Detailed background and story on this whole Pearl situation

#76
#76
I am not sure about the NCAA having the authority to force a U to fire a coach by threatening to change severity of penalties based on whether or not said coach is fired. I would think that would violate Federal Anti-Trust statutes in the realm of Human Resources. No one in authority can threaten a persons lively hood that way, or so I have been told. Seems like federal lawsuits could expose the NCAA if this is the case. Maybe an attorney on the list could clear it up?!
 
#77
#77
The Board of Trustees is the governing body of the University of Tennessee, overseeing the educational and operational activities of the statewide University system. The standing committees of the Board include: Academic Affairs and Student Success, Advancement and Public Affairs, Audit, Executive and Compensation, Finance and Administration, Trusteeship, and Research, Outreach, and Economic Development. Interestingly, there is no athletic committee.

In my opinion the Board's mandate (in reality) has very little to do with athletics. The object of the University (per the Charter) shall be to engage in the governmental function of affording an education primarily to the youth and citizens of the State of Tennessee and to instruct and train them in those subjects leading to the degrees of bachelor of arts, master of arts, medical degrees or any other degrees known and used in any college or university in any of the United States; also to be a leading research institution devoted to research and instruction in agriculture, the arts and sciences, law, medicine, business, education, architecture, and the other disciplines.

This "Object" says nothing whatsoever about athletics, not even one word. Now I understand that without the University there would not be an athletic department. However, the UT Athletic Department is a separate entity with a budget of over $98 million (FYI - in 2009, UTAD made direct cash contributions to the University of over $6 million).

In the current landscape of "big-time" college sports (major Division 1 athletic programs) the focus is on the "team".....

and/or... what recruits committed to the "team".....

or... what bowl the "team" will be playing in.....

or... will the "team" be in the AA Tourney, what seed the "team" will be, and what "team" your "team" will be playing.....

and... where your seats are located and how much will they cost so that you can watch the "team" play.....

Who is this proverbial "team"?

It is a collection of young people with above average athletic ability who will play their given sport for a "university", the vast majority of whom came to the "university" to play for a specific coach or because this was their best or only scholarship offer. Yes, a significant number of these athletes are given a scholarship for their services. But the truth of the matter is that the "University" and "education" run a distant second to the "team".

Coaches are paid handsomely to coach the "team" and to lead the "team" to victory. Even at the lowest levels of college sports, coaches are expected to win and win frequently and consistently. If the "team" fails to win at an acceptable level, the coach will almost suredly be dismissed notwithstanding his player's GPA's.

The value of the scholarship pales in comparison with the budgets of the major college programs not to mention the salaries of the coaches and their AD's. And what about the multi-billion dollar tv contracts? These TV contracts are all about the "teams" not about the universities they represent. The same goes for the high dollar shoe deals.

And what do the fans have to do with the "team" and the "university". Some Tennessee fans, for instance, actually attended the University. However, there are many many Tennessee fans who never attended a single class at the Hallowed Halls of old UT yet they are fans nonetheless. I would assert that these fans are fans of Tennessee only in the sense of the "team" that is the Tennessee Volunteers. The "team" that they have watched from the stands or from their arm chairs for years. Their connection to and support of the "Tennessee Volunteers" is not based on their educational experiences at this "University" rather it is based upon their collective observances of the "team" known as the Vols.

The point being that there is the educational institution known as the "University of Tennessee" and the "team" the "Tennessee Volunteers".
 
#78
#78
Unimane said:
As I have said many times, the bump is a garbage deal. If this is why Pearl isn't coach anymore, I will be highly pissed. It essentially played out as I thought. The NCAA got on its high horse about the two weeks recruiting and went looking for something to pin on Pearl. They "found" something in the rules that is fairly arbitrary and never applied, even debateable as to if Pearl violated the rule at all, then decided to nail him for it.

What utter BS. If the NCAA doesn't crucify Tressel and force him out for doing something worse than Pearl, I don't see what purpose the organization exists for other than to shill for certain schools. I feel more and more sympathy for Jerry Tarkanian every day.
Click to expand...

Pearl has no one to blame but himself. No one.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#79
#79
Not sure about the reference to Dooley in this article. Seems hard to fathom he would have more sway than Summitt at this point.
 
#80
#80
LawVol13 said:
It's a parting gift to get things over as easily as possible. They are under no obligation to pay him anything because they've already terminated his contract. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I do want this to be over as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

The University announced they terminated his contract but nowhere have you heard Pearl agree that his contract is terminated. He never signed the new contract they placed in front of him since it would have removed this protection from his original contract:

Article XV of Pearl's contract, section F.1., details how Pearl can be terminated. Section (ii) states: "a finding by the NCAA Committee on Infractions or, if appealed, the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee that Coach Pearl has knowingly engaged in or condoned significant or repetitive violation(s) of NCAA regulations, provided that the University gives notice of termination within (60) days of such a finding."

Interesting litigation point don't you think? The committee has not ruled yet, no finding has been made and Pearl and his attorneys have not been heard or have not yet been afforded their appeal and he has not received his 60 day notice of termination.

By the time all that happens we are well into next season if not past it. I do not think the University really wants to wait that long to hire a new coach, they do not want to pay him off in full and Pearl does not wish to end his career in this kind of fight. Sounds like a perfect scenario for a settlement umm.... a buyout is coming.

Pearl uses his leverage, the school gets to hire a new coach at a better time, the NCAA penalties are more than likely lessened and thus the buyout is paid.
 
#82
#82
vol-un-tear said:
I assume this is regarding letting SC play without sanctions for 4 years before laying the smack down. The AA is on their own time table. They suck! GBO!!!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they punished them pretty harsh don't you think? Wouldn't you rather them get it right?
 
#83
#83
Unimane said:
As I have said many times, the bump is a garbage deal. If this is why Pearl isn't coach anymore, I will be highly pissed. It essentially played out as I thought. The NCAA got on its high horse about the two weeks recruiting and went looking for something to pin on Pearl. They "found" something in the rules that is fairly arbitrary and never applied, even debateable as to if Pearl violated the rule at all, then decided to nail him for it.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. It's hard to believe the fate of a coach would boil down to whether a coach talked to a high school player for 30 seconds or for two minutes
 
#84
#84
elitedb said:
The University announced they terminated his contract but nowhere have you heard Pearl agree that his contract is terminated. He never signed the new contract they placed in front of him since it would have removed this protection from his original contract:

Article XV of Pearl's contract, section F.1., details how Pearl can be terminated. Section (ii) states: "a finding by the NCAA Committee on Infractions or, if appealed, the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee that
Coach Pearl has knowingly engaged in or
condoned significant or repetitive violation(s)
of NCAA regulations, provided that the
University gives notice of termination within
(60) days of such a finding."

Interesting litigation point don't you think?
The committee has not ruled yet, no
finding has been made and Pearl and
his attorneys have not been heard or have
not yet been afforded their appeal and he
has not received his 60 day notice of
termination

By the time all that happens we are well into
next season if not past it. I do not think the
University really wants to wait that long to
hire a new coach, they do not want to pay
him off in full and Pearl does not wish to end
his career in this kind of fight. Sounds like a
perfect scenario for a settlement umm.... a
buyout is comin

Pearl uses his leverage, the school gets to
hire a new coach at a better time, the NCAA
penalties are more than likely lessened and
thus the buyout is paid.
Click to expand...

Leverage? Pearl has no chance in court. Grounds for termination started when pearl made the illegal call to a recruit after he apologized for lying to the AA about illegal recruiting. UT will owe pearl zero. Maybe some money to "thank him"
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#85
#85
zjcvols said:
Yeah, and they punished them pretty harsh don't you think? Wouldn't you rather them get it right?
Click to expand...

I'm ok with the two year bowl ban and the loss of 30 ballers. It should have happened years ago. The AA still sucks! They would have done nothing if OJ Mayo didn't do his thing. The Bush thing should have put SC in the ground in 07. That was easy to get right.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#86
#86
vol-un-tear said:
Leverage? Pearl has no chance in court. Grounds for termination started when pearl made the illegal call to a recruit after he apologized for lying to the AA about illegal recruiting. UT will owe pearl zero. Maybe some money to "thank him"
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I agree the groundwork for what would be his ultimate termination probably started then if not earlier. But under the terms of his original contract, which he has not waived by signing the new offer placed before him, there has not been a finding made by the NCAA yet. It is that finding which is grounds for the school to send him a 60 day termination letter. That finding will not be made until after the committee on infraction hearing and ruling, and then if Pearl wished to appeal until the appeal is heard and a ruling made. All of this plus the 60 days to terminate called for in his contract puts the final disposition off till well after the next season starts; a terrible time to hire a new coach.

While the die is cast and Pearl will lose to the NCAA, under the terms of his contract he cannot be terminated for cause until that time. Thus he has leverage to negotiate with.

The courts have ruled on this issue for other coaches, notably O'brien at Ohio State. The courts have permitted coaches to collect in full for not following the letter of the contract before. So the school can fire him now and pay him off in full, wait to the final hearing and ruling by the NCAA to fire him and owe him nothing or they can work out a buyout which will satisfy everyone. I suspect the athletic dept will pay him something and the boosters will kick in some more and Pearl will leave for the good of the University and speak well of everyone and everything. No muss, no fuss everyone wins.
 
#87
#87
elitedb said:
I agree the groundwork for what would be his ultimate termination probably started then if not earlier. But under the terms of his original contract, which he has not waived by signing the new offer placed before him, there has not been a finding made by the NCAA yet. It is that finding which is grounds for the school to send him a 60 day termination letter. That finding will not be made until after the committee on infraction hearing and ruling, and then if Pearl wished to appeal until the appeal is heard and a ruling made. All of this plus the 60 days to terminate called for in his contract puts the final disposition off till well after the next season starts; a terrible time to hire a new coach.

While the die is cast and Pearl will lose to the NCAA, under the terms of his contract he cannot be terminated for cause until that time. Thus he has leverage to negotiate with.

The courts have ruled on this issue for other coaches, notably O'brien at Ohio State. The courts have permitted coaches to collect in full for not following the letter of the contract before. So the school can fire him now and pay him off in full, wait to the final hearing and ruling by the NCAA to fire him and owe him nothing or they can work out a buyout which will satisfy everyone. I suspect the athletic dept will pay him something and the boosters will kick in some more and Pearl will leave for the good of the University and speak well of everyone and everything. No muss, no fuss everyone wins.
Click to expand...

If the AA really told UT this, then Pearl should ask for his 1+ Mil back at least.

Still hard to believe the NCAA, a governing body essentially 'owned' by all member schools, would / could coerce a school to fire a coach or not by holding penalties over their heads.
One would think a school COULD call them on it by publicizing such an act. Don't think they would want something like that to be 'officially' publicized.
 
#88
#88
Velo Vol said:
I hope you're right. It's hard to believe the fate of a coach would boil down to whether a coach talked to a high school player for 30 seconds or for two minutes
Click to expand...

Yeah. Some of these NCAA rules, a coach cant speak to another player if he's at his school before practice? Can he wave at him or would that be against the rules too? What if he smiles at him?
 
#89
#89
Sir orangealot said:
Not sure about the reference to Dooley in this article. Seems hard to fathom he would have more sway than Summitt at this point.
Click to expand...
He has much more sway than Summitt in the matter because the women's athletic department is a separate entity at UT.
 
#90
#90
Velo Vol said:
I hope you're right. It's hard to believe the fate of a coach would boil down to whether a coach talked to a high school player for 30 seconds or for two minutes
Click to expand...

It wouldn't boil down to that, but it might boil down to whether he mentioned it to compliance. It's not Pearl's job to decide what counts as a violation; it's his job to provide compliance with all the info he has so that they can sort it out. You can't screw that up four days after you go public with the lie.

Only Mike Hamilton would argue that you have to keep Pearl because of concession sales. That's the little bit of this that rings so true it makes the whole thing believable.
 
#91
#91
Flathead said:
I am not sure about the NCAA having the authority to force a U to fire a coach by threatening to change severity of penalties based on whether or not said coach is fired. I would think that would violate Federal Anti-Trust statutes in the realm of Human Resources. No one in authority can threaten a persons lively hood that way, or so I have been told. Seems like federal lawsuits could expose the NCAA if this is the case. Maybe an attorney on the list could clear it up?!
Click to expand...

This is an interesting question, and it sort of remains unanswered -- at least based on the limited information I have looked into thus far --- even after 13 years of litigation with Tarkanian.

I looked into the Tarkanian case a little bit. It went all the way up to the SCOTUS, but on the question of whether the NCAA was considered a state actor. The SCOTUS held that the NCAA was not a state actor under the circumstances (reversing the Nevada Supreme Court on that issue). So the NCAA won on that particular issue, but the case nonetheless was settled shortly thereafter.

I'm gonna try and find some more info on this case when I have a little more time. It's an interesting case on a lot of levels. I love that Tarkanian is the only person who has ever been willing to man up and take on the NCAA.
 
#92
#92
Good info. Released for two reasons:

1. To further justify the firing of a popular coach.

2. To try putting lipstick on the pig that is Hammy.

If you are going to keep Hamilton, then that lipstick is a necessity. Quality coaches don't tend to desire working for backstabbers. The perception out there is that Hamilton undermined Pearl's efforts during this tournament. That perception is given weight by the fact that Hamilton apologized twice to Pearl and his team for the comments.

The perception is going to be out there in the minds of the coaches we seek to hire. You've got to have something in response--especially if you retain Hamilton in spite of his weaknesses.
 
#93
#93
kidbourbon said:
This is an interesting question, and it sort of remains unanswered -- at least based on the limited information I have looked into thus far --- even after 13 years of litigation with Tarkanian.

I looked into the Tarkanian case a little bit. It went all the way up to the SCOTUS, but on the question of whether the NCAA was considered a state actor. The SCOTUS held that the NCAA was not a state actor under the circumstances (reversing the Nevada Supreme Court on that issue). So the NCAA won on that particular issue, but the case nonetheless was settled shortly thereafter.

I'm gonna try and find some more info on this case when I have a little more time. It's an interesting case on a lot of levels. I love that Tarkanian is the only person who has ever been willing to man up and take on the NCAA.
Click to expand...

So was the scotus ruling based on NCAA being the voluntary governing body of the member schools ? Seems that would be a factor in how or whether the schools have much 'fight back' capability.
They essentially 'give' the NCAA power to rule them. aka GORT
 
#99
#99
MadcapLaughs said:
Hamilton thinks it's eights steps back without Bruce.
Click to expand...

For as bad a PR guy as Hamilton has been he has done a lot for UT and truly wanted Pearl to stay and did everything he could to make that happen. In the end the administration said Pearl was not bigger than the university and a few years of bad basketball was worth the universities integrity and reputation.
Click to expand...

We needed that kind of logic in 2005 re: Fulmer.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top