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

[pj]

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.

Nonsense. UConn had two causes for termination, one of which was the violations, and that alone is just cause for denying him his future (unearned) salary, so how much more is the violations plus the poor performance -- two causes for firing -- supportive of termination for just cause.

You can't say that because UConn has two reasons for firing him, one of which enables them to deprive him of unearned income and the other of which may or may not, that the presence of the second cause makes the first less strong. No, multiple reasons to fire him only strengthens their case.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I feel like the whole point of this thread has been lost. Ollie had a deadline, following Herbst's final decision, in which to choose to file for arbitration or choose to go to court. That deadline is approaching or has passed, and yet the media hasn't reported anything about his decision.

 

[freescooter]

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.

Yeah, you keep saying the Univerdity is exposed on a pr front but that’s nonsense. This is a summer story. Come the start of practice it disappears or at best ends up on page 8 next to the pro soccer roundup. And it’s Ollie who is taking the pr hit. He is being portrayed as a bad coach who broke the rules. Most people don’t in fact believe he is deserving of 10 million dollars.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

Which is the reason an arbitrator may find in Ollie's favor. You don't have to agree with it, but it's a plausible outcome.

Nonsense. First, failure to perform is also just cause for firing. But, the point of my post was that UConn had two causes for termination, one of which was the violations, and that alone is just cause for denying him his future (unearned) salary, so how much more is the violations plus the poor performance -- two causes for firing -- supportive of termination for just cause.

You can't say that because UConn has two reasons for depriving him of unearned income, one strong and one weak, that the presence of the weak one makes the strong one less strong. No, multiple causes only strengthen their case.

Failure to perform is not just cause to firing him without paying the $10 million.

I didn't say that one was strong and one was weak. Only that one would still require they pay him $10 million and the other $0. And the fact that you're all acknowledging that if he was winning he wouldn't have been fired, but refuse to understand that a neutral arbitrator might come to the same conclusion and decide in Ollie's favor is really quite ironic.

 

[CL82]

Which is the reason an arbitrator may find in Ollie's favor. You don't have to agree with it, but it's a plausible outcome.

Possible, yes. Likely, no.

Failure to perform is not just cause to firing him without paying the $10 million.

Actually it is:

And the fact that you're all acknowledging that if he was winning he wouldn't have been fired, but refuse to understand that a neutral arbitrator might come to the same conclusion and decide in Ollie's favor is really quite ironic.

It's not ironic at all. He just realizes that that isn't the standard an arbitrator is going to apply.

 

[BlueMAB]

Possible, yes. Likely, no.


Actually it is:
View attachment 32813

It's not ironic at all. He just realizes that that isn't the standard an arbitrator is going to apply.

The guy won a national championship. The winning wasn't on par with what we as fans want. But he's got as many rings as Hall of Fame coach nose picker. Did Benedict reference his performance/record in the letter?

How do you know what standard the arbitrator will apply?

 

[huskymedic]

I feel like the whole point of this thread has been lost. Ollie had a deadline, following Herbst's final decision, in which to choose to file for arbitration or choose to go to court. That deadline is approaching or has passed, and yet the media hasn't reported anything about his decision.

By media accounts - Herbst sent her Step 2 decision to the Union on June 19th. Depending on the argument of when it was "received" - the deadline has still passed. These are normally hard deadlines. If they were moving towards Arbitration - the University would know by now.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The guy won a national championship. The winning wasn't on par with what we as fans want. But he's got as many rings as Hall of Fame coach nose picker. Did Benedict reference his performance/record in the letter?

How do you know what standard the arbitrator will apply?

My hunch is that Ollie's lawyers are trying to figure that out right now. I'm no employment arbitration expert, but look at the whole Tom Brady deflategate situation. Tons of evidence that the decision was a fraud, based on false information and incorrect science. Ultimately, did they have the power to do what they did? Yes. Case closed.

In that sense this is black and white. Did they have the power to dismiss Ollie with cause for even a minor violation of NCAA rules. Yes. Did he commit at least minor violations of NCAA rules? Yes (it seems very clear). Case closed. That's the end of the analysis.

In court, he may have more options to raise a variety of other claims that he has asserted. In arbitration, he may be out of luck.

 

[HuskyHawk]

By media accounts - Herbst sent her Step 2 decision to the Union on June 19th. Depending on the argument of when it was "received" - the deadline has passed. These are normally hard deadlines. If they were moving towards Arbitration - the University would know by now.

View attachment 32814

Perfect, thanks. So the media has at least not reported that he sent a notice of intent to arbitrate in that 15 day window. That doesn't surprise me, as I think he has a poor position in arbitration. He can still go to court. It also allows him to string this out.

 

[BlueMAB]

My hunch is that Ollie's lawyers are trying to figure that out right now. I'm no employment arbitration expert, but look at the whole Tom Brady deflategate situation. Tons of evidence that the decision was a fraud, based on false information and incorrect science. Ultimately, did they have the power to do what they did? Yes. Case closed.

In that sense this is black and white. Did they have the power to dismiss Ollie with cause for even a minor violation of NCAA rules. Yes. Did he commit at least minor violations of NCAA rules? Yes (it seems very clear). Case closed. That's the end of the analysis.

In court, he may have more options to raise a variety of other claims that he has asserted. In arbitration, he may be out of luck.

That's fair, but it's a hunch. We don't really know. It's a calculated risk for the school, Ollie has nothing to lose.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Yeah, you keep saying the Univerdity is exposed on a pr front but that’s nonsense. This is a summer story. Come the start of practice it disappears or at best ends up on page 8 next to the pro soccer roundup. And it’s Ollie who is taking the pr hit. He is being portrayed as a bad coach who broke the rules. Most people don’t in fact believe he is deserving of 10 million dollars.

 

[CL82]

By media accounts - Herbst sent her Step 2 decision to the Union on June 19th. Depending on the argument of when it was "received" - the deadline has still passed. These are normally hard deadlines. If they were moving towards Arbitration - the University would know by now.

View attachment 32814

Agreed. I imagine that the parties could agree to extend that deadline. They might to do so to facilitate a settlement. Of course he could have given them notice of his intent to arbitrate and it may not have made its way the media yet.

Alternatively Ollie could have not chosen arbitration. @8893 pointed out some language that suggests that Ollie has the option to litigate if he doesn't go to arbitration. Assuming that is correct, and although not it's clear it is a fair read of the language, then this may drag on a bit longer with KO camp having the threat of litigation as a chip to give up in settlement.

Personally, I just want it to go away, not at a cost of $10M though.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Agreed. I imagine that the parties could agree to extend that deadline. They might to do so to facilitate a settlement. Of course he could have given them notice of his intent to arbitrate and it may not have made its way the media yet.

Alternatively Ollie could have not chosen arbitration. @8893 pointed out some language that suggests that Ollie has the option to litigate if he doesn't go to arbitration. Assuming that is correct, and although not it's clear it is a fair read of the language, then this may drag on a bit longer with KO camp having the threat of litigation as a chip to give up in settlement.

Personally, I just want it go away, not at a cost of $10M though.

My read of the contract is that he waives his right to go to court if he goes to arbitration. Implicitly then, he has that right if he does not choose arbitration. That said, he needs to put forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. I am not sure what that is. The due process argument is really weak. Breach of contract, given the all but indisputable facts that he committed a violation, looks like a loser. Disparate treatment maybe....but based on what?

 

[dennismenace]

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?

I believe the contract of KO contained very precise language that differed from JC over NCAA violations. As others have said on here is why his atty would permit him to accept such language but we don't know all the background.

 

[JellyBean]

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

Great summary. Like I said in one of the threads about this situation, it is fishy. To fired a guy for being a bad coach and having a losing record. I get that and have no problem with that. It is the nature of the coaching profession. What I don't like is trying to drag a man's good character in the mud in order to avoid paying him what is owed to him. When Coach Calhoun broke rules, the University pretended like all was well. We were winning and that is all that mattered. The university stood strong with Calhoun even after the NCAA placed the dreaded "Failure To Create An Atmosphere of Compliance" tag on UConn. Kevin Ollie gets tossed to the side without so much as a meeting with the university president in order to discuss the allegations. And what are the allegations? From statements from Miller:

• Ollie set up a call between Ray Allen and a recruit on his assistant’s phone. This is technically a no-no because Allen, who played at UConn, is not considered a former player by the NCAA. According to them, he’s a booster, and boosters can’t talk to recruits.
• While “in street clothes on his way to lunch,” Ollie stopped and shot some hoops with recruit James Akinjo during his official visit last September. Akinjo’s aunt filmed it and later deleted it from Twitter when the Courant covered it. This was a violation that UConn self-reported to the NCAA because their compliance team found that Akinjo was still in high school and hadn’t been medically cleared for college sports.
• Miller believes that Danny Griffin only got his non-coaching staff position because he’s buddies with Ollie (welcome to college basketball....and every other industry).
• Ollie’s other buddy, Derreck Hamilton, held workouts for UConn players, not recruits, both on-campus and, during the summer, in Atlanta.

That’s it. Ollie’s buddy on staff called recruits two times when he shouldn’t have; his other buddy ran a few shootarounds. UConn’s most famous men’s basketball alum can’t talk to potential players because... he’s UConn’s most famous men’s basketball alum. And Ollie shot a basketball at a hoop with a person he wanted to recruit—again, Akinjo was shooting a basketball with a 45-year-old man, who was on his way to lunch, not playing full-court pickup.

In terms of what UConn is citing from the NCAA investigation to use in its justification for Ollie’s firing, this is all the school is using to bolster its “just cause” claim. The school ain't even trying to use the claim that Miller made to NCAA investigators about the $30,000 in moving and living expenses so that a recruits mother might be closer to her son during his playing days, but UConn is not pursuing that claim in its case because as far as the upcoming legal case goes, it has to be able prove all these things happened. Something just ain't right about this whole case.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

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.

So pitch the account.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

What I don't like is trying to drag a man's good character in the mud in order to avoid paying him what is owed to him.

You are under no absolute obligation to see it, frame it, or phrase it this way. More importantly, neither is an arbitrator.

You retain the absolute right to see it, frame it, or phrase it this way. Perhaps an arbitrator might as well, and might additionally fashion a legally binding decision fastened to an interpretation of the facts and the applicable law. I wouldn't see it, frame it, or phrase it that way, but like you, I'm not the arbitrator.

 

[KembaStepback]

You are under no absolute obligation to see it, frame it, or phrase it this way. More importantly, neither is an arbitrator.

You retain the absolute right to see it, frame it, or phrase it this way. Perhaps an arbitrator might as well, and might additionally fashion a legally binding decision fastened to an interpretation of the facts and the applicable law. I wouldn't see it, frame it, or phrase it that way, but like you, I'm not the arbitrator.

Wait a minute. How is it owed to him? Is anyone denying he broke rules? If he didn't, pay him. If he did, he shouldn't get anything. What happened with Calhoun should be irrelevant IMO. Completely different circumstances. I'm also not sure their contracts were exactly the same. Even if they were/are I still don't think it matters.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Possible, yes. Likely, no.


Actually it is:
View attachment 32813

It's not ironic at all. He just realizes that that isn't the standard an arbitrator is going to apply.

"Cause" does not include wins and losses. I wish you'd stop repeating this.

 

[CL82]

What I don't like is trying to drag a man's good character in the mud in order to avoid paying him what is owed to him.

And how exactly did they do that? By saying he was discharged under the "just cause" provisions of his contract? He was.

• Ollie’s other buddy, Derreck Hamilton, held workouts for UConn players, not recruits, both on-campus and, during the summer, in Atlanta.

That’s it.

Well that's not quite it is it? Didn't the housing and food get paid for? That's problematic. How did get there? Who paid for their flight. I love how this is always omitted by the Ollieistas. That is serious stuff and UConn will have to pay the price for it happening.

What about the fact that Ollie certified that the program was compliant with NCAA rules 3 times while this was going on. Breaking the rules of what entity regulates your employer is always going to get you trouble. Lying about it, particularly in writing gets you fired.

But here's the thing, even if those things, conveniently ignored by you, didn't happen (but they did) Ollie's actions are just cause under the contract.

That language specifically states that any violation constitutes "just clause". There is no de minimus exception. You can't reasonable argue that the contract mandates Ollie is entitled to $10M under the contract when the contract specifically states that he is not.

 

[CL82]

"Cause" does not include wins and losses.

Yeah that sentence really doesn't mean anything E, but I think you know that.

The contract states that existence "just cause" terminates UConn's payment obligation under the contract. "Just cause" is a defined term under the contact. It's definition specifically states that "just clause" shall (not "may", shall) include any violation NCAA rules (see my above for exact language).

That's agreement made by Ollie and university. One side is sticking with it and the other is trying to get $10M it's not entitled to.

You have said elsewhere that you agree it is clear that Ollie isn't entitled to the money under the contract. "I wish you stop posting" otherwise. It's disingenuous.

 

[Madmannsucks]

What if???? He was referring to Diaco...hmmm?

 

[champs99and04]

So pitch the account.

I have a couple thousand words languishing away in a word document if you're really interested. I've pondered posting them on this board but figured best case scenario I might convert a couple people, and what's the point of that? For as strongly as I feel about the matter, UConn basketball is kind of a big part of my life. I feel like I have little recourse right now, because acting in step with my convictions would entail protesting something I'm not sure I can do without. I imagine others feel the same.

The premise shields people from something of an intractable fallacy. It isn't a fallacy that they're incapable of tracking through their own devices so much as it requires more investment than any sane person would volunteer. The logic is pretty simple. The more informed you are, the better you're able to negotiate a mutually beneficial outcome. Wars happen when people don't understand each other. This is a war.

There are times when you think you're right and then there are times when you know you're right. This is closer to the latter in my eyes, for the simple reason that I can make the case against KO better than the people fighting him. I can convert villains to victims better than they can themselves. Whether I can do it in a manner that holds their attention is another question. That's the great dilemma our country faces today; our best minds are muted by a prevailing anxiety that, in media consumption, precludes us from exploring paths outside the beaten course, not because we have an innate understanding of justice, but because it threatens our claim to identity.

You and a handful of other posters who routinely take the time to read my posts are much appreciated. As someone who, ironically, struggles with attentional issues of his own, I envy your patience and try to build from that model. Essays might not directly transform cultural values like they used to, but they can still reap valuable capital that has a way of trickling from executives to media personalities to foot soldiers. If you're in KO's camp, there's enough ideological overlap with enough important people to turn this into a full-out media assault on the school and the NCAA.

 

[billybud]

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.

from the web:

"When a public employee contests a suspension or termination through grievance arbitration or a civil suit, the employee tends to succeed approximately 50% of the time.

The most common reason arbitrators give for overturning the suspension or termination is inconsistent discipline, where other employees committed similar acts of misconduct but received less severe discipline outcomes. "

 

[Dogdeacon]

I have a couple thousand words languishing away in a word document if you're really interested. I've pondered posting them on this board but figured best case scenario I might convert a couple people, and what's the point of that? For as strongly as I feel about the matter, UConn basketball is kind of a big part of my life. I feel like I have little recourse right now, because acting in step with my convictions would entail protesting something I'm not sure I can do without. I imagine others feel the same.

The premise shields people from something of an intractable fallacy. It isn't a fallacy that they're incapable of tracking through their own devices so much as it requires more investment than any sane person would volunteer. The logic is pretty simple. The more informed you are, the better you're able to negotiate a mutually beneficial outcome. Wars happen when people don't understand each other. This is a war.

There are times when you think you're right and then there are times when you know you're right. This is closer to the latter in my eyes, for the simple reason that I can make the case against KO better than the people fighting him. I can convert villains to victims better than they can themselves. If you're in KO's camp, there's enough ideological overlap with enough important people to turn this into a full-out media assault on the school and the NCAA.

'War' is hyperbole, if you are attempting a reasoned response escalating via word choice is counter-productive.

Doesn't your current argument boil down to Ollie's side COULD be doing better than they are with a smarter more diligent and focused strategy?! Doesn't the lack of the ability to do this mirror why he was fired?!

It isn't a far jump to say espn gets info from one side, tries to get the other side or more info and then runs an anti UConn effort like its been doing for parts of the past ten years. Familiarity breeds contempt.

From other posts above its clear Ollie did not file for arbitration. The reason seems obvious that arbitration is quicker and possibly binary, both bad for Ollie. So he logically chooses to battle in both court & thru PR on his lawyer's advice & help. His lawyers/PR/espn did seem to try and dissuade the State from releasing further damaging to Ollie information, which leads me to suspect it exists. The fact that the state is not negotiating or making offers also implies the existence of 'cause' and damning evidence thereof. The espn story seems to beg for an offer as does the damages lawsuit.

For now the State is sitting on its hand, if the PR escalates or becomes unduly damaging it is very possible that freedom of information requests uncover more negative Ollie details. And that may be a balancing act Ollie is negotiating. If Ollie escalates & makes it more costly for the State, the State loses incentive to avoid controversy, negative press, NCAA violations and lawsuits & the State releases every bit of negative info possibly bringing UConn down with Ollie.

The absolute truth of what happened matters. Ollie didn't do his job in a myriad of ways which caused UConn to lose basketball games, fail to develop players, recruit poorly, lack game-planning and strategy etc... The 'cause' wasn't a losing record, Ollie 'caused' the losing record by failing to diligently and properly do his job in seemingly every aspect.