So what's up with Ollie? Did he ask for arbitration?

[CL82]

Sorry for another thread, but I feel like this one will have a short shelf life.

Anyone hear anything?

 

[MadDogRevival]

"He called game."

 

[Vancat]

Gag ord_r

 

[Storrs South]

I meant to post this the other day. Medcalf is basically an extension of Ollie at this point but regardless here's an interesting quote:

There is no indication UConn plans to reach a settlement with Ollie. University officials have not approached his lawyers with a settlement proposal.

What's behind the bitter fight between Kevin Ollie and UConn?

 

[CL82]

I meant to post this the other day. Medcalf is basically an extension of Ollie at this point but regardless here's an interesting quote:

There is no indication UConn plans to reach a settlement with Ollie. University officials have not approached his lawyers with a settlement proposal.

What's behind the bitter fight between Kevin Ollie and UConn?

I saw that. Has Ollie's team approached the university?

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

"He called game."

@MadDogRevival Based on which facts?

 

[dennismenace]

I meant to post this the other day. Medcalf is basically an extension of Ollie at this point but regardless here's an interesting quote:

There is no indication UConn plans to reach a settlement with Ollie. University officials have not approached his lawyers with a settlement proposal.

What's behind the bitter fight between Kevin Ollie and UConn?

In the case of this story it's ESPN behind the "bitter fight".

If it is true that in arbitration it's either all or nothing I think the university would be reckless to pursue that path if they did not have a very strong legal basis. I strongly suspect they do and that this is last minute posturing and hoping against hope by Ollie. I do not see how past treatment of Calhoun who undoubtedly had different contract verbiage can be utilized as a defense when the contract has very specific language that KO apparently agreed to. If so, it will also be sad if he is allowing the union to walk him down this path.

We shall see.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I will breathe easier when that’s settled without the necessity of going to court.
I don’t even want to know the specifics of the settlement in fact I personally hope everyone involved signs a non disclosure agreement.
Also the NCAA clears the school
Hopefully sooner than later.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

In the case of this story it's ESPN behind the "bitter fight".

I do not see how past treatment of Calhoun who undoubtedly had different contract verbiage can be utilized as a defense when the contract has very specific language that KO apparently agreed to.

ESPN may have contributed to screwing UConn during multiple stages of conference realignment and it employs loads of syracuse scum inclined to voice anything anti-UConn, but is ESPN truly behind the current "bitter fight"? Or, did the departed's buddy write the July 3 article with Cliff Notes provided by a PR agency or law firm?

Haven't either excerpts of JC's later contract(s) or entire contracts been posted on the yard with very similar if not identical language to the contract agreed and signed by the departed?

 

[Storrs South]

ESPN may have contributed to screwing UConn during multiple stages of conference realignment and it employs loads of syracuse scum inclined to voice anything anti-UConn, but is ESPN truly behind the current "bitter fight"? Or, did the departed's buddy write the July 3 article with Cliff Notes provided by a PR agency or law firm?

Haven't either excerpts of JC's later contract(s) or entire contracts been posted on the yard with very similar if not identical language to the contract agreed and signed by the departed?

Here's Calhoun's contract

I believe this is the exact same language as in Ollie's contract, from the link:

The phrase "just cause" shall include, in addition to the definition contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a violation by the Coach of any rule, regulation, policy, constitutional provision, bylaw, or official interpretation of the University, the Conference or the NCAA; or a violation by a member of the men's coaching staff, or any other person under the Coach's supervision and direction...

 

[champs99and04]

I meant to post this the other day. Medcalf is basically an extension of Ollie at this point but regardless here's an interesting quote:

There is no indication UConn plans to reach a settlement with Ollie. University officials have not approached his lawyers with a settlement proposal.

What's behind the bitter fight between Kevin Ollie and UConn?

Why is he an extension of Ollie? The article seems pretty fair.

 

[Storrs South]

Why is he an extension of Ollie? The article seems pretty fair.

Every breaking aspect of this story from the Ollie camp has been through Medcalf. There are many CT-based college basketball reporters with a national audience and yet Medcalf keeps getting fed this information. I don't think that's a coincidence. The article also brushes aside what Ollie did as "minor violations" when we've seen in other articles that particularly the practice in Atlanta is not minor in nature.

I don't really care about this story anymore: Ollie violated the rules, UConn is exercising it's right to terminate him for just cause based on said rule violations to save a ton of money and doing so in a manner inconsistent with the university's previous actions on similar matters. That's it.

Both parties need to find some middle ground number and move on from the whole thing. I see both parties at fault to one degree or another in this instance.

 

[CL82]

Here's Calhoun's contract

I believe this is the exact same language as in Ollie's contract, from the link:

The phrase "just cause" shall include, in addition to the definition contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a violation by the Coach of any rule, regulation, policy, constitutional provision, bylaw, or official interpretation of the University, the Conference or the NCAA; or a violation by a member of the men's coaching staff, or any other person under the Coach's supervision and direction...

So?

 

[Storrs South]

So?

I'm not a lawyer so feel free anyone to pick this apart, but I assume the logic from Ollie's team is as follows:

1. Calhoun and Ollie had the same contract language regarding NCAA rules violations (i.e. you break any rule, of any degree, you can be fired for "just cause")
2. Calhoun broke some rules and was not fired
3. Ollie broke some rules and was fired
4. Therefore inconsistent and thus unfair treatment of Ollie

 

[CL82]

I'm not a lawyer so feel free anyone to pick this apart, but I assume the logic from Ollie's team is as follows:

1. Calhoun and Ollie had the same contract language regarding NCAA rules violations (i.e. you break any rule, of any degree, you can be fired for "just cause")
2. Calhoun broke some rules and was not fired
3. Ollie broke some rules and was fired
4. Therefore inconsistent and thus unfair treatment of Ollie

Were there any different circumstances? Were the managers the same managers? Are employers entitled to take into account all aspects of employment performance or do they have to focus on a single aspect? If they fail to fire one employee, do they lose the right to fire all employees?

 

[pj]

I'm not a lawyer so feel free anyone to pick this apart, but I assume the logic from Ollie's team is as follows:

1. Calhoun and Ollie had the same contract language regarding NCAA rules violations (i.e. you break any rule, of any degree, you can be fired for "just cause")
2. Calhoun broke some rules and was not fired
3. Ollie broke some rules and was fired
4. Therefore inconsistent and thus unfair treatment of Ollie

A performing employee who breaks some rules and a non-performing employee who breaks the same rules are different cases.

Breaking the rules provides just cause; but there is no obligation to act. I have just cause to boycott Stop & Shop, but I am not obliged to. Similarly violations may have given UConn the right to break off relations with Calhoun and Ollie without further compensation, but it was not obliged to break off relations. It elected to do so in Ollie's case because of the poor performance. That is within its rights. It is not discrimination based on race, it is discrimination based on job performance.

 

[huskyinfl]

Why would Ollie point at Calhoun? Probably easier to find a Diaco football violation and he got fired and paid.

 

[champs99and04]

Every breaking aspect of this story from the Ollie camp has been through Medcalf. There are many CT-based college basketball reporters with a national audience and yet Medcalf keeps getting fed this information. I don't think that's a coincidence. The article also brushes aside what Ollie did as "minor violations" when we've seen in other articles that particularly the practice in Atlanta is not minor in nature.

I don't really care about this story anymore: Ollie violated the rules, UConn is exercising it's right to terminate him for just cause based on said rule violations to save a ton of money and doing so in a manner inconsistent with the university's previous actions on similar matters. That's it.

Both parties need to find some middle ground number and move on from the whole thing. I see both parties at fault to one degree or another in this instance.

I only ask because his conclusion was about as cookie-cutter as it gets. I also don't see anything in that article Ollie would have needed to feed him. It's pretty much just a regurgitation of some common knowledge with some old quotes mixed in. Beyond that, the angle is pretty consistent with what we've seen from national outlets in that they're not exactly painting Ollie as a saint yet the school still seems kind of petty.

I honestly don't think Ollie has had much of a "camp" at any point. In fact, this board has always read as one side to the story. Everything else is the normal cycle of coaches sticking up for other coaches. That doesn't mean he's innocent. People who perform poorly tend to have smaller camps. But if he did have a competent group of advisors, the school would be getting taken to the woodshed PR wise.

 

[SouthBayHusky]

A performing employee who breaks some rules and a non-performing employee who breaks the same rules are different cases.

Breaking the rules provides just cause; but there is no obligation to act. I have just cause to boycott Stop & Shop, but I am not obliged to. Similarly violations may have given UConn the right to break off relations with Calhoun and Ollie without further compensation, but it was not obliged to break off relations. It elected to do so in Ollie's case because of the poor performance. That is within its rights. It is not discrimination based on race, it is discrimination based on job performance.

Agree with all points. Additionally, and beyond the fact that either party has the right to exercise a breach of contract terms at anytime, or not, the school can also argue that different presidents and athletic directors handle such discretion differently. The new administration and athletic director simply had a lower threshold/tolerance for violations. At the end of the day, the law favors the school, given contract both parties freely signed.

 

[selles]

Agree with all points. Additionally, and beyond the fact that either party has the right to exercise a breach of contract terms at anytime, or not, the school can also argue that different presidents and athletic directors handle such discretion differently. The new administration and athletic director simply had a lower threshold/tolerance for violations. At the end of the day, the law favors the school, given contract both parties freely signed.

I'd also add that I think a 'differential treatment' argument for a UConn basketball coach (top 5 monetary contract in the state) is an uphill battle, to say the least. This is a unique position and I don't think arbitrators or courts are under any obligation to pretend it's not.

 

[selles]

I only ask because his conclusion was about as cookie-cutter as it gets. I also don't see anything in that article Ollie would have needed to feed him. It's pretty much just a regurgitation of some common knowledge with some old quotes mixed in. Beyond that, the angle is pretty consistent with what we've seen from national outlets in that they're not exactly painting Ollie as a saint yet the school still seems kind of petty.

I honestly don't think Ollie has had much of a "camp" at any point. In fact, this board has always read as one side to the story. Everything else is the normal cycle of coaches sticking up for other coaches. That doesn't mean he's innocent. People who perform poorly tend to have smaller camps. But if he did have a competent group of advisors, the school would be getting taken to the woodshed PR wise.

The assertion that the University has not reached out to Ollie's attorneys with a settlement proposal - which is all StorrsSouth originally quoted - is something that almost certainly was fed to Medcalf by Ollie's camp.

As for whether Ollie has a "camp", it's been pretty clear from this Board that he does, though I agree that they have been ineffective.

Don't really agree that Ollie could take the school to the woodshed PR wise. This is business, not charity.

 

[champs99and04]

The assertion that the University has not reached out to Ollie's attorneys with a settlement proposal - which is all StorrsSouth originally quoted - is something that almost certainly was fed to Medcalf by Ollie's camp.

As for whether Ollie has a "camp", it's been pretty clear from this Board that he does, though I agree that they have been ineffective.

Don't really agree that Ollie could take the school to the woodshed PR wise. This is business, not charity.

I suppose that part could have been fed to him by Ollie's lawyers. Then again, he follows it up later in the article by saying "there is also a chance UConn is standing firm because it knows more than the transcripts have revealed." That's something Ollie's camp could have downplayed if they were in fact directly engaging Medcalf. Otherwise, it sounds more like they gave him a passing yes/no and little else, certainly nothing that would indicate to me that the article was groomed in a partial setting.

The fact that this is not a charity is exactly the point, unless you anticipate the media suddenly losing its appetite for controversy. These are precisely the stories that they exist for. Their job is to illuminate injustice and refine capitalism by merging public sentiment with business interest. Unfortunately, stories that lack in sex appeal tend to elude their own business interests, which is why they sometimes need some poking and prying. Ollie's advisors have dropped the ball in that regard. In fact, he probably would have been better off ignoring the legal advice entirely and hiring a PR firm. Knowingly or not, the school has left itself exposed in a way that could be far more expensive long-term than the buyout fee.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I suppose that part could have been fed to him by Ollie's lawyers. Then again, he follows it up later in the article by saying "there is also a chance UConn is standing firm because it knows more than the transcripts have revealed." That's something Ollie's camp could have downplayed if they were in fact directly engaging Medcalf. Otherwise, it sounds more like they gave him a passing yes/no and little else, certainly nothing that would indicate to me that the article was groomed in a partial setting.

The fact that this is not a charity is exactly the point, unless you anticipate the media suddenly losing its appetite for controversy. These are precisely the stories that they exist for. Their job is to illuminate injustice and refine capitalism by merging public sentiment with business interest. Unfortunately, stories that lack in sex appeal tend to elude their own business interests, which is why they sometimes need some poking and prying. Ollie's advisors have dropped the ball in that regard. In fact, he probably would have been better off ignoring the legal advice entirely and hiring a PR firm. Knowingly or not, the school has left itself exposed in a way that could be far more expensive long-term than the buyout fee.

I think there is 0% chance of that. I doubt that they have exposed themselves in a way that will cost them anything. I'm not sure what you think imagine would cost them as a result of this, let alone cost them more than $10,000,000.

 

[BlueMAB]

It is not discrimination based on race, it is discrimination based on job performance.

If it's based on performance, then they have to pay him the $10 million.

I originally sided with the school on this, but it's becoming clear that their actions were inconsistent. They are allowed to be inconsistent, but that's evidence that the termination had more to do with performance, which means he should be paid the $10MM.

Both parties need to settle this.

 

[KembaStepback]

If it's based on performance, then they have to pay him the $10 million.

I originally sided with the school on this, but it's becoming clear that their actions were inconsistent. They are allowed to be inconsistent, but that's evidence that the termination had more to do with performance, which means he should be paid the $10MM.

Both parties need to settle this.

Not sure I agee with this take. One guy who broke rules is a HOF coach. The other is a guy breaking rules, who was consistently losing.

UConn doesn't have to fire Calhoun for any infractions. They didn't want to. They wanted to fire Ollie. He broke the rules and gave them an out. It's no one's fault but his own. If he hadn't broken rules he'd be getting paid. Is it inconsistent? Sure. Is there obvious reasoning behind it? Of course.