UConn AD David Benedict (not surprisingly) recommends continuing with the termination...

[Chief00]

Benedict and Herbst has no choice but to play it this way until they have no other option but to pay Ollie. They will play this out until the last minute. Should they step forward and pay Ollie now they might as well both fire themselves as they will both look like idiots. Should Ollie come out victorious in this matter one or both MAY be fired.

My friend, I don’t think KO holds the hand of good cards. He needs to be careful if he pushes too much and if his attorney grandstands further with letters disclosed to ESPN - he may end up with less than $3 million. Sometimes the best thing you can tell a friend - is that they are in denial of reality. The university, as stated publicly at the time, implemented new policies after the MBB NCAA issues - so the Calhoun comparison is not valid.
I recognize his payments to his ex still exceeds $2 million, so it’s natural he views $3 million as putting less than a million in his pocket after taxes unless he modifies via court.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

There's nothing dramatic or even interesting about the Ollie saga.

He didn't do the job, got canned and we hired someone better.

The rest is accounting.

Given UConn's precarious financial situation moving forward, I'd say an accounting problem is actually pretty interesting.

 

[Edward Sargent]

There's nothing dramatic or even interesting about the Ollie saga.

He didn't do the job, got canned and we hired someone better.

The rest is accounting.

Thanks

 

[HooperScooper]

I think it is an effective process. The AD and Herbst assume ownership of the outcome as this moves up the chain. It is an unwritten accountability. If this goes to the courts and goes sideways on the university, the BOT pulls out their big axe and lobs off her head. She pays the penalty for bad decisions and bad press so that others above her do not. That is why Herbst needs to have conviction before denying the appeal. Because until then it is AD Dave with his head on the block.

Yeah but wasn't she involved in the original decision to terminate Ollie with cause? Of course she was. Why would she have agreed to fire him with cause in the first place if she and a team of lawyers didn't think they had a good case against Ollie?

 

[UConnNick]

If that is the language of the actual contract that Ollie signed, then you gotta wonder what his lawyer was looking at pre-signing. "Just cause" shall include "Any" violation of an NCAA rule. Wow. Talk about leaving your client wide open. I mean, at least throw in, ". . . that leads to a suspension . . ." or just something to mitigate the absoluteness of those words. "Any rule"? Wow.

Ollie may have a better case against his own attorneys for malpractice than he has against the university.

His position is pretty weak. If you enforce the terms of that contract as written, he loses. Where he might score some limited points is with an arbitrator. The zero tolerance aspect reminds me of what Indiana did to Bobby Knight. It was designed by the school to cause failure, and he did violate it. Ollie is in sort of the same type situation. The best argument his legal team can make before an arbitrator is it's nearly impossible to always be sure you're in 100 percent compliance with every rule in the NCAA's thousands of pages rulebook. I imagine plenty of coaches would say the same thing. So is it fair to void an entire contract if some student manager violates an NCAA rule, and nobody knew anything about it? The way the contract is written it doesn't matter whether that's fair or not. It's a violation. You're fired with no buyout due.

An arbitrator might be willing to mediate an agreed settlement amount somewhere in between due to the rather onerous nature of the terms, but going strictly by the letter of the law, if somebody spit on the sidewalk and the NCAA says that's a rule violation, Ollie's cooked. Zero tolerance, and he knew it when he signed it.

 

[gtcam]

Speculation speculation
Nobody here knows anything and if they say they do they're either lying or really stupid to be disclosing
I agree with the poster who said to let this go and talk about the present team, it's new coach/staff and recruits
What happens with KO happens - somebody is going to be happy, it looks like KO will be happy but may lose face or UConn may be happy and to some degree crap on a former player, alum and Husky. That's my opinion
I wish it didn't drag out like this but I can see reasons on both sides for this situation

 

[uconnbill]

If UConn offered $3 million to go away and he turned it down, then he made a mistake. He didn't do what was needed at UConn in terms of winning and other things in terms of recruiting which is the backbone of college basketball.
I wish him well, but he shouldn't have taken the deal

 

[gtcam]

It sounds like they have NCAA infractions to pin on Ollie and justify the firing.

But when Ollie's lawyers enacted a FOI request for department emails, my guess is that they are going to argue that the infractions that they are using to justify firing Ollie for were identical to infractions that were committed by Calhoun and Auriemma in the past--and they were not fired. So if UConn didn't fire Calhoun/Auriemma for those infractions, UConn cannot justify firing Ollie for the identical infractions. While this may be a sound legal strategy, it will certainly vilify Ollie. If this is the route that Ollie's legal team takes, he sure is going to make a lot of huge enemies by dragging Calhoun and Auriemma through the mud publicly to save himself.

From what I have heard, UConn actually had discussions with Ollie's representatives for a $3MM buyout to go quietly--but he rejected the offer and wanted his full $10MM in his contract. That is what forced UConn to go down the 'firing for cause' route. Not sure if true, but that is what I've heard as rumors.

If they are firing KO for infractions that JC and GA also practiced - UConn had better be ready to have more than KO to worry about.
It will be interesting to know the infractions, if any. If they are exclusive to KO and he knew about them - shame on him and he gets nothing
I doubt KO is adamant about the full $10MM but I doubt UConn even offered $3MM

 

[huskymedic]

New Haven Register/Hearst version;

Ollie’s case now in the hands of UConn President Susan Herbst

 

[UConnNick]

If they are firing KO for infractions that JC and GA also practiced - UConn had better be ready to have more than KO to worry about.
It will be interesting to know the infractions, if any. If they are exclusive to KO and he knew about them - shame on him and he gets nothing
I doubt KO is adamant about the full $10MM but I doubt UConn even offered $3MM

I think dragging stuff in about Calhoun/Auriemma is nothing but pure window dressing and designed as a scare negotiation tactic by Ollie's attorneys. That's all essentially a moot point, unless they signed identical contracts with identical terms governing a for cause firing. Ollie's attorneys are in a weak position so they're gonna dredge up and sling as much mud as they possibly can, hoping it helps them as a negotiation tactic.

 

[auggie22]

Yeah but wasn't she involved in the original decision to terminate Ollie with cause? Of course she was. Why would she have agreed to fire him with cause in the first place if she and a team of lawyers didn't think they had a good case against Ollie?

Yep, she did. They fired him for cause, and then KO’s attorney filed their response. At this point they have seen Ollie’s hand. They should settle now if they are not confident in their argument.

If they press forward and get crushed in court, and the bad publicity continues, allowing dirty laundry to spill, then I think it is now on Herbst.

 

[Edward Sargent]

My friend, I don’t think KO holds the hand of good cards. He needs to be careful if he pushes too much and if his attorney grandstands with letters disclose to ESPN further - he may end up with less than $3 million. Sometimes the best thing you can tell a friend - is that they are in denial of reality. The university as stated publicly at the time implemented new policies after the MBB NCAA issues - so the Calhoun comparison is not valid.
I recognize his payments to his ex still exceed $2 million so it’s natural he views $3 million as putting less than a million in his pocket after taxes unless he modifies via court.

Chief would you certify a remarriage for $2 mill?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

This will end up being negotiated down or go to arbitration and maybe ultimately court.

Has this really ever been in doubt?

 

[SouthBayHusky]

Not a lawyer but if this gets to court, I'm saying you fired me because of the record of the team not whatever infraction there was. Simple question, if UConn went undefeated and won the NCAA championship would you still have fired me. Another question, how long did you know about the infraction before you fired me.

It’s really not relevant legally. Either the facts (eg ncaa infractions; etc) constitute a breach or not. There is also no requirement, for any party, when a term is breached to take action for such breach under the contract. But, if there is a breach, either party may elect to use that to their advantage. Ollie side has an uphill battle here. Would behoove all sides to settle, especially KO.

 

[Mokum]

I have no idea what KO's infractions are but like everyone here I am very curious to find out. That being said, I have to chuckle about this money issue. Wealthy people arguing about millions. If I could walk away from something with a million bucks in my pocket I would be a happy man. But of course it is all relative. For someone with my simple lifestyle a million bucks would mean I never have to worry about money again. But I don't have an ex wife I owe millions. Money definitely does not equate to happiness.

 

[dennismenace]

The parties will eventually agree to a settlement. I'm going to guess half of 10 Laaarge. Why, because KO didn't do half the job he was paid to and DB guaranteed KO twice what he should have.

And it will probably wind up in arbitration. If they (arbiters) tend to favor unions as in the case of municipal contract disputes he will get a pretty decent settlement even if he doesn't deserve it (in terms of violating the terms of the contract). This is almost guaranteed to wind up in arbitration so everything else is a dance to come to that end.

 

[Chief00]

Chief would you certify a remarriage for $2 mill?

Probably best I don’t directly answer that! LOL
But, interesting question.

 

[Marty Jackson]

It sounds like they have NCAA infractions to pin on Ollie and justify the firing.

But when Ollie's lawyers enacted a FOI request for department emails, my guess is that they are going to argue that the infractions that they are using to justify firing Ollie for were identical to infractions that were committed by Calhoun and Auriemma in the past--and they were not fired. So if UConn didn't fire Calhoun/Auriemma for those infractions, UConn cannot justify firing Ollie for the identical infractions. While this may be a sound legal strategy, it will certainly vilify Ollie. If this is the route that Ollie's legal team takes, he sure is going to make a lot of huge enemies by dragging Calhoun and Auriemma through the mud publicly to save himself.

From what I have heard, UConn actually had discussions with Ollie's representatives for a $3MM buyout to go quietly--but he rejected the offer and wanted his full $10MM in his contract. That is what forced UConn to go down the 'firing for cause' route. Not sure if true, but that is what I've heard as rumors.

I think you have to look at their contracts. If they all say same thing I agree.
Think it's unlikely that is case as each contract is negotiated individually.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I think you have to look at their contracts. If they all say same thing I agree.
Think it's unlikely that is case as each contract is negotiated individually.

As pointed out above, it’s irrelevant. Enforcement of such terms is entirely discretionary. Failure to enforce them doesn’t mean you lose the right to enforce them even within the same contract, let alone in an entirely different one. There is no waiver of right by non enforcement.

About the only thing Ollie could use that for would be to say “they they didn’t enforce those types of clauses against the white guys, but they did against me because I’m black”. He’d need evidence of that motivation, and the fact that he sucked at his job really undercuts that case. UConn can merely say, nah, those guys were great and you sucked.

 

[Stinger92860]

I have no idea what KO's infractions are but like everyone here I am very curious to find out. That being said, I have to chuckle about this money issue. Wealthy people arguing about millions. If I could walk away from something with a million bucks in my pocket I would be a happy man. But of course it is all relative. For someone with my simple lifestyle a million bucks would mean I never have to worry about money again. But I don't have an ex wife I owe millions. Money definitely does not equate to happiness.

Also keep mind that KO still has future earning potential. He will likely land in the NBA and while his salary will not likely be 3M+, he will still make a nice living for some time. That 1m is something less after taxes. Let’s say it’s 550K. If you don’t invest it and you live 30 years, that’s approximately 18k per year. Not sure, but that may be poverty level.

 

[Paesano]

This is really simple but the Ollie supporters are in denial.

1. Don't suck at your job.
2. If you suck, don't break any of the rules in any document you signed as a condition of employment.
3. If you suck and you are in violation of your terms of employment and you get offered 3 million to leave, take the money and walk the eph away!!!

Risking 3 to get another 7 is foolish. Doing that while also dragging hall of fame icons through the mud will get you hated for life. Dude might be a great mentor for NBA players but he is looking more and more like a fool that has really bad judgment.

 

[HuskyBandDad]

Have it from a dependable source that the buyout will be $7.4mm. My source also did a great job drying my car.

Did you get the free wax too?

 

[jibsey]

Unless Benedict has something real on KO he has to be fired but I suspect he does. Not only that but UCONN has good lawyers that have parsed this. The negative publicity to the school for trying to skate far surpasses $10 million in payment. There has to be something there.

 

[Madmannsucks]

It appears that mere allegations would not warrant just cause. Until the NCAA rules, it does not appear the contract has been breached. We have not seen an actual violation. Even the workouts would not at this point seem to be the cause as the players were allowed to play. There was a case in Connecticut involving Morande Ford which addressed this specific point. It was sometime in the 80's or early 90's.

 

[freescooter]

My friend, I don’t think KO holds the hand of good cards. He needs to be careful if he pushes too much and if his attorney grandstands further with letters disclosed to ESPN - he may end up with less than $3 million. Sometimes the best thing you can tell a friend - is that they are in denial of reality. The university, as stated publicly at the time, implemented new policies after the MBB NCAA issues - so the Calhoun comparison is not valid.
I recognize his payments to his ex still exceeds $2 million, so it’s natural he views $3 million as putting less than a million in his pocket after taxes unless he modifies via court.

His divorce settlement is entirely irrelevant to this situation. And Chief is right on the money so to speak. The university implemented no procedures as did the NCAA for that matter, which were reflected in Ollie’s contract. He made 2 errors.
1. He didn’t pay attention to that portion of the contract.
2. He didn’t coach well enough to get his employer to not pay attention to it.
He just needs to go away.

 

[UConnNick]

Unless Benedict has something real on KO he has to be fired but I suspect he does. Not only that but UCONN has good lawyers that have parsed this. The negative publicity to the school for trying to skate far surpasses $10 million in payment. There has to be something there.

There does have to be something, but the real question is what that something is. The administration was apparently successful in convincing Hurley that the something isn't serious enough to result in NCAA sanctions. However, per Ollie's contract terms, it doesn't have to be to result in a valid firing for cause. Any violation, no matter how trivial, is enough.

 

[auror]

Compare and contrast this situation with the Pitt/Stallings situation to infer the relative strengths of legal positions.

Pitt had nothing, tried anyways, and essentially immediately settled.

 

[huskymedic]

There does have to be something, but the real question is what that something is. The administration was apparently successful in convincing Hurley that the something isn't serious enough to result in NCAA sanctions...

Not sure that is entirely true... Hurley was concerned/smart enough to have language negotiated into his contract that gives Hurley the option of adding a year to his contract if UConn is slapped with NCAA sanctions based on violations that happened before Hurley got to UConn and those sanctions result in a loss of scholarships or limit UConn’s recruiting.

 

[CL82]

It appears that mere allegations would not warrant just cause. Until the NCAA rules, it does not appear the contract has been breached. We have not seen an actual violation. Even the workouts would not at this point seem to be the cause as the players were allowed to play. There was a case in Connecticut involving Morande Ford which addressed this specific point. It was sometime in the 80's or early 90's.

This is stunningly wrong, on so many levels. Read Ollie's contract language which I pasted above. Keep in mind that the language in Ollie's contract describing just cause is in addition the language in CBA:

 

[Madmannsucks]

This is stunningly wrong, on so many levels. Read the contract.

OK. In 1994 I was fired for cause. The Dept of Labor ruled in my favor. The verbiage was "mere allegations are not sufficient". I no longer have the letter. A case was cited and the defendant was Morande Ford. So I know there is a legal precedent in this particular instance.