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

[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.

 

[Madmannsucks]

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.

What he said.

 

[temery]

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.

What?

 

[auggie22]

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.

I would venture that Ollie has lost the school a lot of money, particularly the last few years. Directly as a consequence of dogging it on the job he was paid a lot to do. And by dogging it he has also robbed a dozen or so ambitious young men of an earning opportunity. Think about that. These kids that he made promises to should be the most aggrieved.

If you strip out the dubious premises in your post, I think you would come around to why there should be little sympathy for KO ...

 

[Dogdeacon]

I would venture that Ollie has lost the school a lot of money, particularly the last few years. Directly as a consequence of dogging it on the job he was paid a lot to do. And by dogging it he has also robbed a dozen or so ambitious young men of an earning opportunity. Think about that. These kids that he made promises to should be the most aggrieved.

If you strip out the dubious premises in your post, I think you would come around to why there should be little sympathy for KO ...

Exactly, 99&04 creates the administrative boogeyman & gets to blame a deep state enemy for both Ollie's debacle (inarguably his own doing) AND the APR suspension!? Try the simpler explanation, the coach failed to do his job in every aspect & got fired.
And even if the conspiracy theory of deep state incompetent administrative phuckery is true the remedy for this is not to pay a co-incompetent, that fixes nothing.

Happily the Louisville ongoing dumpster fire comparatively puts this melodrama into its small, sunken place.

 

[ctchamps]

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.

I have no skin in the game either but as a rebuttal to your points I will counter with Bob Diaco. Just his red pants alone argues that this administration did not dismiss someone for bad performance.

 

[CL82]

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.

But if the contract says, as pretty much everyone agrees, that he is not entitled to any further payments under it, why would you ignore what it says? Shouldn't your moral indignation be aimed at the person who didn't live up his contractual obligations and yet still wants to be paid?

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

This is one of the more wacky, tin foil hat conspiracy things I've read on this board, and that's saying something. But it confirms my general view on the split among us on this issue. Some will side with labor over management every time, no matter what. And if the "labor" in the particular case is in the wrong, it doesn't matter, because systematically they are "exploited".

Yeah, UConn really screwed Kevin Ollie. It took an uneducated kid from the LA gang land, gave him a degree and lead him to an NBA career in which he earned in excess of $20,000,000. Then, when his playing days were over, UConn hired him as an assistant coach, despite his lack of qualifications. Then it made him head coach in 2012, again despite a lack of qualifications. He earned over $11,000,000 as head coach over the last 6 years.

 

[Madmannsucks]

Wow...very even handed. Yup they took a kid who no one wanted...gave him a degree. Then they gave him an NBA career...then they gave him a time all set up for a championship run...13 years in the NBA certainly would not qualify anyone to be an assistant coach.
What I like most is the complete lack of bias.....and the part about how they "gave him a degree"...oh and took a kid from "gang land"...time to shut this one down.

 

[freescooter]

The real point is that they took a guy who was the third coach at the end of the bench, the one that hands towels to the guys coming off and brings the coffee for the other guys and made him the head coach and everyone is shocked this ended badly! The guy caught lightening in a bottle in 2014. It happens. But he wasn’t up to the task in any sense.

 

[8893]

The real point is that they took a guy who was the third coach at the end of the bench, the one that hands towels to the guys coming off and brings the coffee for the other guys and made him the head coach and everyone is shocked this ended badly! The guy caught lightening in a bottle in 2014. It happens. But he wasn’t up to the task in any sense.

To what issue is that the real point?

 

[champs99and04]

I would venture that Ollie has lost the school a lot of money, particularly the last few years. Directly as a consequence of dogging it on the job he was paid a lot to do. And by dogging it he has also robbed a dozen or so ambitious young men of an earning opportunity. Think about that. These kids that he made promises to should be the most aggrieved.

If you strip out the dubious premises in your post, I think you would come around to why there should be little sympathy for KO ...

Exactly. So why does he not deserve more for outperforming his first contract? Does this only work one way?

 

[UConnNick]

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.

The women's BB program at UConn has also historically turned a profit, which is quite a feat, considering only a tiny number of schools manage to do that.

 

[auggie22]

Exactly. So why does he not deserve more for outperforming his first contract? Does this only work one way?

Well, because of the contract. He was not forced at gun point to sign either. These things have to be a good deal for both parties to execute.

He signed the first contract despite the “meager” base salary because he knew that he was unproven, a risk that the school was willing to take at a certain price point. Still a far better deal than he would have received from any other D1 or NBA team at that time, which is also why he signed it. His reward for outperforming the first contract was a renegotiated deal that paid him as a top 5 coach.

 

[champs99and04]

But if the contract says, as pretty much everyone agrees, that he is not entitled to any further payments under it, why would you ignore what it says? Shouldn't your moral indignation be aimed at the person who didn't live up his contractual obligations and yet still wants to be paid?

The point of a contract is money. The entire reason for including that clause in the contract was to provide insurance against a scandal that depleted revenue and hindered their ability to rebuild the program. That is obviously not what happened here. They fired him because he sucked as a coach. They know that, but they feel justified in doing this anyway because they believe he slacked on the job and took advantage of people.

Fine. If that's the argument, the school should come out and say it. Don't try to insult people with the bit on compliance. Compliance wasn't going to get you out of this hole. If anything, compliance helped put you in the hole. Ask Diamond Stone, Jordan Bell, Hamidou Diallo, Tremont Waters, and the Heron kid about that. We didn't sign David Onuorah because Ollie was breaking the rules.

I understand that it's convenient to blame Ollie for signing a dumb contract and forcing the school into playing this game. It genuinely makes sense to think that way, because let's face it, we're victims. We watched that putrid basketball. We dealt with the CR firestorm. We have endured attack after attack from the NCAA. We deserve to cut this corner, this one time, because sometimes fighting fair isn't an answer, even for fair people.

Long-term, we lose thinking like that. Long-term, this is the type of thinking that sinks the program. We as college sports fans have been baited into thinking a certain way, but it doesn't have to be like that.

So yes, we have the right to make this all go away because that's what the contract allows us to do, and morally speaking, it's only what everyone else has always done to us. I'd rather use that good will to back our own guy and call attention to all the other things that have actually held us back.

 

[QDOG5]

The point of a contract is money. The entire reason for including that clause in the contract was to provide insurance against a scandal that depleted revenue and hindered their ability to rebuild the program. That is obviously not what happened here. They fired him because he sucked as a coach. They know that, but they feel justified in doing this anyway because they believe he slacked on the job and took advantage of people.

Fine. If that's the argument, the school should come out and say it. Don't try to insult people with the bit on compliance. Compliance wasn't going to get you out of this hole. If anything, compliance helped put you in the hole. Ask Diamond Stone, Jordan Bell, Hamidou Diallo, Tremont Waters, and the Heron kid about that. We didn't sign David Onuorah because Ollie was breaking the rules.

I understand that it's convenient to blame Ollie for signing a dumb contract and forcing the school into playing this game. It genuinely makes sense to think that way, because let's face it, we're victims. We watched that putrid basketball. We dealt with the CR firestorm. We have endured attack after attack from the NCAA. We deserve to cut this corner, this one time, because sometimes fighting fair isn't an answer, even for fair people.

Long-term, we lose thinking like that. Long-term, this is the type of thinking that sinks the program. We as college sports fans have been baited into thinking a certain way, but it doesn't have to be like that.

So yes, we have the right to make this all go away because that's what the contract allows us to do, and morally speaking, it's only what everyone else has always done to us. I'd rather use that good will to back our own guy and call attention to all the other things that have actually held us back.

If UConn is sinking and this supposed administration tomfoolery is going to hurt the mens bb program how were they able to sign the most sought after coach this off season? If that is sinking I'm ten toes in.