Sad attempt at firing ‘for cause’

[junglehusky]

Well... here's hoping this doesn't wind up with lawyers involved. I'm sure KO is reluctant to pursue any kind of legal action against his alma mater. But if he has any inclination towards coaching in college again (as opposed to purely NBA assistant jobs) I could see a lawyer advising him on the buyout negotiations and trying to keep his name as clear as possible.

 

[Huskyforlife]

KO leveraged his success by threatening to leave for the NBA years ago, which forced us into raising his pay, and this horrible buyout. This is all business, to everyone involved.

 

[intlzncster]

No, if he can be fired for cause, then he's not entitled to the money.

I love the argument that the university has to respect contractual provision that favor KO, but not contractual provisions that favor the university. Anyone see the inconsistency in that argument?

Unless I'm mistaken, most of these things end up being settled in some form or fashion. Nobody wants to draw out a long legal battle. Not worth the money, time, or potential reputational damage. He'll probably get something in the end.

 

[dogfan96]

Are you kidding?

Pitt is trying to avoid paying $10,000,000 because Kevin Stallings talked back to a fan.

UConn is trying to avoid paying $10,000,000 because the head coach has put the program under an NCAA investigation.

These things are not the same.

Have you seen his name tied to any allegations? So you can't really say HE put the program under anything. If a booster or assistant coach is the root of the investigation then you're off base.

 

[Fishy]

Have you seen his name tied to any allegations? So you can't really say HE put the program under anything. If a booster or assistant coach is the root of the investigation then you're off base.

Yeah, it’s an assistant coach or a booster.

The UConn administration is aware of the details of the investigation and they’re willing to tie it to his employment. That’s all you need to know.

Additionally, the NCAA has a bylaw 11.1.1.1 stating that the head coach is responsible for the actions of any assistant coach. Plausible deniability is not thing anymore.

 

[noeynox]

Are you kidding?

Pitt is trying to avoid paying $10,000,000 because Kevin Stallings talked back to a fan.

UConn is trying to avoid paying $10,000,000 because the head coach has put the program under an NCAA investigation.

These things are not the same.

I'd like to know what it is. If it's impermissible workouts, that's lame.

 

[Fishy]

I'd like to know what it is. If it's impermissible workouts, that's lame.

Eventually, you’ll know for certain. But you won’t know now - schools are not permitted to speak about NCAA investigations.

But you already know from media reports that UConn is being investigated over the recruitment of at least three players.

 

[BlueDogs]

Have you seen his name tied to any allegations? So you can't really say HE put the program under anything. If a booster or assistant coach is the root of the investigation then you're off base.

The HC is the primary responsible party for all conduct under his program. The HC is charged with an affirmative duty to put monitoring systems in place and is imputed with knowledge of all things going on under his watch absent fraud in the concealment by third parties. You can't close your eyes and ears and pleade ignorance. If an assistant coach did something, he responsible unless it wasn't reasonably discoverable through due diligence. If there is any infraction within his reasonable purview, he's screwed. A worst, KO doesn't see a dime for years in litigation. He'd better off taking a Million a year for 5 years and walking away with no offset.

 

[2north]

The HC is the primary responsible party for all conduct under his program. The HC is charged with an affirmative duty to put monitoring systems in place and is imputed with knowledge of all things going on under his watch absent fraud in the concealment by third parties. You can't close your eyes and ears and pleade ignorance. If an assistant coach did something, he responsible unless it wasn't treasonable discoverable through due diligence. If there is any infraction within his reasonable purview, he's screwed. A worst, KO doesn't see a dime for years in litigation. He'd better off taking a Million a year for 5 years and walking away with no offset.

Hasn't affected Izzo one iota yet.

 

[Excalibur]

I get he had to go but it looks similar to the Pitt stallings thing.

Not to anyone who spends 20 seconds comparing the situations.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I'd like to know what it is. If it's impermissible workouts, that's lame.

It's lame but it's technically something that violates NCAA rules, albeit seemingly much less important rules. What Stallings "did" is not in the NCAA or any rulebook and not a violation of any kind.

 

[intlzncster]

Hasn't affected Izzo one iota yet.

Not every school will be treated the same. Not speaking about UCONN in particular...just that their are different rules.

 

[2north]

Not every school will be treated the same. Not speaking about UCONN in particular...just that their are different rules.

Are you saying not every school/HC is subject to a lack of institutional control regulation?

 

[intlzncster]

Are you saying not every school/HC is subject to a lack of institutional control regulation?

Of course they are. But lack of institutional control is defined differently for every school.

 

[2north]

Of course they are. But lack of institutional control is defined differently for every school.

Not as defined for head coaches.

 

[UConnNick]

Go HARD or you don't go at all!

 

[uconnfan68]

This is the message they’re sending to potential coaching prospects.

“We will give you a contract that we will try to get out of if you don’t win.”

Good luck, kids!

It’s called reality. No school should ever put itself in an untenable situation with any position. Business doesn’t work that way, and no one should be rewarded for failure on the job.

 

[intlzncster]

Not as defined for head coaches.

'lack of institutional control' is a clause used by the NCAA at whim. And it is applied differently to every school. NCAA plays favorites, always has. Just ask Tark. The ol' haves and the have nots.

 

[BUConn10]

Are you kidding?

Pitt is trying to avoid paying $10,000,000 because Kevin Stallings talked back to a fan.

UConn is trying to avoid paying $10,000,000 because the head coach has put the program under an NCAA investigation.

These things are not the same.

Paging @gtscam. Someone tell him to get over here and jerk a few tears for KO to get Fishy to see the error in his ways.

 

[amory]