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

[Rico444]

Two things.

1) these are not "mere allegations". Based on what we know, we can pretty easily surmise that these are minor violations. Which also means, UConn self reported whatever the violations are. The one thing UConn wants to avoid is any hint of a "loss of institutional control" and you know how you get that ? By minor violations coming to light and the universtiy / athletic department trying to hide them. So they self report to the NCAA who is then obligated to investigate.

2) did you have a specific contract with your employer ? Doubtful to say the least. Ollie's contract was written to be "zero tolerance"

These are not allegations, they are acknowledged violations of NCAA rules AND they are specifically forbidden / grounds for "just cause" dismissal in his specific contract.

I'm sure we committed at least "minor violations" but we do not know that Kevin Ollie committed those violations. If an assistant committed the violations and Ollie reported them within 10 days, then he is safe according to the contract. I am guessing that's not what happened since they decided to fire him with cause, but it's all just speculation right now.

 

[crewbear742]

Did you really just compare gaming the system with fake classes to using legal contract language to remove an ineffective coach while somehow implying both are wrong in trying to put a winning product on the floor?

I'll be - you did.

I did - because it's a matter of degree and not kind. This board manifestly doesn't give a rip what Kevin Ollie did or didn't do. In fact it doesn't care if he did anything at all. It simply wants him gone and it wants him gone preferably without any payout. Why therefore should I believe that this board would care about serious ethical violations if Kevin Ollie had produced a winning basketball program? Ethical behavior is by definition consistent. It doesn't change with self-interest.

This isn't just another firing of a coach. The University is attacking a man's reputation simply to void a contract clause and avoid a buy-out. You even admit that is what UConn is doing. Would UConn be doing this if Kevin Ollie had won? No, it wouldn't. People will notice this. It isn't ethical. It isn't right. But it sure is lawyerly.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Did you really just compare gaming the system with fake classes to using legal contract language to remove an ineffective coach while somehow implying both are wrong in trying to put a winning product on the floor?

I'll be - you did.

Any coach from a top 20 program in the land realizes they are going to be fired for two losing seasons and a downward trajectory - if they screwed up enough for contract language to be enough not to pay them, that's on them and they were over their head to begin with and any next coach won't think they would be that stupid.

This. Jesus.

Of course we weren't going to fire him if he was winning, despite whatever violations he may have committed. That is immaterial.

What matters is that, in the university's estimation, he violated the terms of the contract, which means that when they wanted him gone, they think they don't have to pay him either.

 

[Madmannsucks]

Until the NCAA makes a determination, they are only allegations.

 

[CL82]

I did - because it's a matter of degree and not kind. This board manifestly doesn't give a rip what Kevin Ollie did or didn't do. In fact it doesn't care if he did anything at all. It simply wants him gone and it wants him gone preferably without any payout. Why therefore should I believe that this board would care about serious ethical violations if Kevin Ollie had produced a winning basketball program? Ethical behavior is by definition consistent. It doesn't change with self-interest.

This isn't just another firing of a coach. The University is attacking a man's reputation simply to void a contract clause and avoid a buy-out. You even admit that is what UConn is doing. Would UConn be doing this if Kevin Ollie had won? No, it wouldn't. People will notice this. It isn't ethical. It isn't right. But it sure is lawyerly.

So following the rules laid out in a written agreement between two parties both of whom are represented by counsel isn't ethical? I'm having a little trouble with your logic.

So would ignoring the rules laid out in a written agreement between two parties both of whom are represented by counsel be ethical? That seems kind of counter intuitive.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

The University is attacking a man's reputation simply to void a contract clause and avoid a buy-out.

The University is seeking to enforce a contract clause, not void one. You and several others posters keep making this error.

There's nothing nefarious or unexpected about both parties employing legal counsel in the drafting of the contract, interpreting performance under its terms, or seeking counsel, representation and/or advocacy in actions relating to performance.

You wouldn't want it any other way if you were the party to a contract, would you?

 

[UCDaveD]

Would UConn be doing this if Kevin Ollie had won? No, it wouldn't. People will notice this. It isn't ethical. It isn't right. But it sure is lawyerly.

You mean to tell me that people who produce at their jobs get more leeway than those who don't?!? I'm shocked!

If you're going to suck at your job, you better darn well make sure that you're following the rules to a T.

 

[auggie22]

Crewbear is not dealing well with the revised and generally accepted definition of “the Carolina Way”.

Trying to drag other AD’s to the lowly level Of UNC does not suddenly make your team virtuous.

 

[Paesano]

I looked up Obtuse and saw a picture of Crewbear. Serious though, this guy is just yet another person with some connection to Ollie. He will never get it because he doesn't want to. To add to what others have already said, he is also wrong about the university attacking his reputation. He got fired for cause. No one knows what cause it yet. No one ever needed to know what cause is. Up until now, this event received no more than a "too bad" from the general population. No one felt any less about the guy than they did in March. The general population viewed his coaching the same way they always did, good or bad. The general population viewed him personally the same way as they did in March because there is nothing public to change that opinion. But by playing this game, HE is shooting HIMSELF in the foot. It is like Pharaoh bringing the last plague onto his own people. Shut up, walk away and it ends here. By many accounts, it could have ended with his rep in tact and 3 mill in his pocket. Foolish.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I did - because it's a matter of degree and not kind. This board manifestly doesn't give a rip what Kevin Ollie did or didn't do. In fact it doesn't care if he did anything at all. It simply wants him gone and it wants him gone preferably without any payout. Why therefore should I believe that this board would care about serious ethical violations if Kevin Ollie had produced a winning basketball program? Ethical behavior is by definition consistent. It doesn't change with self-interest.

This isn't just another firing of a coach. The University is attacking a man's reputation simply to void a contract clause and avoid a buy-out. You even admit that is what UConn is doing. Would UConn be doing this if Kevin Ollie had won? No, it wouldn't. People will notice this. It isn't ethical. It isn't right. But it sure is lawyerly.

Is it ethical to demand that you be paid three years worth of wages for a job that you won't actually have to do? Is that "ethical"? You may say...but the contract says, and yes it does. It also says he can be fired for cause and not be paid, if any of (a), (b), (c) etc. occur.

So ethics doesn't come into it here. The fair position is that Ollie isn't the coach, isn't doing the work and so shouldn't be paid a nickel. That's what fairness demands. He's using the contract to get more money he he may be contractually entitled to, but isn't in any way morally entitled to. He has every right to do that. The University is using the contract terms to avoid paying the money. They have every right to do that.

Suggesting that somehow Ollie has the moral high ground and the University is doing something evil or wrong is ridiculous and childish.

 

[Adios]

I think former football head coach Bob Diaco ended up being some video analyst for Oklahoma. Now we get to watch Ollie's (or his lawyers') incompetence boil over. Could probably have landed an NBA assistant gig or a spot in the G-League, at least.

 

[intlzncster]

I did - because it's a matter of degree and not kind. This board manifestly doesn't give a rip what Kevin Ollie did or didn't do. In fact it doesn't care if he did anything at all. It simply wants him gone and it wants him gone preferably without any payout. Why therefore should I believe that this board would care about serious ethical violations if Kevin Ollie had produced a winning basketball program? Ethical behavior is by definition consistent. It doesn't change with self-interest.

Hell yes they would because we'd be getting penalized for it. Minor violations? Who cares if you're winning.

This isn't just another firing of a coach. The University is attacking a man's reputation simply to void a contract clause and avoid a buy-out. You even admit that is what UConn is doing. Would UConn be doing this if Kevin Ollie had won? No, it wouldn't. People will notice this. It isn't ethical. It isn't right. But it sure is lawyerly.

In case you haven't noticed, this sort of tactic is happening all over the country in the major sports. It's the cost of doing business these days. Nothing to do with ethics, just hard line negotiating.

An interesting one was Jim McElwain HC FB down at Florida. He had a 13m buyout. They fired him for cause. The 'cause' was that he received death threats, and in ignoring them, didn't report the threats to the university. He settled for 7.5m So he lost 5m dollars for the 'crime' of failing to report death threats to his superiors. An administrative technicality. And nobody thinks much of this. Doesn't hurt them getting new coaches. Media doesn't care. Fans don't care. The only thing that matters is wins.

EOD, you are getting many millions to produce wins. If you don't, get axed. As brutally as need be.

 

[intlzncster]

I think former football head coach Bob Diaco ended up being some video analyst for Oklahoma. Now we get to watch Ollie's (or his lawyers') incompetence boil over. Could probably have landed an NBA assistant gig or a spot in the G-League, at least.

Technically, he landed a DC job at Nebraska first. Only lasted a year.