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

[8893]

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?

The claim is breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

 

[billybud]

'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.

Soooo...you think Ollie was fired for non performance...so do I.

And his contract does not have an out for poor job performance....but rather for "just cause" as specifically defined.

Now the question seems to be whether that "just cause" will hold up...

Ollie's performance of his job, outside those parameters of defined just cause, should have no impact.

If proven that they do, it would be a strike against the administration.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

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.

If you were to post the "couple thousand words languishing..." I'd no doubt advise that one need not share every thought they have. As a PM, I'd be interested and likely find much to agree with.

Deeply marinated by visits with my dad to the mysterious pre-Interstate highway "Yukon"-sounding place with a dirt floor, I'm over a half-century into this affinity, and literally told someone who today asked if I follow baseball that "the season starts in late September pretty much ever since Calvin Schiraldi melted down" on the big stage however many years ago. In other words, I barely follow sports anymore. Yes, I poked my head into his office later in the day to watch the World Cup - maybe 50% of what followed France's goal - but I put it all in context for him by saying that I'm on the message board for a recently mediocre-to-poor minor league basketball team >350 days a year.

It doesn't serve my interests to look too closely into NCAA sports as a whole, or seek any outcome other than settlement for this prolonged debacle. As Woody Allen said as his peak, "I need the eggs."

One thing I don't recall yet seeing is that if in fact KO rejected initial floaters toward settling, he may have done so in the same way that he seemed slow to call timeouts. As with game outcomes, he could get crushed for this, but I don't think it would be good for the University if that were to happen.

 

[billybud]

Coaches are fired for not performing their job every year (the proof is usually in their record)...and if not fired for adequate "just cause", they get paid.

The case revolves around just cause...he probably did violate the letter of the contract...the question his lawyer should bring forward is whether that just cause has been applied consistently and his lawyer should paint a scene of an administration using just cause as tactic to avoid a financial obligation.

 

[champs99and04]

'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.

I'm with you on some of this, but you lose me with your third paragraph and your last paragraph. What reason does ESPN have to run an anti-UConn campaign? If anything, I would fear the opposite. Considering their peanuts TV deal with the AAC, I'd say they benefit quite handsomely from that property and have every reason to promote the program. The last thing they want is for Ollie to bring down the program.

Ollie's job is not to win basketball games. Ollie's job is to perform to the standards laid out in his contract. The school obviously feels he violated those terms by breaking NCAA rules, which passes the smell test until you consider how fundamentally problematic it is that the NCAA is settling, you know, real world issues.

I get that much of the frustration directed towards Ollie is well-earned, but he's about the least important person in the story. The story is about protecting workers from systematic fraud. It's not hyperbole to suggest that stuff like this - where guaranteed contracts can be voided at the discretion of biased third parties - threatens our constitutional rights. So yes, it would be nice if the media pulled their heads from the sand and stopped this from happening.

 

[pj]

It's not hyperbole to suggest that stuff like this - where guaranteed contracts can be voided at the discretion of biased third parties - threatens our constitutional rights.

It is hyperbole. Anyway, who are you accusing of bias, the arbitrator or the court that hears the case if the arbitrator doesn't?

 

[MadDogRevival]

It's not hyperbole to suggest that stuff like this - where guaranteed contracts can be voided at the discretion of biased third parties - threatens our constitutional rights.

Which rights, in particular?

 

[Dogdeacon]

Soooo...you think Ollie was fired for non performance...so do I.

No, I think he did not diligently perform his duties (obvious from games/players) and therefore I find it likely that there was dereliction in many areas including the mundane (punctuality, responsiveness to superiors) and serious (ncaa & university rules & codes of conduct).

The fact that all of college sports is filled with exploitive money grabbing hypocrisy is neither a defense nor justification for not doing your job and doesn’t entitle him to ill-gotten monies at the athletes or states detriment. And I can’t comprehend anyone arguing for labor or legal rights in this instance unless that person is literally fighting for labor/law for the powerless or poor to whom such a fight matters far more.

Plus I need the eggs. Aka Go Huskies

 

[CL82]

The claim is breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Wouldn't Ollie's (false) annual certification of NCAA compliance be considered bad faith? Would that be defense to the Ollie making a covenant good faith and fair dealing argument?

If a result is foreseeable and permitted at the time of execution (like, for example because it is part of the express agreement of the parties say) is a court likely to effectively write that language out of the contract? What if the language wasn't discretionary? Would that make it more defensible?

Absent entrapment (somehow UConn caused the violation to occur), I can't see a court saying "yes, Mr. Ollie broke NCAA rules and regulations, and yes the parties specifically agreed that that would be grounds for his dismissal and termination of his employment contract but you know what? We don't think that that they were serious." But that's just me.

I'm not saying it isn't an argument that I'd make, if I didn't have anything better, but is a Hail Mary, at best.

 

[CL82]

Which rights, in particular?

The opposing teams right to shoot uncontested threes?

 

[Tenspro2002]

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

You should have stopped there.

What the university did in regard to other people's contracts is irrelevant. Like you said, UConn is exercising its right to terminate for cause. They chose not to exercise their right to terminate JC.

That's how contracts work.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

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

Actually it is:

To clarify @CL82, is the immediately preceding attached information a direct excerpt of the employment contractual agreement signed by the 2 direct counterparties: (a) Ollie, likely his attorney(s) advising him at the time, & others TBD, (b) UConn officials (AD, President, etc) as well as (c) the UConn Faculty Union Head at the time, and witnessed by several individuals representing each of (a), (b), and (c)?

Or, was the information attached above including:

"i. neglect of assigned responsibilities, incompetence, failure to meet satisfactory standard of job performance, failure to meet continuing educational requirements, or to fulfill professional commitments …"​

a direct excerpt of the Collective Bargaining Agreement referenced a few separate times in the Ollie/UConn employment contract which all parties reviewed, agreed, and signed along with their respective witnesses? Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

The story is about protecting workers from systematic fraud. It's not hyperbole to suggest that stuff like this - where guaranteed contracts can be voided at the discretion of biased third parties - threatens our constitutional rights.

@champs99and04
In your cited hyperbole, who are the "third parties" you suggest "threaten our constitutional rights" in this or similar employment disagreements?

Other than possibly a union official, attorneys advising 2 employment contract counterparties (employee & employer), and possibly respective witnesses of each, which "third parties" are you referencing or do you suggest exist?

 

[David 76]

The claim is breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Do you think he has a good case?

 

[HuskyHawk]

@champs99and04
In your cited hyperbole, who are the "third parties" you suggest "threaten our constitutional rights" in this or similar employment disagreements?

Other than possibly a union official, attorneys advising 2 employment contract counterparties (employee & employer), and possibly respective witnesses of each, which "third parties" are you referencing or do you suggest exist?

Invoking the Constitution in respect to a simple labor contract dispute is wildly over the top. Some people, however, when presented with a dispute between “labor” and “management”, feel that labor must always win. It’s particularly odd here where the labor is a multimillionaire and the management is the state.

 

[8893]

Wouldn't Ollie's (false) annual certification of NCAA compliance be considered bad faith? Would that be defense to the Ollie making a covenant good faith and fair dealing argument?

If a result is foreseeable and permitted at the time of execution (like, for example because it is part of the express agreement of the parties say) is a court likely to effectively write that language out of the contract? What if the language wasn't discretionary? Would that make it more defensible?

Absent entrapment (somehow UConn caused the violation to occur), I can't see a court saying "yes, Mr. Ollie broke NCAA rules and regulations, and yes the parties specifically agreed that that would be grounds for his dismissal and termination of his employment contract but you know what? We don't think that that they were serious." But that's just me.

I'm not saying it isn't an argument that I'd make, if I didn't have anything better, but is a Hail Mary, at best.

Do you think he has a good case?

I don't know the evidence (e.g., did other coaches sign annual certifications that were less than accurate but they suffered no repercussions?) but I don't think it's a great claim. I just think it's the most viable one that could survive dispositive motions and get to a jury, which would be my goal.

 

[willie99]

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

I'm not taking any side here, I'm just not as passionate as others are on this matter. I know the one thing I don't want, is for there to be any substantive allegations against Ollie to be proven. I hope they all arrive at a negotiated settlement.

Now I'll try to answer your question. I'm not an attorney, but I comprehend enough to give bad advice.

I think there are at least two mitigating factors to that "Calhoun did it" sort of legal argument.

1) A different management team. New President and new AD can make different decisions for different reasons, and can't be bound by the poor decisions of their predecessors

2) After the last set of violations, the post season ban, the bad press, the school adopted a zero tolerance policy and every coach knows of this new policy position.

 

[auggie22]

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. "

Slice the data to include only aggrieved multi-millionaires claiming a right to 10M in unearned future income.

In this economic climate ( specifically CT ) neither the union nor the public would be comfortable with such a fight. I think the arbitrator would be smart enough to read that.

 

[CL82]

To clarify @CL82, is the immediately preceding attached information a direct excerpt of the employment contractual agreement signed by the 2 direct counterparties: (a) Ollie, likely his attorney(s) advising him at the time, & others TBD, (b) UConn officials (AD, President, etc) as well as (c) the UConn Faculty Union Head at the time, and witnessed by several individuals representing each of (a), (b), and (c)?

Or, was the information attached above including:

"i. neglect of assigned responsibilities, incompetence, failure to meet satisfactory standard of job performance, failure to meet continuing educational requirements, or to fulfill professional commitments …"​

a direct excerpt of the Collective Bargaining Agreement referenced a few separate times in the Ollie/UConn employment contract which all parties reviewed, agreed, and signed along with their respective witnesses? Thanks for clarifying.

That language is from the CBA.

 

[MadDogRevival]

Several posters in this thread are suggesting that Ollie's attorneys make the following argument:
"Sure, there might be "just cause" within the letter of the contract, but that's really just a cover for firing him - they obviously fired him because he was a terrible coach."

This translates into the following Legal Argument:

Plaintiff cannot assert a breach of contract/termination claim against Defendant for a literal, provable breach of provision X of the employment contract if there is evidence supporting the conclusion that Plaintiff was motivated to terminate Defendant for behavior that did not constitute a breach of contract.

Oh boy.

I've been doing this long enough to smell a dog 5hit case from a lengthy distance. That one reeks.

Also, the thought that, "UConn could lose if it is shown that the Admin hasn't applied such-and-such uniformly," is a losing argument. The breach is based on Ollie's contract, and defense would have a heck of time proving that failure-to-terminate other employees who aren't the highest paid, most visible employee in state somehow should guide the court.

Ollie is screwed eight ways to Sunday, and I think that's just grand.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Coaches are fired for not performing their job every year (the proof is usually in their record)...and if not fired for adequate "just cause", they get paid.

The case revolves around just cause...he probably did violate the letter of the contract...the question his lawyer should bring forward is whether that just cause has been applied consistently and his lawyer should paint a scene of an administration using just cause as tactic to avoid a financial obligation.

He wasn’t even fired for poor performance.
He was fired because the fans responded to two years of non winning records by deserting the ship in droves.
Men’s basketball at UConn is the only program that historically made money. Now it is losing money.
Its not ununual for attendance to drop off because of bad years but in 2013-14 we won 31 games and a NC and as recrcent as 2015-16 we won 25 games the AAC championship and got to the round of 32 . At most schools that glow would have lasted a bit longer than at UConn. No Billy the folks at Storrs are in panic mode.
The fear Ollie is the man responsible for killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
Maybe to a degree it’s true but he is certainly not responsible for us being relagated to a conference we didn’t choose to be in. With a commissioner that had no regard Basketball.

 

[David 76]

I don't know the evidence (e.g., did other coaches sign annual certifications that were less than accurate but they suffered no repercussions?) but I don't think it's a great claim. I just think it's the most viable one that could survive dispositive motions and get to a jury, which would be my goal.

Thanks.

 

[fatlucy]

Thanks.

Someone needs to invent the font “sarcasm” some nobody misses the punchline.

 

[David 76]

Someone needs to invent the font “sarcasm” some nobody misses the punchline.[/QUOTE

Maybe.
But I seriously appreciated 8893 answering my question.

 

[champs99and04]

Invoking the Constitution in respect to a simple labor contract dispute is wildly over the top. Some people, however, when presented with a dispute between “labor” and “management”, feel that labor must always win. It’s particularly odd here where the labor is a multimillionaire and the management is the state.

That's exactly how they want you to think. Look at the nerve of this rich basketball coach who wants to cut further into the state deficit! If it wasn't bad enough that we paid him out the ass to drive the program into the ground, now he wants money for time he's not going to work! Even though he clearly violated the contract!

The optics aren't on KO's side. But that's when we're most susceptible to foul play and they know that. Fairness and due process tend to evaporate when the mob covets and suspects a certain outcome. It's a classic case of scapegoating - two victims (in this case, the coach and the fan base) are being pitted against one another by an indebted third party (the school) to provide cover for their mistakes.

Truth be told, I don't give a damn about the constitution or the arbitrator or the lawyers. I just want people to know the whole story. And the story is about a bureaucracy manipulating the good-intentions of American people - amateurism, honoring a contract, working hard - to make a dollar. The school does not rise to that level of corruption for me, but they are certainly complicit in the operation. Think about how much of a farce the APR penalties were a few years ago - think about how much cognitive dissonance it must have required to sit there and absorb all that PR without ever fighting back. I mean, Christ, Shabazz fought more for himself than any of the administrators did for the people they were supposed to protect. And now, five years later, you're going to join forces with them - while pedaling an insultingly crass narrative about your commitment to compliance - to axe the guy who brought you out of that nightmare?

Sorry, I can't swallow that. I can put up with a lot - I can put up with coaches pulling scholarships from players, future pros blowing their knee out, coaches getting fired in the middle of a plane ride...but not that. I can't tolerate back-stabbing of that nature. KO may well have dogged it and cheated the fans their money, but he's going to face the consequences for it. Contracts are guaranteed for a reason and you cannot prioritize the ugly optics of KO's downfall over his right to be treated fairly in a capitalistic society. He made the school a lot of money and deserves compensation that is consistent with that leverage.