Ollie Ordeal Weighs On Hurley, Edsall
Dan Hurley is six months into his job as UConn men’s basketball coach and his first game on the Huskies’ sideline will be Nov. 8 against Morehead State.
Maybe he will sign a contract by then.
Hurley and
UConn have yet to finalize the six-year deal worth approximately $18 million that was announced in March.
Meanwhile, UConn football coach Randy Edsall continues to work without a contract more than a year and a half after being introduced and having terms of his five-year deal announced.
The situations are the result of a perfect storm of extenuating circumstances hovering in Storrs, one having to do with fallout from Kevin Ollie’s contested firing and an ongoing NCAA investigation, a careful examination of language included for “just cause” termination in contracts and the impact of a well-documented court
case centering on whether the employment of Edsall’s son, assistant coach Corey Edsall, violates state nepotism laws.
Finalization of contracts has become a most complicated task, though Edsall and Hurley are being paid and performing in every area of their job without disruption. Both coaches are working off a memorandum of understanding, or offer letter, signed at the time of their hires — Edsall on Dec. 28, 2016, Hurley on March 22 — and neither, it should be pointed out, is looking to leave UConn. Hurley’s contract, in fact, is expected to soon be fully executed, probably coinciding with imminent movement on the Ollie front.
“I’m continuing to have conversations with Dan’s agent and we expect to have a resolution before the beginning of the season,” UConn athletic director David Benedict said.
Taken apart and pieced back together, it all makes sense. But the situations are, to say the least, atypical, a strange look and feel for every party involved, with well-paid and high-profile coaches not officially agreeing to the particulars of deals that have been tweaked and considered over such long periods of time.
The Edsall holdup has to do, mostly, with Corey’s case. Edsall has no intention of signing a contract until it is guaranteed that his son can keep his job. Corey Edsall being hired as a member of his father’s staff was outlined in the coach’s initial agreement with UConn, but the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board claims the process violated state nepotism laws. The case was argued in court Sept. 5 and a ruling is forthcoming.
The Hurley holdup has to do, mostly, with an NCAA investigation of Ollie and the men’s basketball program. UConn cited numerous alleged NCAA violations in firing Ollie for “just cause” in March and the sides are now battling over the $10 million remaining on Ollie’s contract. UConn could not guarantee that the Ollie/NCAA situation wouldn’t impact the program in the future, with penalties such as probation a possibility, when hiring Hurley.
Should there end up being impact on Hurley’s program by way of certain NCAA penalties, as noted in the offer letter, Hurley has the right to extend the term of his contract by one year. Movement is expected soon on the Ollie front with the NCAA’s delivery of a notice of allegations.
Both situations have also been complicated by preference for certain language used to outline potential for “just cause” firings in the future. When a “just cause” firing takes place and is contested, in its wake lies tension between an institution, new coaches and the union to which Edsall and Hurley belong – the UConn Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.
None of the principal figures involved are interested in explaining or elaborating. No comments over the past week came back from Benedict (beyond his one statement), AAUP executive director Michael Bailey and Jordan Bazant, the New York-based agent who represents both Edsall and Hurley.
This much is clear: Coaches want to be increasingly careful about what contracts define as “just cause” firing and institutions are implementing stricter language in this age of such lucrative contracts and buyouts. Both sides — institutions, coaches — tread carefully in the approach to actually signing long, painstakingly detailed contracts. Even beyond resolution to the Corey Edsall and Ollie matters, there has been much to consider.
An athletic director must have the power to fire someone who has committed NCAA violations. But a coach or union would argue that a coach knowing every single bylaw in a long and complicated NCAA rulebook is impossible, and a coach of any program is likely to commit several minor violations by nature of the operation, thereby making themselves vulnerable if an institution, for whatever reason, is seeking an exit. A common thought in the business is that if one has no secondary violations, he has many — meaning, there are always a few things here and there that should be self-reported.
Firing someone for an honest mistake wouldn’t be in the spirit of UConn’s insistence for strict language in contracts. Coaches, however, are wary of what could be used against them.
It’s just a very delicate situation as the Ollie situation plays out simultaneously, with his termination and the legal fight fresh in everyone’s mind.
Section 10.1(d) in Ollie’s contract reads, “The phrase ‘just cause’ shall include ... 1) a violation by the Coach of any law, rule, regulation, policy, bylaw, or official interpretation of the University, the Conference or the NCAA; and 2) a violation by a member of the Basketball coaching staff, or any other person under the Coach’s supervision and direction, including student-athletes in the Basketball program, that the
Coach knew as a violation, and takes no steps to address, correct and report the violation within a reasonable period of time which under no circumstances shall be longer than 10 business days.”
Ollie has been accused of violations that Benedict and UConn used to build a case for a “just cause” firing, and if the notice of allegations comes back with the NCAA having determined that he committed a major violation (such as lack of control of the program or unethical conduct), the case UConn will take to the $10 million arbitration table would be bolstered.
Every contract across the country contains “just cause” language, written a number of ways. UConn’s language is considered strict and it was designed to be that way for Ollie, who took over a program with recent compliance issues at an institution with zero tolerance for more. The wording will be different in Hurley’s contract, though not necessarily less strict.
Further complicating the issue is the AAUP’s stance. It is the union’s job to protect the coaches and the union’s collective bargaining agreement has much tighter guidelines for an employee to be fired and calls for advanced due process. The AAUP’s contention is that a CBA supersedes a supplemental contract, which does clearly state that any — yes, any — NCAA violation (as stated, even, by UConn and not the NCAA itself ) is a fireable offense.
Bailey has traditionally signed all coaching contracts but it is unclear if he will sign for Edsall and Hurley. When drafts start coming across his desk, he could even advise the coaches not to sign, depending on the “just cause” language. His motivation is to protect coaches in a way of being sure that a university with more latitude for termination doesn’t implement standards for “just cause” firing that are drastically below the protections of the CBA.
There’s a communication breakdown now, with Bailey almost completely uninvolved, which is rare. Benedict and Bazant are said to have a good working relationship and we wouldn’t expect much haggling once the major disruptions — the Edsall court case, the Ollie situation — are resolved.
Still, here we are, six months into one man’s tenure, more than a year and a half into another – without contracts. The longer we go the more irresponsible the situations. There is much that, say, a 15-page contract will contain that a five-page offer letter does not, responsibilities for a coach and his supervisors that would be wise to have in writing as soon as possible.
There are few absolutes, just different pressures and needs and interpretations. It is why a 60-day window is initially expected for completion of a contract. But a year and a half? Six months? It just feels strange but, then again, these are very strange times.