Ollie fighting to keep his job..Link from ESPN

[August_West]

You're so delusional when it comes to Ollie it's pretty pathetic

What does this have to do with Ollie? He's gone.

 

[CL82]

This is going to be rather straight forward. Either UConn can show Ollie breached his contract or they can't.

If they can't KO leaves with 10M.
If they can, then they settle to avoid a lawsuit and extending this past March.

KO, will be fine either way. He won't be the coach but he won't be short of cash.

They may even agree to pay him the 10M over a longer term.

We don't know what UConn's case is.

This is a pretty Ollie favorable analysis. You don't see any other possible outcomes?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Would love to be the lawyer in that case too.

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.

 

[8893]

He's gone.

Rat in a drain ditch?

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

His additional union protection beyond his personal contract gives him more rights.

So says a union rep, but without knowing all of the facts most of may be unlikely to know in sufficient detail perhaps a dose of subjective interpretation exists.

 

[UCDaveD]

While this is true for a speeding ticket it's not the case necessarily in KO's firing. His additional union protection beyond his personal contract gives him more rights.

That’s the union’s position. The university disagrees.

 

[UConnDad]

So says a union rep, but without knowing all of the facts most of may be unlikely to know in sufficient detail perhaps a dose of subjective interpretation exists.

I'm not a union rep and my statement is not subject to interpretation. He has more rights by having union representation, some of which were already mentioned, (a hearing, his defense, arbitration, an appeal). I'm not choosing sides. These are facts.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Ollie appears to be on the hook for ANYTHING that occurred on his watch.

Subjective interpretation perhaps, but KO purportedly agreed to such oversight responsibilities in signing his own contract. On the other hand, perhaps the unknown, undefined "Just cause" falls much closer to squarely on KO's own shoes.

For a hypothetical example, what if "Just cause" involves a fair dose more than any NCAA allegations or FBI investigation, leans in to financial or HR issues, reputational considerations, etc. No facts regarding the latter; just tossing out some possible considerations versus a few others radar locked on some BS extra practice claims or some such tweeked or leaked quotes for borderline naive media or public consumption only.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

I'm not a union rep and my statement is not subject to interpretation. He has more rights by having union representation, some of which were already mentioned, (a hearing, his defense, arbitration, an appeal). I'm not choosing sides. These are facts.

Sure, and yet it remains subject to interpretation without knowledge of all facts. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[UofCT]

What does this have to do with Ollie? He's gone.

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??

 

[August_West]

You’d lose both cases spectacularly.

No I wouldnt, they would be "settled".

 

[August_West]

That’s the union’s position. The university disagrees.

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

 

[Robertelamin]

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.

 

[UConnNick]

A closed file with certainty and finality is a good thing. Prolonged litigation can be very expensive, time consuming and disruptive.

And a major PR headache, which we could do without under the present circumstances.

 

[8893]

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.

 

[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."