Sad attempt at firing ‘for cause’ | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Sad attempt at firing ‘for cause’

.-.
WestHartHusk said:
He's not owed anything if he breached the contract. Given how broadly just cause is defined, he almost certainly did.
Expand ...
Eh, seems just as lame as Pitts attempt.

He had to go. Giving him that ridiculous buyout is the real crime here. Benedict is being lauded as a hero, I think he needs to do better than painting us into a corner. Will be interested to see who he hires.
 
noeynox said:
Eh, seems just as lame as Pitts attempt.

He had to go. Giving him that ridiculous buyout is the real crime here. Benedict is being lauded as a hero, I think he needs to do better than painting us into a corner. Will be interested to see who he hires.
Expand ...
Not sure how AD painted is into a corner. If you are talking about the buyout, that is on WM and Sue.
 
.-.
WestHartHusk said:
If that is true, then yeah, he painted us into a corner. I have just always heard this was a Warde doing.
Expand ...

What we all “heard” was Benedict trying to cover his keister in case it didn’t work out.
 
JMick said:
if we get out of this by paying a reduced buyout or forgoing it all together then no harm no foul.
Expand ...

Yes, but I want that to be finalized before I start singing his praises again.
 
Fishy said:
If you want to lose 18 games and recruit part-time, don’t put the school under an NCAA investigation.

Fortunately, Ollie’s shortcomings are not a secret.
Expand ...
I get he had to go but it looks similar to the Pitt stallings thing.
 
We don’t know what rules KO broke but it’s a reasonable negotiating tactic for the buyout. KO leaves our program financially independent and on his feet with a National championship. We are grateful to him.
 
noeynox said:
I get he had to go but it looks similar to the Pitt stallings thing.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
tcf15 said:
Expand ...

Fishy said:
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!
Expand ...
Is that a better or worse message that "the job pays $350,000 but comes with a Ford Taurus with the 1st 10,000 miles free?"

I'm going with better.
 
noeynox said:
They're clearly trying to not pay him the money he is contractually entitled to. It will be interesting to see what the actual cause is.
Expand ...
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?
 
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.
 
CL82 said:
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?
Expand ...

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.
 
Fishy said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
dogfan96 said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
Fishy said:
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.
Expand ...
I'd like to know what it is. If it's impermissible workouts, that's lame.
 
noeynox said:
I'd like to know what it is. If it's impermissible workouts, that's lame.
Expand ...

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.
 
dogfan96 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Last edited:
BlueDogs said:
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.
Expand ...

Hasn't affected Izzo one iota yet.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,340
Messages
4,565,779
Members
10,467
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom