UofL trustee source of payments?
- Thread starter Jason Puckett
- Start date
Employee must “diligently supervise compliance of assistant coaches ... with the laws, policies, rules, and regulations governing Employer and its employees”
That's a process, not an outcome. And Pitino will claim he did 100% of that. U of L's only defense is that it didn't work. That's an outcome...
Call it what you want, but claiming there isn’t a provision in his contract that required him to supervise his employees is wrong.
Pitino did supervise employees. He didn't deliver acceptable outcomes. I can't help it if you don't understand that difference.
And there's no explicit language in his final contract stipulating consequences for him if his employees failed in delivering acceptable outcomes. That language was in his prior contract--he wasn't responsible--and it was removed.
IMO that doesn't necessarily mean that he is now responsible. It means that U of L no longer consented that he wasn't responsible. Those are two different things...
Delivering “acceptable consequences” was (a giant) part of why he was paid 7M+ a year to coach 35 basketball games.
Not to get “personal” but it seems fairly obvious that you have no issue with someone operating outside of the spirit - unless it is specifically outlined - of an agreement.
Let’s hope that philosophy works just as well for Pitino as it did for...
There's no "spirit" involved here. It's either explicit in the contract or it's not. And if it's not, it's up to a court or arbitrator to decide.
When I look at the contracts that Pitino had previously and the one he ended with, it's clear to me that language exonerating him in this situation was removed. That was intentional, and it was a change sought by U of L. (Why would Pitino have wanted language protecting him removed?) But nothing was substituted, so it's up to a 3rd party to decide what both parties to the contract wanted. It was probably the only way both sides would agree to it.
I don't know what a court or arbitrator will decide. But to say Pitino will lose isn't supported anymore than saying he will prevail. Pitino has nothing to lose by pressing litigation; U of L has plenty to lose taking it to that point...
When I look at the contracts that Pitino had previously and the one he ended with, it's clear to me that language exonerating him in this situation was removed. That was intentional, and it was a change sought by U of L. (Why would Pitino have wanted language protecting him removed?) But nothing was substituted, so it's up to a 3rd party to decide what both parties to the contract wanted. It was probably the only way both sides would agree to it.
I don't know what a court or arbitrator will decide. But to say Pitino will lose isn't supported anymore than saying he will prevail. Pitino has nothing to lose by pressing litigation; U of L has plenty to lose taking it to that point...
Investigating Nike hmmm
DeBose also participated in a text message exchange on July 6, 2017, with an assistant coach at the University of Kentucky, according to the motion. In the exhibits, the initials “KP” are attached to one non-DeBose number. Kentucky has an assistant basketball coach named Kenny Payne.
In the exchange with “KP,” DeBose explains that he provides money to “about 10 [Nike EYBL] coaches who are helping families to the total of about 200K annually.”
He names the coaches using first names and nicknames that couldn’t immediately be identified by Yahoo Sports. DeBose declares the business is “stressful” because he has “to do it cleanly and with a process. I’m good but it’s enough to where Lynn and Nico don’t want to know the intimate details to cover their asses.”
Nike’s global vice president for sports marketing and basketball is Lynn Merritt, who has been a longtime fixture at the company.
“So it’s a risk,” DeBose wrote, “but my everyday job is a d--- risk so I’m used to it now.”
“Watch your back, bro,” KP wrote back.
At this point it is a game of chess with Louisville and Pitino. If Louisville gets another notice of violation that proves to be a legit violation Pitino’s whole case is Louisville not following the 10 day clause. If no NCAA violation comes from this then Pitino will get a big portion of his contract.
I think this ultimately boils down to Kenny Johnson $1,200 or Fair involvement with future recruit. If either are proven to be a NCAA violation then Pitino is out of luck.
Bottom line at that point his program violated NCAA rules while on probation or in the process of being on probation. His contract won’t protect him.
I think this ultimately boils down to Kenny Johnson $1,200 or Fair involvement with future recruit. If either are proven to be a NCAA violation then Pitino is out of luck.
Bottom line at that point his program violated NCAA rules while on probation or in the process of being on probation. His contract won’t protect him.
You're assuming a with-cause firing could be grounded in the actions of his assistants. The language in Pitino's contract isn't explicit on that.
If you're gonna attempt that argument, point to the specific language in his contract. The most important part is #6, specifically 6.1. Here's that link again...
https://media.bizj.us/view/img/8556042/pitino-current-contract.pdf
I’m no lawyer, but reading section 6.1.3 it seems Employer can terminate for just cause if a Level 1 or Level 2 NCAA sanction occurs, materially damaging the University. The contract was effective July 2015, and two years later the NCAA lowered the boom. Pitino could have been fired for cause at any time after that. He wasn’t, and the Bowen thing cost him and Jurich their jobs. I don’t see him winning this case, given what that section says.
Pitino wasn't guilty of a violation. His assistants were. That's why he says over and over again that he didn't know. It frustrates U of L fans who say it doesn't matter. But as far as a contract, there's $40 million riding on that issue.
His prior contract said explicitly that he wasn't responsible for the transgressions of his assistants. This contract has that language removed. But that doesn't mean he IS responsible. It means his contract leaves that unresolved, at least as far as a firing for cause...
If it is proven that dick Pitino either ignored or closed his eyes and ears to any misdeeds of his assistants then he would be complicit in their actions. That is exactly what I believe happened and that this is the basis of UofL’s defense against dick’s law suit against THE University of Louisville. Maybe, just maybe, we haven’t heard from Andre McGee because he’s being “sponsored” by a former well heeled boss. Plus, I would think those former coaches will be called to the stand in the current legal doings. When they are I expect a rather “sudden” settlement agreement between UofL and Pitino and for a helluva lot less than $40 million.
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
Pitino was sanctioned by the NCAA for “failure to monitor” which is a Level 2 violation as part of the Powell sanctions. And under the new NCAA guidelines: “If there is a potential Level I or II violation in a sport program, the head coach is presumed responsible for the violation pursuant to Bylaw 11.1.1.1”. So if the NCAA sanctions UofL for any Level 1 or 2 violations then Pitino would reach multiple Level 1/2 status. At that point his case would then rest on judgements about procedural matters around the termination. That won’t carry a ton of weight in arbitration. My guess is that Pitino’s legal team wants to settle this before the NCAA makes a ruling.
Last edited:
Except that his contract says that HE cannot violate NCAA rules, with whom the NCAA says responsibility lies has no bearing on his contract. The terms stated in his contract take precedence...
But there is no evidence that IS what happened, at least nothing that the FBI surfaced. In fact, there's significant evidence that people conspired to keep that info from him...
He was personally sanctioned by the NCAA for failure to monitor. Sanctions are the result of violations. The NCAA says that failure to monitor is a violation of NCAA rules. HE violated NCAA rules thus HE was personally sanctioned. It’s not that difficult.
Lol. Except that his contract requires that he act within the confines of the governing body (ie: the NCAA).
The fundamental issue with Pitino's firing is that the NCAA has never ruled on the most recent and alleged violation. He was fired based on what was known in the 3rd quarter of 2017.
The contract that was in force during stripper-gate was far more generous for a situation where the assistant commits the infraction. Note 6.1.3 in that contract...
His final contract did not apply to the NCAA ruling in early 2018 (appeal rejected). It doesn't matter if U of L thinks the adidas scandal violated the terms of his current contract. The NCAA hasn't ruled on that.
U of L jumped the gun--they have a habit nowadays of doing that...
The fundamental issue with Pitino's firing is that the NCAA has never ruled on the most recent and alleged violation. He was fired based on what was known in the 3rd quarter of 2017.
The contract that was in force during stripper-gate was far more generous for a situation where the assistant commits the infraction. Note 6.1.3 in that contract...
His final contract did not apply to the NCAA ruling in early 2018 (appeal rejected). It doesn't matter if U of L thinks the adidas scandal violated the terms of his current contract. The NCAA hasn't ruled on that.
U of L jumped the gun--they have a habit nowadays of doing that...
It says he was required to provide careful, diligent supervision. The NCAA sanctioned him for that. And it’s highly likely that he will be, at a minimum, penned with that same violation again. If you think UofL should’ve waited for the NCAA to make a ruling, then you are basically in a boat by yourself. However I don’t think you actually believe that, it’s just that you cling tightly to some warped narrative about the current athletic administration.
His lawyer thinks that U of L jumped the gun. Pitino could only be fired based on what was known in Oct 2017, not "the same violation again." That's hypothetical evidence...
It’s pretty common practice to fire someone when there is evidence of improprieties despite a full investigation not being completed. This is especially true when that individual already has been sanctioned for improprieties.
Not based on someone else's findings when those findings haven't been completed. That's presumptive evidence.
What if the NCAA never sanctions U of L for the Brian Bowen stuff? You don't know with certainty that's gonna happen. All we know with certainty in that situation is Pitino was fired. Bingo...
I had a wonderful dinner at Porcini this weekend, and came home to a nice after dinner drink, and pondered all of this mess. My conclusion is that Pitino had to know much more about what was going on, Smrt has to know much more about everything, Smrt now works for Grissom, and Grissom is building a case against Pitino. The NCAA clearly punished Louisville far beyond the self imposed sanctions, indicating that they didnt buy the plausible deniability argument, but couldn’t prove it. If Grissom can help them connect the dots, he will win the Pitino suit and turn the NCAA wrath away from Louisville (clean house) and towards the old coaching staff. If I’m right, he’s probably already had his new law firm in discussions with the NCAA. If I’m wrong, blame it on the bourbon.
When there is a pattern of behavior it makes sense.
I will be very surprised if UofL is not sanctioned for the FBI stuff. In fact I’ll make you a bet - if UofL isn’t sanctioned I will stop posting on here for 2 weeks; if UofL is sanctioned you stop posting for 1 week.
I don't care. You're changing the subject, or trying to...
You can't ANTICIPATE evidence to defend your action. That will never hold up in court because you can't answer the question I posed...what if nothing else happens? Then you fired the guy without sufficient cause.
There is no NCAA finding that indicates he violated his contract, and there sure as hell wasn't in Oct 2017...
If UofL isn’t sanctioned it probably does help Pitino’s case. But you and his attorney are the only people that think that happens.
If this thing ends up in court, then I guarantee there will have been some ruling from the NCAA by then. And any ruling negatively towards UofL will roll down the hill to Rick. Again, that’s why Pitino’s defense team will want to settle things. Louisville has received a notice of inquiry.
No ... there was just an FBI recording which linked Pitino’s already on probation program to a $100,000 payment for Brian Bowen. Duh!!
The cause and effect are very apparent. You choose not to see because, yet again, it doesn’t fit your narrative. It’s your specialty, apparently.
If's and Butts, Candies and Nuts
Rick is gone. Mack has got us back! We have an ACC preseason favorite to worry about.
Get Grissom gone and lets move on'
Rick is gone. Mack has got us back! We have an ACC preseason favorite to worry about.
Get Grissom gone and lets move on'
Minor detail...There's nothing on that message that mentions money in exchange for Bowen's commitment.
Hate it for ya...
Did you see any well-endowed cougars getting bent over tables?
There is no question the NCAA thinks Pitino was responsible:
NCAA Head Coaches Beware: You are ‘Presumptively’ Responsible for Acts of Assistant Coaches, Administrators
Thursday, March 1, 2018
A recent news report detailed alleged large-scale corruption throughout men’s college basketball. In the report, dozens of student-athletes allegedly received impermissible payments for their commitments to enroll at various Division I universities or payments while they were attending those universities. Last October, 10 individuals, including four NCAA Division I men’s basketball coaches, were charged for their role in an alleged bribery scheme by the U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York. What do these all of these developments mean for the head coaches under NCAA rules?
NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1, “Head Coach Responsibility,” imposes a presumption of head coach accountability for impermissible acts committed by assistant coaches and administrators within their program.
NCAA enforcement’s emphasis in charging Head Coach Responsibility violations is evident, as 13 violations were alleged against coaches in 2017.
Bylaw 11.1.1 states:
“[A]n institution’s head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all assistant coaches and administrators who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. An institution’s head coach shall promote an atmosphere of compliance within his or her program and shall monitor the activities of all institutional staff members involved with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.”
The penalties associated with Head Coach Responsibility violations are severe.
Under Bylaw 11.1.1.1, a head coach can be suspended for up to an entire season for Level I violations and up to half a season for Level II violations. The length of the suspension depends on “the severity of the violation(s) committed by his or her staff and/or the coach himself/herself.”
Plausible deniability is a poor strategy to rebut Head Coach Responsibility allegations. The “I didn’t know it was going on” excuse will do little to rebut the presumption of accountability. Instead, head coaches must rely upon a three-prong strategy: A demonstration that the coach adequately monitored the activities of employees under their supervision, actively engaged in rules education activities with employees under their supervision, and actively communicated compliance concerns and reported information that could constitute a NCAA compliance issue.
It’s a damn shame that that is the normal reaction to the mention of Porcini. I’m sure that everyone that dines there is aware of the scandal, but it is a very fine place. One of the best restaurants in town. Didn’t notice any Cougars, but there were some gorgeous women there, especially my wife.
That’s an even dumber take than your last one. So the defense is going to be that the $100K was meant for something other than his commitment to play college basketball for an Adidas school? Good luck trying to explain what other skills Brian Bowen (either junior or senior) had that could have been worth a $100K “consulting” fee.
The only dumb assertion is that Pitino knew about the $100K when the people involved are on record saying they conspired to keep that info from him.
Hate it for ya...
I am still trying to figure out what or if any actual NCAA violation was committed. The Bowen $100,000 deal doesn’t seem to involve anyone from Louisville. I doubt the NCAA is going to uncover more than FBI. That leaves
2 issues.
Kenny Johnson can the NCAA prove he paid $1,200?
Jordan Fair not sure what he is guilty of. Shoe company giving money to AAU. AAU pushing kid to school. Neither are a NCAA violations. AAU intent on giving money to kid is a violation. Money never changed hands kid never came to Louisville. Fair was aware of the intent didn’t report. How is that different than Kenny Payne being told by a Nike executive the same scheme except it was $200,000? Doesn’t matter if UK got any of the players Payne was told about a NCAA violation didn’t report. Forget the names the NCAA would be going down a huge rabbit hole because all the coaches knew the system.
Now the NCAA may hammered Pitino with a show cause because Fair didn’t report and they believe he ignored obvious, in their mind, signs Bowen was for sale. That would satisfy
their need for blood.
2 issues.
Kenny Johnson can the NCAA prove he paid $1,200?
Jordan Fair not sure what he is guilty of. Shoe company giving money to AAU. AAU pushing kid to school. Neither are a NCAA violations. AAU intent on giving money to kid is a violation. Money never changed hands kid never came to Louisville. Fair was aware of the intent didn’t report. How is that different than Kenny Payne being told by a Nike executive the same scheme except it was $200,000? Doesn’t matter if UK got any of the players Payne was told about a NCAA violation didn’t report. Forget the names the NCAA would be going down a huge rabbit hole because all the coaches knew the system.
Now the NCAA may hammered Pitino with a show cause because Fair didn’t report and they believe he ignored obvious, in their mind, signs Bowen was for sale. That would satisfy
their need for blood.
Latest posts
-
-
LOUISVILLE AT GTECH GAME THREAD- 3:45PM THE CW- Latest: TheRealVille
-
-
-
