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

[Dogdeacon]

99&04 oversimplifies when it serves, 'The point of a contract is money' (?then why have words in there?) and then makes things more complex where needed 'morally speaking, long-term, sinks the program, etc...'

Also; "The entire reason for including that clause in the contract was to provide insurance against a scandal that depleted revenue.."
It actually nullifies the contract (part of Ollie's side's goal) to argue the 'entire reason' (intent) of putting something into a contract was to provide insurance, avoid scandal or avoid loss $. A contract is for both parties to agree EXACTLY WHAT IS EXPECTED AND WHAT TO DO IF THOSE TERMS OR EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT MET. When the contract was signed both parties intended to comply and set out parameters to define exactly what that job performance expectations are. Arguing UConn intended only to use that clause to fire Ollie assumes they entered in bad faith (they didn't, at the time they obviously wanted to keep him). That very biased interpretation reverses the intent at time of signing into a negative that serves Ollie's case only.

Use the same logic and tell us why would Ollie put that clause in there? I think that'd be a convoluted Ollie wanted it so that when he got fired (as if he intended to try to get fired) he'd still get his money unless he broke the law.

Clinging to won-lost records or attendance or $ as alleged reasons for the firing is inherently false because we all know those things happened because of failure to diligently & faithfully perform the duties of a head coach. Had Ollie worked hard, complied with all rules and still failed the firing may not have happened, the buyout would be an entirely different conversation & outcome. Plus incidentally in that instance he would have agreed to arbitration and won easily. That is not the case.

 

[Pudge]

I simply don’t accept the pejorative “dogging” it ... nor do I think he got lucky in 2014.

Why can’t we accept that he had a good part of the job in his wheelhouse ... the one where he could groom 8 guys into a Championship mode through a grueling stretch. But Kevin Ollie simply had scant preparation for core components that were needed to sustain a big time Program. The contrast to Danny Hurley is stark; yet, Hurley may never perform like KO through a March. Recruiting. High school & AAU relationships. Leading a staff. Relations with fan base & media & even your former mentor. The arc of Ollie is bizarro. But he proved lacking. And the last 2 years, his strategic choices were a mess.

Plus his personal divorce and struggle.

Second. He proved to work. That’s his Brand. Sometimes when you are failing ... you simply tread water fast. He lost his way. And being separated ... from Calhoun& other key parts of what we are about hurt. Him. And Me. He was sinking. And we all could see that.

 

[CL82]

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

You're right UConn should have renegotiated his deal then and there and give him a contract making him one of the more highly paid college coaches in America!

Oh wait, they did, didn't they?

 

[CL82]

The point of a contract is money.

No the real point of contract is to lay out the rights and duties of the respective parties and the consequences for breaching them. This contract does that. Some, now, inexplicably want to ignore the express agreement of the parties. Well not the entire agreement, only the portions that benefit the school. Sorry Dog, that's not a morally superior opinion, that is a morally arbitrary opinion.

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.

No, the entire reason for including that in the contract was to clearly communicate that violating NCAA rules and regulations were grounds for terminating the contract.

They fired him because he sucked as a coach.

No, they fired him because he violated NCAA rules and regulations which were grounds for a "just cause" dismissal under the contract. There is documentation of this fact and none to the contrary.

I understand that it's convenient to blame Ollie for signing a dumb contract and forcing the school into playing this game.

Yeah, this is red herring. I don't think anyone is doing that. Most are saying that he should have to abide by what he agreed to. You have yet to provide any basis, a lot of words notwithstanding, to say why he should be able to ignore the express written agreement of the parties.

 

[Pudge]

He sucked as our coach.

Any lawyerly and President words to the contrary. He did not meet anyone's expectations for winning ballgames at our Mens Basketball Program. He lost games. This notion ... that many are chewing on ... is the false narrative used to pay him far less than $10m. And, while not a lawyer, I just don't think arbitration and then court is where We or Kevin Ollie wants to be.

 

[CL82]

He sucked as our coach.

Any lawyerly and President words to the contrary. He did not meet anyone's expectations for winning ballgames at our Mens Basketball Program. He lost games. This notion ... that many are chewing on ... is the false narrative used to pay him far less than $10m. And, while not a lawyer, I just don't think arbitration and then court is where We or Kevin Ollie wants to be.

And what exactly is the false narrative?

 

[8893]

 

[HuskyHawk]

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

The point of a contract is to set forth the obligations and expectations of two parties to an agreement. To codify that arrangement in clear language, in the event of a later dispute between the parties. A contract that does not have consideration on both sides is unenforceable.

So, the point of Ollie's contract was not "money". The payment of money is a part of it, as are the performance of certain duties and compliance with various rules and expectations. None of those elements stand alone. It's one arrangement. The obligation on Ollie not to violate any NCAA rules is no less important to the contract than the obligation on UConn to pay him. There is no valid rule of contract interpretation that says "well we really didn't mean this part".

Certainly, UConn and Ollie could have agreed that they would not need to pay him if he violated rules that caused "a scandal that depleted revenue and hindered their ability to rebuild the program". That is not what they agreed. Honestly, I don't think even Kevin Ollie believes that that what was expected of him was "just avoid a major scandal and your're good". Now, Kevin may have believed that if he was doing a great job, they might overlook violations short of those causing a major scandal. He might even be right. It doesn't really matter.

 

[huskyinfl]

I don't agree or understand something so let me make stuff up to continue my false narrative rather than address reality.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

A contract that does not have consideration on both sides is unenforceable.

And now they're fighting over an awful lot of peppercorns.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

And now they're fighting over an awful lot of peppercorns.

An awful lot of peppercorns can be rather numbing.

 

[Chief00]

One thing I am pretty sure of, KO will never actually take this the distance to trial.

 

[champs99and04]

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.

They signed Hurley on the strength of the program. Classic example of a kid who inherits a lot of money from his dad, blows it on a couple stupid investments, and then gets hailed as hero when he still has enough to buy the next shiny object. All of it is gross.

 

[8893]

One thing I am pretty sure of, KO will never actually take this the distance to trial.

Seeing as more than 95% of cases settle before trial, I’d say your odds are pretty good there Chief.

 

[8893]

Classic example of a kid who inherits a lot of money from his dad, blows it on a couple stupid investments, and then gets hailed as hero when he still has enough to buy the next shiny object. All of it is gross.

What?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

What?

I was just about to write the exact same post.

 

[champs99and04]

No the real point of contract is to lay out the rights and duties of the respective parties and the consequences for breaching them. This contract does that. Some, now, inexplicably want to ignore the express agreement of the parties. Well not the entire agreement, only the portions that benefit the school. Sorry Dog, that's not a morally superior opinion, that is a morally arbitrary opinion.

No, the entire reason for including that in the contract was to clearly communicate that violating NCAA rules and regulations were grounds for terminating the contract.

No, they fired him because he violated NCAA rules and regulations which were grounds for a "just cause" dismissal under the contract. There is documentation of this fact and none to the contrary.


Yeah, this is red herring. I don't think anyone is doing that. Most are saying that he should have to abide by what he agreed to. You have yet to provide any basis, a lot of words notwithstanding, to say why he should be able to ignore the express written agreement of the parties.

I know what a contract is. He unambiguously violated the terms. To the extent that those terms undermine the interests of the fans is what we're discussing. I'm not trying to sell Ollie's case as the gateway to heaven. I'm trying to protect college sports fans from exposure to BS by demonstrating how this particular practice reinforces everything we hate about the NCAA and corporate greed. Look closely at how the blame has been deflected. When I agreed to pay money in exchange for tickets, I thought I was investing in a compliant program. If they're getting their money back, why not me? Since when do we allow businesses to promote one thing, sell you something else, and then keep the money? That is what's happening here, and it works because they've given us what we want (a new coach) and a scapegoat (the old one).

(Insert response here about how it's not in the terms of the consumer contract to reimburse fans after an NCAA violation and I should have known better)

Well yeah. This is how things change - by shining a microscope on corporate dishonesty until the "contracts" begin to align with something more practical. Until then, the schools and the NCAA will continue to take our money, flash disingenuous moral arguments at you about amateurism, and then watch us take the bait and pretend amongst ourselves that this is about something other than money.

I'm not granting Ollie the right to do anything but his job, which happens to stand in direct contradiction to the things they cited in the termination letter. So while I can appreciate the significance of breaching a contract, I'm less inclined to care when the terms he violated are scribbled in crayon and vetted by an entity that exists only in our imagination.

If we want to ignore the fundamental fallacies of this case, we unwittingly grant the NCAA permission to do the same next time they decide we don't have enough top 50 road wins to make the tournament, or the next time they want to reshuffle their APR formula. All things are liable to be written somewhere, at some time. When something is written that insults our collective intelligence, we should fight not as mobsters but as consumers and citizens. Treating people the right way matters and we should recognize that before anyone.

 

[huskymedic]

chapwilvaug72 Reincarnated?

 

[Huskybass]

What?

Loony Tunes.

 

[Chief00]

Seeing as more than 95% of cases settle before trial, I’d say your odds are pretty good there Chief.

#Confirmed

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I know what a contract is. He unambiguously violated the terms. To the extent that those terms undermine the interests of the fans is what we're discussing. I'm not trying to sell Ollie's case as the gateway to heaven. I'm trying to protect college sports fans from exposure to BS by demonstrating how this particular practice reinforces everything we hate about the NCAA and corporate greed. Look closely at how the blame has been deflected. When I agreed to pay money in exchange for tickets, I thought I was investing in a compliant program. If they're getting their money back, why not me? Since when do we allow businesses to promote one thing, sell you something else, and then keep the money? That is what's happening here, and it works because they've given us what we want (a new coach) and a scapegoat (the old one).

(Insert response here about how it's not in the terms of the consumer contract to reimburse fans after an NCAA violation and I should have known better)

Well yeah. This is how things change - by shining a microscope on corporate dishonesty until the "contracts" begin to align with something more practical. Until then, the schools and the NCAA will continue to take our money, flash disingenuous moral arguments at you about amateurism, and then watch us take the bait and pretend amongst ourselves that this is about something other than money.

I'm not granting Ollie the right to do anything but his job, which happens to stand in direct contradiction to the things they cited in the termination letter. So while I can appreciate the significance of breaching a contract, I'm less inclined to care when the terms he violated are scribbled in crayon and vetted by an entity that exists only in our imagination.

If we want to ignore the fundamental fallacies of this case, we unwittingly grant the NCAA permission to do the same next time they decide we don't have enough top 50 road wins to make the tournament, or the next time they want to reshuffle their APR formula. All things are liable to be written somewhere, at some time. When something is written that insults our collective intelligence, we should fight not as mobsters but as consumers and citizens. Treating people the right way matters and we should recognize that before anyone.

Quoting from elsewhere:

"Some share of defusing arguments by merely saying, 'You might be right'."

 

[David 76]

[QUOTE="champs99and04, post: 2778707,p

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.

Really? You are OK with coaches pulling scholarships and NBA prospects blowing out their knees but you draw the line when an administration utilizes the letter of a contract rather than good will to decide the pay out on a coach's contract?
Not me. This is a business dispute with two sides that each have some merit. It is not the moral crusade that either side on the boneyard wants to make it out to be.

 

[David 76]

OK
Let's stay with the ticket buying analogy. You are correct that you won't get a refund. But the real analogy is that you agreed to buy tickets for the next three years and you now want to get out of the obligation. Not a refund. Just stop the future payments. The ticket sellers broke the contract and while that bothers you, you more want out because the team sucks.

 

[Mr. French]

It’s really a simple issue: is the cow barren or not?

 

[pj]

It’s really a simple issue: is the cow barren or not?

Sometimes the farmer has to spend a year squeezing the udders before he's convinced.

 

[HuskyHawk]

So while I can appreciate the significance of breaching a contract, I'm less inclined to care when the terms he violated are scribbled in crayon and vetted by an entity that exists only in our imagination.

The only thing imaginary here, is the belief that this contract is written in crayon, or is any different than the contract signed by every UConn coach, and probably every D1 basketball coach everywhere or that it has anything whatsoever to do with the NCAA, amateurism, and the overall farce that college sports has become. There is no connection there.

If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, there is zero chance that in a world of true amateur college athletics, Kevin Ollie would be paid more than a couple hundred thousand dollars a year or receive a guaranteed contract of any kind. These coaches are among the biggest beneficiaries of this system, certainly more so than the players are. Ollie is not a victim, he's a major beneficiary of the system you seem to despise.

 

[Dogdeacon]

At this point we are debating with an irrational spin doctor & a roulette wheel selection of every bad analogy one could conjure.

 

[CL82]

I know what a contract is. He unambiguously violated the terms.

Phew. It took a whole lot of word salad to get there, but I guess we're done then.

 

[CL82]

At this point we are debating with an irrational spin doctor & a roulette wheel selection of every bad analogy one could conjure.

That's putting the cart before the dead beaten horse.