because, like other coaches who get canned, he didn't win enough. I'm saying that the law dictates you must treat him the same as you treat any other coaches who have the same language in their contracts.

The longer this goes, IMO, the uglier it likely gets for UConn

 

[Engineer90]

I am troubled by the statement"He lied about it". At this point these are only allegations. Please stop presenting them as facts.

But conspiracy theories about Calhoun and the AD are ok?

 

[tzznandrew]

Are you one of those guys that thinks every great recruiter is cheating?

I mean, they have recordings of this one, so...