Ollie fighting to keep his job..Link from ESPN

[Guapo]

I'm hoping that UConn can get out from as much of the buyout as possible.

Even still, people upset about the union doing its job is beyond me.

 

[JMick]

I'm hoping that UConn can get out from as much of the buyout as possible.

Even still, people upset about the union doing its job is beyond me.

Someone making $3mm shouldn't be in a union.

 

[UConnNick]

Then I can only guess that you don't know much about employment law. The majority of employees are employed at will, can can be fired without cause. What you can't do is fire someone for a prohibited reason (I'm not going to list them). So the common approach with bad performers tends to follow one of two scenarios. 1. layoffs...and you pick the losers to go. 2. you begin to build a case with HR, putting incidents in the file, bad reviews, etc., to support the decision to fire them. In most cases you don't need to actually build that case, but it's your firewall against a claim that you fired them for some improper reason.

UConn has almost certainly been building that case with Kevin Ollie for the last two years. I bet it's not going to be one thing, it will be the accumulation of many things.

Two years? Didn't he get his contract extension about two years ago? What you suggest is we were building a case to fire him at almost the same time he got an extension. That would be beyond rational belief.

I agree the administration may have been doing that for the past year or so, but two years is quite a stretch. Either way, they've hopefully got enough now to make it stick and considerably shorten the time it will take to send him packing for good.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

I wonder if the other union members are thrilled that their dues are going to pay for attorneys to defend a millionaire hoping to get $10 million more.

Perhaps they appreciate the notion that ensuring proper invocation of "just cause" termination provisions helps protect all of them.

Mutual exclusivity for all academia types? C'mon, at least the multiple personality psych profs (and apparently more than a few Boneyarders) get to hold many, sometimes contrasting, perspectives.

 

[HuskyHawk]

So is your position that the university should not settle this suit?

You're not replying to me but I'll answer anyway. You settle because you want to know exactly what Ollie is going to cost you and to move on rapidly. Hiring the new coach will depend in part on the cost certainty you have with Ollie's buyout. Ollie will be motivated to settle to preserve his reputation, and put himself in better position for another job.

 

[Guapo]

Someone making $3mm shouldn't be in a union.

Counter point: yes they should.

You either control the money or you don't.

If you don't control the money, you benefit from union representation.

Doesn't matter how much you make.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Two years? Didn't he get his contract extension about two years ago? What you suggest is we were building a case to fire him at almost the same time he got an extension. That would be beyond rational belief.

I agree the administration may have been doing that for the past year or so, but two years is quite a stretch. Either way, they've hopefully got enough now to make it stick and considerably shorten the time it will take to send him packing for good.

New contract started June 1, 2016. What I meant by that, is sometime during the 16-17 season, I believe they realized the mistake. That 16-17 team was ranked pre-season, so clearly they were not thinking about it then. So probably a year plus would be more accurate.

 

[huskymedic]

Please refrain from the "for/against a union" arguments... its ultimately leads to total threads being deleted.

 

[bblanco15]

Out of curiosity if the NCAA has not concluded their investigation and ruled there was infractions how can the school determine "just cause"?

 

[Robertelamin]

I'm hoping that UConn can get out from as much of the buyout as possible.

Even still, people upset about the union doing its job is beyond me.

I don't care. I'm not part of that union. He certainly isn't labor though and I'd rather not have my CEO in my union too.

 

[gioff23]

Someone needs to change the caption

he is not fighting to keep his job; he is fighting to get paid. Perhaps the new caption should be Ollie looks to take escalator while UConn will need to take steep staircase up from the hole he dug

 

[Deadrody]

So yes, I am sure most of us do indeed have real life jobs. Real life jobs with little or even no protection.

That sounds like a no.

Do you just get off on being obtuse ? He's 100% correct in that 99.99% of everyone in this country that has a job has virtually no protection. It's called at-will employment. Your employer can fire you for - ANYTHING - and there isn't squat you can do about it. Sure, you can try and take them to court. And good luck with that. Unless you've got some kind of history as a "whistle blower" you'll likely get nowhere, except deeper in debt for your troubles.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Out of curiosity if the NCAA has not concluded their investigation and ruled there was infractions how can the school determine "just cause"?

Wait @bblanco15 , are you actually suggesting "just cause" absolutely must be limited to purported NCAA infractions? Could be (or perhaps not), but why would you inexplicably believe UConn could not know about possible infractions which would potentially lead to NCAA penalties before the NCAA concludes an investigation?

 

[Deadrody]

Perhaps they appreciate the notion that ensuring proper invocation of "just cause" termination provisions helps protect all of them.

Perhaps. But it's pretty likely the "just cause" in this case does not apply to any other university employees except the head coaches of the other sports, and I'm quite certain they're aware that they'll be held accountable for following NCAA rules.

Thing is, 95% of KO's job was coaching basketball. The other 5% is following the rules and making sure his assistants and the players (if possible) do the same. You can generally get by if you're having trouble with that other 5%, but if you're failing completely, at the first 95% ? You're in very hot water indeed.

I have no idea if KO committed any infractions that rise to the level of "just cause", but guess what ? NEITHER DO YOU.

The amount of energy being wasted on this board speculating about stuff you just don't know is staggering.

But I will say this, if you think this is all taking the UConn athletic dept by surprise, you're not very bright.

 

[8893]

Perhaps. But it's pretty likely the "just cause" in this case does not apply to any other university employees except the head coaches of the other sports, and I'm quite certain they're aware that they'll be held accountable for following NCAA rules.

Thing is, 95% of KO's job was coaching basketball. The other 5% is following the rules and making sure his assistants and the players (if possible) do the same. You can generally get by if you're having trouble with that other 5%, but if you're failing completely, at the first 95% ? You're in very hot water indeed.

I have no idea if KO committed any infractions that rise to the level of "just cause", but guess what ? NEITHER DO YOU.

The amount of energy being wasted on this board speculating about stuff you just don't know is staggering.

But I will say this, if you think this is all taking the UConn athletic dept by surprise, you're not very bright.

I hope you are using "you" generically and not referring to me, because most of your post isn't responsive to my comment and assumes beliefs I don't hold.

As for my comment, in my experience most collective bargaining agreements have some type of cause standard for terminations. So, while the specific language in Ollie's contract likely doesn't mirror the CBA that governs most other union employees, it is still a principle that protects all of them to some degree.

I have no idea what the charges against Ollie are or what he did, but the timing and optics certainly look like the charges relate to things the University knew well before now, which, to me, appear to be being used as an excuse to fire someone when the real reason is poor job performance, i.e., not "just cause."

 

[bblanco15]

Wait @bblanco15 , are you actually suggesting "just cause" absolutely must be limited to purported NCAA infractions? Could be (or perhaps not), but why would you inexplicably believe UConn could not know about possible infractions which would potentially lead to NCAA penalties before the NCAA concludes an investigation?

That's why I was asking because there was a post in this thread saying that the Union representative on Ollie's behalf said they are still waiting on a final decision from the NCAA and if there is an infraction they will need to know what category the infraction is?

 

[2PointGuards]

Ollie will contest UConn's firing for 'just cause'

They should have cut a deal with Ollie, rather than go through the humiliation of loosing over their manufactured "just cause" they don't have the money to pay him.

 

[August_West]

You're not replying to me but I'll answer anyway. You settle because you want to know exactly what Ollie is going to cost you and to move on rapidly. Hiring the new coach will depend in part on the cost certainty you have with Ollie's buyout. Ollie will be motivated to settle to preserve his reputation, and put himself in better position for another job.

Here is the thing.
Either the university is justified in applying the "Cause" to get out of the buyout, or they are not. If they are justified in applying cause, then there is no reason the university should settle. They can save 10 million dollars.

If they weren't justified in applying the cause clause then Ollie should actually get his 10 million.


I think the university jerking around with half-measures (if that is what they are in fact doing) is going to cost us in the long run with prospective coaches either through heavier front loaded contracts where people in absence of buyout guarantees will want Bonuses up front (and any coach worth their salt will be able to demand this) because we can't be trusted to not play dirty.

Forget Ollie he's gone. I dont care anymore. Has nothing to do with the decision to let him go.

Right now Im watching how this administration handles this, and does anybody really have confidence in this administration not absolutely making this a giagantic clusterf%$# where we alienate top coaches with a transparent end around?

If UConn has cause and it sticks for cause, stay with it and save the 10 million and then this whole thing doesnt have stink all over it.

Otherwise pay the man his money.



Trust me . I get that the 1000 lawyers on this board are going to say "Everything is a negotiation" and it is. I get it. But all Im saying is this "negotiation" has some potentially pretty terrible optics for this University that can only be guaranteed to not possibly come back and bite us by either being justified in the show cause application they are trying to apply, or paying the buyout.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Here is the thing.
Either the university is justified in applying the "Cause" to get out of the buyout, or they are not. If they are justified in applying cause, then there is no reason the university should settle. They can save 10 million dollars.

If they weren't justified in applying the cause clause then Ollie should actually get his 10 million.


I think the university jerking around with half-measures (if that is what they are in fact doing) is going to cost us in the long run with prospective coaches either through heavier front loaded contracts where people in absence of buyout guarantees will want Bonuses up front (and any coach worth their salt will be able to demand this) because we can't be trusted to not play dirty.

Forget Ollie he's gone. I dont care anymore. Has nothing to do with the decision to let him go.

Right now Im watching how this administration handles this, and does anybody really have confidence in this administration not absolutely making this a giagantic clusterf%$# where we alienate top coaches with a transparent end around?

If UConn has cause and it sticks for cause, stay with it and save the 10 million and then this whole thing doesnt have stink all over it.

Otherwise pay the man his money.



Trust me . I get that the 1000 lawyers on this board are going to say "Everything is a negotiation" and it is. I get it. But all Im saying is this "negotiation" has some potentially pretty terrible optics for this University that can only be guaranteed to not possibly come back and bite us by either being justified in the show cause application they are trying to apply, or paying the buyout.

You are going to cost yourself a lot of money if you prioritize optics over the agreement.

And the optics here aren't even all that bad. The dude got paid for 6 years, 4 of them as a Top-10 paid coach, and he left with a NCAA investigation ongoing. If the university's actions scare off a coach, I think we should consider that a blessing.

 

[intlzncster]

Here is the thing.
Either the university is justified in applying the "Cause" to get out of the buyout, or they are not. If they are justified in applying cause, then there is no reason the university should settle. They can save 10 million dollars.

If they weren't justified in applying the cause clause then Ollie should actually get his 10 million.


I think the university jerking around with half-measures (if that is what they are in fact doing) is going to cost us in the long run with prospective coaches either through heavier front loaded contracts where people in absence of buyout guarantees will want Bonuses up front (and any coach worth their salt will be able to demand this) because we can't be trusted to not play dirty.

Forget Ollie he's gone. I dont care anymore. Has nothing to do with the decision to let him go.

Right now Im watching how this administration handles this, and does anybody really have confidence in this administration not absolutely making this a giagantic clusterf%$# where we alienate top coaches with a transparent end around?

If UConn has cause and it sticks for cause, stay with it and save the 10 million and then this whole thing doesnt have stink all over it.

Otherwise pay the man his money.



Trust me . I get that the 1000 lawyers on this board are going to say "Everything is a negotiation" and it is. I get it. But all Im saying is this "negotiation" has some potentially pretty terrible optics for this University that can only be guaranteed to not possibly come back and bite us by either being justified in the show cause application they are trying to apply, or paying the buyout.

If we weren't under NCAA investigation right now, you might be right. But who knows what's behind the door on this?

I don't think it's going to affect any future candidates whatsoever. Up and coming coaches are hungry for their shot. If you are one of them, are you going to turn down a big name job because you are worried there will be a tussle 5 years down the road? Probably not. There's just not that many jobs out there. If you turn it down, there's 20 candidates scrambling to take it. And no guarantee you'll get another similar gig in the future anyway.

Hasn't hurt other schools. Florida football couldn't hire the next coach any faster.

 

[August_West]

You are going to cost yourself a lot of money if you prioritize optics over the agreement.

And the optics here aren't even all that bad. The dude got paid for 6 years, 4 of them as a Top-10 paid coach, and he left with a NCAA investigation ongoing. If the university's actions scare off a coach, I think we should consider that a blessing.

He also won a national title 4 years ago.

It would be naive to think that coaches aren't watching how this is handled.

Also aren't we costing ourselves a lot of money by not saving the full 10 million if Ollie in fact left us an NCAA investigation that triggered a show cause?

 

[Paesano]

They should have cut a deal with Ollie, rather than go through the humiliation of loosing over their manufactured "just cause" they don't have the money to pay him.

Oh, look, another member of the Ollie family. Sorry, but it is Ollie who will "loose".

 

[UCDaveD]

So is your position that the university should not settle this suit?

My position is that the University should do whatever they feel is in their best interest. Being as none of us are privy to a complete set of facts, I trust the AD, the office of the President, and the University’s legal council to make that determination. They obviously felt that firing the former coach for cause was the appropriate course of action. Whether they decide to settle will be another determination that they will make and I’ll support their decision there too.

There seem to be a few individuals around here who think that the University took the action that they did on a whim, without any due diligence. Those people, quite frankly, are morons. It’s also probably not a coincidence that they’re the same people who fervently supported the failing former coach and still do, even if it’s to the detriment of the university that they’re supposedly fans of.

 

[auggie22]

Out of curiosity if the NCAA has not concluded their investigation and ruled there was infractions how can the school determine "just cause"?

Internal investigation, obviously.

 

[Huskybass]

Is he though? Is there a scenario in which Dave B handled this so poorly he loses his job and the support from former players is overwhelming and Susan decides to keep KO??

Insanity. NEVER happen.