-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Bestbuck36
- Start date
:moo:
What a shitty deal. She basically told him he could stay as long as his contract, sold the tickets, and then totally went back on her word. I am NO Bob Huggins fan, but this is a crappy way to handle the situation. Lying and manipulation, not to mention borderline racketeering...perfect for a University President. 
Upvote
0
Golferdow01
East-Coast Living
I agree that it appears she way overstepped her bounds doing this but did anyone consider that maybe something new has come up and just hasn't been published yet???
Upvote
0
daddyphatsacs
Let the cards fall...
I smell a lawsuit on Huggins' end of the deal. I'm not a big fan of him, but he filled seats at UC. Something tells me that there are going to be some pissed off Bearcat alumni...........
Upvote
0
There's going to be some REALLY pissed off alumni, because if what his lawyer says about recruiting is true, they're in for at least 2-3 really tough years...right as they hit the Big Time by moving into the Big East (anyone think they could have made that move happen without Huggins?)
Upvote
0
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
Agreed Bucklion - I bet the ride home tonight is going to be pretty lively on WLW and the like media. There is a deep divide on show -- alumini/boosters of the team and the elite/academia camp (which is definitely in the minority). Without Huggins it would likely have taken the football program even longer to develop (there is synergy in that as Huggins really raised the profile of UC as a school for athletics).Bucklion said:
EDIT: Ride home had the UC Press Conference covering these issues. Bob Huggins not there, UC Trustees, AD and President all present, stating that "htey were not the ones to leak the private communications between the University and Coach Huggins." What is this all about? Think "UC 21" which is a long-range plan to improve academic standing of UC making it into a premier urban research university. As part of that all academic programs asked to ensure that their scholar athletes are truly students, then athletes. That athletic programs - including Basketball - ensure their players are great abassadors for the University and, "we want all our players to be alumni one day." The improvement in academic rigor is implied to be something with which Huggins would not work. UC Trustees position is that Huggins is the one that balked, not they. Trustees position is that the leak came from the lawyer or Huggins side not theirs.
Sounds very much like a re-drawing of the comapct reached in May "It was part of a continuing series of private negoatiations between the Trustees and Coach Huggins."
We can now officially sit back and watch the fur fly. Sport-casters questions sounding pretty pointed at this time "Do you think was fair", "Was this the right time to do this."
If anyone has more up-to-date stuff it would interesting to hear it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Good riddance to Huggins, and good luck to Cincy when they battle us for basketball recruits over the next few years. 
Last edited:
Upvote
0
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
I think this is case of be careful what you wish for, so I do not laugh at this - whoever comes in to UC will be mandated to get better athletes, and specifically better student athletes. Which is exactly the target recruit Matta will seek to improve and maintain the Buckeye Basketball program. (Think APR).BB73 said:Good riddance to Huggins, and good luck to Cincy when they battle us for basketball receruits over the next few years.
Huggins was quite content to work around the edges, oftentimes bringing in athletes that required a great deal more hand-holding. With Huggins at UC you could count on other area programs having a clear shot at blue-chip scholar athletes. With Huggins ousted (as now seems certain) the incoming coach will have a competing recruiting strategy.
Huggins lawyer now on WLW saying he has the time-stamped FAX from UC Trustees office. And that it was first thing he knew of this letter offer period, first Bob knew of it, period.
Also contests UC's position that nothing was discussed prior to May - Huggin's atty has in his possession a document pertaining to such discussions dated prior to May 2005.
Pissed that Trustees came out and said it could not have been the University that released the letter offer - who else. Pissed that University has muddied waters making it impossible for Huggins to recruit.
Like daddyphatsacs said - lawsuit likely coming. Lawyer basically stating UC can't have its cake and eat Huggins too. If he's fired without cause, by contract then Huggins is entitled to $3 Million, not the $2 Million which they wish to have Huggins accept.
Lot of other peripheral pissed offedness about Nancy Z taking a bead on Huggins based on his actions prior to her arrival in the Cincinnati Metro area. But it does sound like this will go to court unless UC accepts the implicit closing offer by Huggins atty of $3 Million regardless of cause to terminate Bob Huggins.
Somehow I think this is one which Bob will win.
Upvote
0
Folanator
Brawndo's got electrolytes...
Here is the letter from UC as posted. Sorry it is long and VERY slanted.
Notice the name of UC's atny.
Monica Rimai
Vice President for Legal Affairs
and General Counsel
Tibs, a family member????
The University of Cincinnati today sent the letter below to Richard L. Katz,
agent for UC Men's Basketball Coach Bob Huggins. As noted, a 24-hour period
has been set for the coach to respond. The university will have further
comment when this period ends, or when a response has been received from the coach, whichever occurs first.
Greg Hand
Director
Public Relations
University of Cincinnati
513-556-1822
[email protected]
August 23, 2005
Sent via Facsimile (513-721-3077)
and U.S. Mail
Richard L. Katz, Esq.
Carew Tower
441 Vine Street, Suite 4300
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Re: Robert E. Huggins
Dear Mr. Katz:
I want to thank you for our meeting on Friday, August 19, 2005 to discuss
the termination of Mr. Huggins' employment with the University of
Cincinnati. While UC remains committed to working out a reasonable
resolution to our differences, it must do so within certain legal
parameters. Thus, this letter represents the University's best and final
offer regarding the manner in which Bob Huggins will cease coaching Men's
Basketball at UC.
In addition, notwithstanding our agreement to keep this matter confidential,
information has been communicated to members of the media and influential
members of the Cincinnati community regarding our meeting last Friday, and
the status of negotiations generally. Accordingly, it is imperative that we
resolve this matter quickly to avoid further speculation and rumor. To this
end, I will need to hear from you by Wednesday August 24, 2005 at 2:00 p.m.
regarding this offer; otherwise the University will exercise its right to
terminate Mr. Huggins' employment without cause pursuant to the clear and
plain meaning of his employment contract.
Before setting forth the University's final proposal, I believe it is
important that I briefly reconstruct a general timeline of events that
transpired with your client, relative to these negotiations. For your
convenience, I have attached the correspondence we have exchanged regarding
this matter.
Specifically, on June 11, 2004, the University informed Mr. Huggins that it
was terminating the automatic contract extension to his employment agreement
(i.e., a rolling four-year contract). On May 11, 2005, representatives from
the University met with Coach Huggins and informed him that his contract
would not be extended beyond June 30, 2007, and that he had several options
going forward. Those options included the following:
1. Mr. Huggins could coach through the end of his contract;
2. UC would terminate Mr. Huggins' contract without cause and pay your
client the buy-out amount set forth in the contract;
3. UC would terminate Mr. Huggins' contract without cause and pay your
client the buy-out amount set forth in the contract, but hire Mr. Huggins to
perform some other duties for the University for a period of time, to allow
Mr. Huggins time to continue accumulating credits towards full retirement
benefits including the payment of health insurance; or
4. Mr. Huggins could offer some other option for UC to consider.
The University directed Mr. Huggins to consider these options and to then
contact the University's General Counsel with a decision regarding which
option he wished to exercise. Neither you nor Mr. Huggins contacted UC as
directed by the institution at the May 11th meeting. Instead, Mr. Huggins
held a press conference on May 16, 2005 where he announced that he planned
on fulfilling his current contract. In light of the fact that Coach Huggins
chose to deal with contract issues through the media, and without response
to the options set forth by the University, UC issued a brief statement that
it would not extend the coach's contract, but would honor the two remaining
years through 2007.
Over the next several weeks, the University limited its comments on this
situation in an attempt to respect the sensitivity of this employment matter
and Mr. Huggins' privacy. Notwithstanding various media reports, any
projection of the conditions of the buy-out of Mr. Huggins' employment
contract remained totally speculative, derived in part from the actual
wording of the contract and other information unconfirmed through the
University.
On at least four occasions, from a period of May 16, 2005 to this summer,
the University has been contacted either through you or personally by Mr.
Huggins through various University officials or friends of the University,
concerning the possibility of reinstating either the four-year roll over or
extending the contract. Most recently, I received a call from you in early
July requesting that we meet to discuss these same contract issues.
Thus, on July 12, we met and I memorialized that meeting in my August 8,
2005 letter to you. As set forth in the letter, you made three requests
during our meeting. First, you sought a three-year extension, which would
extend the contract to five years. In the alternative, you sought a
reinstatement of the four-year automatic extension that had been removed in
June 2004.
Finally, you commented that if either of the above options were not
possible, playing out the remaining two years on the contract was simply not
wise "as it was not good for anyone." Thus, at my request, you proposed a
third option, which was a payment of $2,630,000 ($1 million for each of the
two years remaining on the contract and $630,000 tax liability as a result
of an annuity). You also informed me that, for purposes of retirement and
health benefits under the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS"),
Mr. Huggins sought an employment arrangement with the University whereby the
money would be paid out over at least five years.
Recall in my August 8th letter that the University accepted, without
argument, that Mr. Huggins was unwilling to continue coaching without a
contract extension. Given the events of the past and plans for the future,
the University also believes that continuing the contract would be
inadvisable. Accordingly, I informed you that the University agreed with
you that two years remained on Mr. Huggins contract and that it was
obligated to compensate him approximately $700,000 for each year. Moreover,
the University was not necessarily opposed to paying him more, including the
$630,000 tax liability, so long as there was a contractual rationale for
doing so.
After the exchange of several letters, you and I agreed to meet to discuss
options relative to our correspondences. At our Friday, August 19, 2005
meeting, we once again discussed several options. As this meeting, I
reiterated that without a mutually acceptable agreement, the University
would terminate Mr. Huggins' employment contract without cause, pursuant to
section 5.1.2 of the Agreement, and sever its employment relationship with
him on a date certain. Under the terms of the current contract, UC is to
pay Mr. Huggins monthly payments at the rate of $700,000 per year. This
works out to $58,333.33 for each month remaining on the contract, which ends
on June 30, 2007. In addition, the University will pay Mr. Huggins the
$630,000 that is remaining on the tax liability related to an annuity that
was provided to Mr. Huggins by the University. While such a payment is not
specifically noted in the employment contract, given the numerous previous
discussions between University officials and Mr. Huggins, and partial
payment of $70,000 that was made to Mr. Huggins in 2005 for the liability,
the University believes that such an obligation is owed to him.
In addition, I discussed with you the possibility of the University
providing additional compensation if Mr. Huggins would be willing to take on
new responsibilities. As you know, the current contract does not permit the
University to assign Mr. Huggins to any position other than head men's
basketball coach without his written approval. Thus, I discussed with you
the possibility of the University entering into a six month arrangement
whereby Mr. Huggins would be compensated at a similar monthly rate that he
is now compensated - taking into account all compensation and benefits that
he receives as head basketball coach. Also, given that Mr. Huggins would no
longer be employed after the expiration of this short term arrangement, the
University was willing to pay for his (and any dependents) health coverage,
under COBRA, for up to 18 months.
Finally, we were willing to discuss the possibility that there was some
ambiguity as to the automatic rollover provision in the contract. We could
make no guarantees but the University was prepared to consider that Mr.
Huggins had three years remaining on his contract. If we could find a
legally tenable argument for why this ambiguity should result in a three
year contract, I believe we could have reached an agreement valued at
approximately $3 million.
Mr. Huggins rejected this proposal. First, while he was willing to accept
the dollar amount, you still believe your client is owed much more under the
contract. In particular, you believe that Mr. Huggins is owed $1 million
per year, not $700,000, because the contract provides that so long as he
coaches at the University, he is guaranteed $1 million per year under
section 3.4.1 in the March 2002 Amendment. Second, notwithstanding written
notice that was given to you on June 11, 2004 that the University was
terminating the automatic contract extension referred to in the contract,
you contend that Mr. Huggins has not two, but three years remaining on his
contract. You suggest that a letter forwarded to Mr. Huggins by Bob Goin on
June 24, 2005 turned his contract into a continuing three year contract
unless further notice is provided.
As to the former argument, the contract simply cannot be read in this
manner. The contract stands on its own with no ambiguity as to what the
dollar amount will be paid out per year should Mr. Huggins be terminated
without cause. With respect to your second contention, while the June 24
letter may have allowed you to now raise some lack of clarity in the notice
provided to Mr. Huggins, without further legal and factual support, I remain
skeptical.
More importantly, you informed me that any agreement with Mr. Huggins that
did not involve $3.6 million would require a longer employment agreement
than six months. Apparently, your client seeks the maximum amount of his
retirement benefits under State law so that he is eligible to receive health
benefits immediately should he decide to retire and not seek employment
elsewhere.
Put simply, Mr. Huggins is demanding more than what he is entitled to under
the contract. Thus, we now stand at an impasse. Nevertheless, given Mr.
Huggins long history and service with UC, the University will try again to
find a mutually acceptable resolution.
To this end, my offer of August 19, 2005 remains open. Under this option,
Mr. Huggins would be paid approximately $3 million comprised of the
triggering of Section 5.1.2; the payout of annuity tax liability; a short
term employment arrangement including additional University health insurance
and OPERS contributions; a legal and factual review of whether three years,
not two, remained on the contract; and 18 months of COBRA health insurance.
Alternatively, the University would pay Mr. Huggins $1,913,333.33 as a
result of the triggering of section 5.1.2, based on a September 1, 2005
termination date. This amount includes payment for the 22 months remaining
on his contract and the tax liability. In addition, it is our understanding
based on discussions with you on Friday, August 19, that effective December
31, 2005, Mr. Huggins will have 27.80 years of service credit with OPERS.
We have relied on you and your client for an accurate retirement credit
number and will not adjust our position should this number prove incorrect
at some future date. With 30 years of OPERS service, a state employee is
eligible to retire at any age with no benefit reduction. For Mr. Huggins to
obtain 30 years of credit, he would need to be employed until March 31,
2008.
While we both agree that the continuation of Mr. Huggins as head men's
basketball coach is not desirable, and, therefore, no longer a viable
option, the University does believe that he has special knowledge, skill,
and ability that render his services to the University unique. In
particular, we would offer an employment contract through March 31, 2008
whereby Mr. Huggins would work under the direction of Vice President
Mitchell Livingston to assist in generating financial support for student
athletes in need. Of course, should Mr. Huggins secure full-time employment
outside of UC prior to March 31, 2008, the University would be entitled to
terminate this new employment relationship.
Assuming Mr. Huggins does not find alternative employment during this
period, Mr. Huggins would be paid $23,118.29 per month for a total of
$716,667.00. With benefits, including health insurance and continued
University contributions to OPERS, the compensation package for this two and
one-half year period totals more than $860,000. Thus, including the
$1,913,333.33 payout, Mr. Huggins would receive a total compensation package
of approximately $2.77 million. This amount is consistent with your
initial request made to me on July 12, 2005. Moreover, with continued
employment, based upon the information you provided, it allows Mr. Huggins
to receive 30 years of OPERS service credit-a sticking point throughout our
negotiations.
Under any new employment arrangement, Mr. Huggins must agree to refrain from
participating in any management activity related to the Men's Basketball
program at UC. In addition, he must agree to use his best efforts in
meeting his job responsibilities. Mr. Huggins also must agree to represent
the University of
Cincinnati positively in public and private forums and not engage in conduct
that reflects adversely on the University. Finally, he must agree to
perform his duties and personally comport himself at all times in a manner
consistent with appropriate ethical standards set by the University.
I think we would both agree that these negotiations have gone on far too
long. Mr. Huggins has clearly expressed, through you, his desire to move in
another direction. The University, too, wishes to move on to the future in
its Men's Basketball program. To this end, the Chair of UC's Board of
Trustee, the President and Athletic Director have added their signature to
this letter as evidence of the University's commitment to either of the
options outlined above, but no other. Furthermore, they understand that if
your client fails to select either option by 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, the
University will exercise its rights pursuant to Mr. Huggins' existing
contract. I look forward to hearing from you by 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
August 24, 2005.
Sincerely,
Monica Rimai
Vice President for Legal Affairs
and General Counsel
___________________________________
Bob Goin, Athletic Director
____________________________________
Nancy Zimpher, President
__________________________________
Phil Cox, Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Notice the name of UC's atny.
Monica Rimai
Vice President for Legal Affairs
and General Counsel
Tibs, a family member????
The University of Cincinnati today sent the letter below to Richard L. Katz,
agent for UC Men's Basketball Coach Bob Huggins. As noted, a 24-hour period
has been set for the coach to respond. The university will have further
comment when this period ends, or when a response has been received from the coach, whichever occurs first.
Greg Hand
Director
Public Relations
University of Cincinnati
513-556-1822
[email protected]
August 23, 2005
Sent via Facsimile (513-721-3077)
and U.S. Mail
Richard L. Katz, Esq.
Carew Tower
441 Vine Street, Suite 4300
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Re: Robert E. Huggins
Dear Mr. Katz:
I want to thank you for our meeting on Friday, August 19, 2005 to discuss
the termination of Mr. Huggins' employment with the University of
Cincinnati. While UC remains committed to working out a reasonable
resolution to our differences, it must do so within certain legal
parameters. Thus, this letter represents the University's best and final
offer regarding the manner in which Bob Huggins will cease coaching Men's
Basketball at UC.
In addition, notwithstanding our agreement to keep this matter confidential,
information has been communicated to members of the media and influential
members of the Cincinnati community regarding our meeting last Friday, and
the status of negotiations generally. Accordingly, it is imperative that we
resolve this matter quickly to avoid further speculation and rumor. To this
end, I will need to hear from you by Wednesday August 24, 2005 at 2:00 p.m.
regarding this offer; otherwise the University will exercise its right to
terminate Mr. Huggins' employment without cause pursuant to the clear and
plain meaning of his employment contract.
Before setting forth the University's final proposal, I believe it is
important that I briefly reconstruct a general timeline of events that
transpired with your client, relative to these negotiations. For your
convenience, I have attached the correspondence we have exchanged regarding
this matter.
Specifically, on June 11, 2004, the University informed Mr. Huggins that it
was terminating the automatic contract extension to his employment agreement
(i.e., a rolling four-year contract). On May 11, 2005, representatives from
the University met with Coach Huggins and informed him that his contract
would not be extended beyond June 30, 2007, and that he had several options
going forward. Those options included the following:
1. Mr. Huggins could coach through the end of his contract;
2. UC would terminate Mr. Huggins' contract without cause and pay your
client the buy-out amount set forth in the contract;
3. UC would terminate Mr. Huggins' contract without cause and pay your
client the buy-out amount set forth in the contract, but hire Mr. Huggins to
perform some other duties for the University for a period of time, to allow
Mr. Huggins time to continue accumulating credits towards full retirement
benefits including the payment of health insurance; or
4. Mr. Huggins could offer some other option for UC to consider.
The University directed Mr. Huggins to consider these options and to then
contact the University's General Counsel with a decision regarding which
option he wished to exercise. Neither you nor Mr. Huggins contacted UC as
directed by the institution at the May 11th meeting. Instead, Mr. Huggins
held a press conference on May 16, 2005 where he announced that he planned
on fulfilling his current contract. In light of the fact that Coach Huggins
chose to deal with contract issues through the media, and without response
to the options set forth by the University, UC issued a brief statement that
it would not extend the coach's contract, but would honor the two remaining
years through 2007.
Over the next several weeks, the University limited its comments on this
situation in an attempt to respect the sensitivity of this employment matter
and Mr. Huggins' privacy. Notwithstanding various media reports, any
projection of the conditions of the buy-out of Mr. Huggins' employment
contract remained totally speculative, derived in part from the actual
wording of the contract and other information unconfirmed through the
University.
On at least four occasions, from a period of May 16, 2005 to this summer,
the University has been contacted either through you or personally by Mr.
Huggins through various University officials or friends of the University,
concerning the possibility of reinstating either the four-year roll over or
extending the contract. Most recently, I received a call from you in early
July requesting that we meet to discuss these same contract issues.
Thus, on July 12, we met and I memorialized that meeting in my August 8,
2005 letter to you. As set forth in the letter, you made three requests
during our meeting. First, you sought a three-year extension, which would
extend the contract to five years. In the alternative, you sought a
reinstatement of the four-year automatic extension that had been removed in
June 2004.
Finally, you commented that if either of the above options were not
possible, playing out the remaining two years on the contract was simply not
wise "as it was not good for anyone." Thus, at my request, you proposed a
third option, which was a payment of $2,630,000 ($1 million for each of the
two years remaining on the contract and $630,000 tax liability as a result
of an annuity). You also informed me that, for purposes of retirement and
health benefits under the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS"),
Mr. Huggins sought an employment arrangement with the University whereby the
money would be paid out over at least five years.
Recall in my August 8th letter that the University accepted, without
argument, that Mr. Huggins was unwilling to continue coaching without a
contract extension. Given the events of the past and plans for the future,
the University also believes that continuing the contract would be
inadvisable. Accordingly, I informed you that the University agreed with
you that two years remained on Mr. Huggins contract and that it was
obligated to compensate him approximately $700,000 for each year. Moreover,
the University was not necessarily opposed to paying him more, including the
$630,000 tax liability, so long as there was a contractual rationale for
doing so.
After the exchange of several letters, you and I agreed to meet to discuss
options relative to our correspondences. At our Friday, August 19, 2005
meeting, we once again discussed several options. As this meeting, I
reiterated that without a mutually acceptable agreement, the University
would terminate Mr. Huggins' employment contract without cause, pursuant to
section 5.1.2 of the Agreement, and sever its employment relationship with
him on a date certain. Under the terms of the current contract, UC is to
pay Mr. Huggins monthly payments at the rate of $700,000 per year. This
works out to $58,333.33 for each month remaining on the contract, which ends
on June 30, 2007. In addition, the University will pay Mr. Huggins the
$630,000 that is remaining on the tax liability related to an annuity that
was provided to Mr. Huggins by the University. While such a payment is not
specifically noted in the employment contract, given the numerous previous
discussions between University officials and Mr. Huggins, and partial
payment of $70,000 that was made to Mr. Huggins in 2005 for the liability,
the University believes that such an obligation is owed to him.
In addition, I discussed with you the possibility of the University
providing additional compensation if Mr. Huggins would be willing to take on
new responsibilities. As you know, the current contract does not permit the
University to assign Mr. Huggins to any position other than head men's
basketball coach without his written approval. Thus, I discussed with you
the possibility of the University entering into a six month arrangement
whereby Mr. Huggins would be compensated at a similar monthly rate that he
is now compensated - taking into account all compensation and benefits that
he receives as head basketball coach. Also, given that Mr. Huggins would no
longer be employed after the expiration of this short term arrangement, the
University was willing to pay for his (and any dependents) health coverage,
under COBRA, for up to 18 months.
Finally, we were willing to discuss the possibility that there was some
ambiguity as to the automatic rollover provision in the contract. We could
make no guarantees but the University was prepared to consider that Mr.
Huggins had three years remaining on his contract. If we could find a
legally tenable argument for why this ambiguity should result in a three
year contract, I believe we could have reached an agreement valued at
approximately $3 million.
Mr. Huggins rejected this proposal. First, while he was willing to accept
the dollar amount, you still believe your client is owed much more under the
contract. In particular, you believe that Mr. Huggins is owed $1 million
per year, not $700,000, because the contract provides that so long as he
coaches at the University, he is guaranteed $1 million per year under
section 3.4.1 in the March 2002 Amendment. Second, notwithstanding written
notice that was given to you on June 11, 2004 that the University was
terminating the automatic contract extension referred to in the contract,
you contend that Mr. Huggins has not two, but three years remaining on his
contract. You suggest that a letter forwarded to Mr. Huggins by Bob Goin on
June 24, 2005 turned his contract into a continuing three year contract
unless further notice is provided.
As to the former argument, the contract simply cannot be read in this
manner. The contract stands on its own with no ambiguity as to what the
dollar amount will be paid out per year should Mr. Huggins be terminated
without cause. With respect to your second contention, while the June 24
letter may have allowed you to now raise some lack of clarity in the notice
provided to Mr. Huggins, without further legal and factual support, I remain
skeptical.
More importantly, you informed me that any agreement with Mr. Huggins that
did not involve $3.6 million would require a longer employment agreement
than six months. Apparently, your client seeks the maximum amount of his
retirement benefits under State law so that he is eligible to receive health
benefits immediately should he decide to retire and not seek employment
elsewhere.
Put simply, Mr. Huggins is demanding more than what he is entitled to under
the contract. Thus, we now stand at an impasse. Nevertheless, given Mr.
Huggins long history and service with UC, the University will try again to
find a mutually acceptable resolution.
To this end, my offer of August 19, 2005 remains open. Under this option,
Mr. Huggins would be paid approximately $3 million comprised of the
triggering of Section 5.1.2; the payout of annuity tax liability; a short
term employment arrangement including additional University health insurance
and OPERS contributions; a legal and factual review of whether three years,
not two, remained on the contract; and 18 months of COBRA health insurance.
Alternatively, the University would pay Mr. Huggins $1,913,333.33 as a
result of the triggering of section 5.1.2, based on a September 1, 2005
termination date. This amount includes payment for the 22 months remaining
on his contract and the tax liability. In addition, it is our understanding
based on discussions with you on Friday, August 19, that effective December
31, 2005, Mr. Huggins will have 27.80 years of service credit with OPERS.
We have relied on you and your client for an accurate retirement credit
number and will not adjust our position should this number prove incorrect
at some future date. With 30 years of OPERS service, a state employee is
eligible to retire at any age with no benefit reduction. For Mr. Huggins to
obtain 30 years of credit, he would need to be employed until March 31,
2008.
While we both agree that the continuation of Mr. Huggins as head men's
basketball coach is not desirable, and, therefore, no longer a viable
option, the University does believe that he has special knowledge, skill,
and ability that render his services to the University unique. In
particular, we would offer an employment contract through March 31, 2008
whereby Mr. Huggins would work under the direction of Vice President
Mitchell Livingston to assist in generating financial support for student
athletes in need. Of course, should Mr. Huggins secure full-time employment
outside of UC prior to March 31, 2008, the University would be entitled to
terminate this new employment relationship.
Assuming Mr. Huggins does not find alternative employment during this
period, Mr. Huggins would be paid $23,118.29 per month for a total of
$716,667.00. With benefits, including health insurance and continued
University contributions to OPERS, the compensation package for this two and
one-half year period totals more than $860,000. Thus, including the
$1,913,333.33 payout, Mr. Huggins would receive a total compensation package
of approximately $2.77 million. This amount is consistent with your
initial request made to me on July 12, 2005. Moreover, with continued
employment, based upon the information you provided, it allows Mr. Huggins
to receive 30 years of OPERS service credit-a sticking point throughout our
negotiations.
Under any new employment arrangement, Mr. Huggins must agree to refrain from
participating in any management activity related to the Men's Basketball
program at UC. In addition, he must agree to use his best efforts in
meeting his job responsibilities. Mr. Huggins also must agree to represent
the University of
Cincinnati positively in public and private forums and not engage in conduct
that reflects adversely on the University. Finally, he must agree to
perform his duties and personally comport himself at all times in a manner
consistent with appropriate ethical standards set by the University.
I think we would both agree that these negotiations have gone on far too
long. Mr. Huggins has clearly expressed, through you, his desire to move in
another direction. The University, too, wishes to move on to the future in
its Men's Basketball program. To this end, the Chair of UC's Board of
Trustee, the President and Athletic Director have added their signature to
this letter as evidence of the University's commitment to either of the
options outlined above, but no other. Furthermore, they understand that if
your client fails to select either option by 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, the
University will exercise its rights pursuant to Mr. Huggins' existing
contract. I look forward to hearing from you by 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
August 24, 2005.
Sincerely,
Monica Rimai
Vice President for Legal Affairs
and General Counsel
___________________________________
Bob Goin, Athletic Director
____________________________________
Nancy Zimpher, President
__________________________________
Phil Cox, Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Upvote
0
I listened to this frigging woman tonight...spouting off her "UC21" plan (yes, that's Cincy in the 21st century...catchy huh?) about "who we are and who we want to become" and crap. Imagine the absolute worst possible seminar on "team building" and all the cliche crap you would hear, and that's basically what she said. It was like a bad infomercial on motivational speaking. This woman comes off sounding as fake as a pornstar's tits.
Again, I'm no Huggins fan, but when she was asked about the timing of the firing, and she said basically "Well, there's no good time for this decision, and I guess we're a little off cycle" it was obvious she could care less about the athletic department at all. Take it for waht it's worth, but it's a point of view that more and more University administrators (not just presidents) are starting to take.
Again, I'm no Huggins fan, but when she was asked about the timing of the firing, and she said basically "Well, there's no good time for this decision, and I guess we're a little off cycle" it was obvious she could care less about the athletic department at all. Take it for waht it's worth, but it's a point of view that more and more University administrators (not just presidents) are starting to take.
Upvote
0
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
Whew a Golferdow tibor detente!
Indeed a rare event. Golfer hope you are not feeling a tad sheepish.
One interesting wrinkle to this story - the UC alumni are calling in (700WLW et al) ripping Zimpher a new bodily orifice. Not so much for stuffing Huggins, nor for the manner in which the (presumptive) firing is being handled - though few directly welcome that outcome. No, what has them steamed is Zimpher's poor choice of words when defending the decision to oust Huggins because he didn't drink the UC-21 Kool-Aid like a good soldier. Way Zimpher phrased this it came off to the alumni that she was denigrating and devaluing their degrees - whether achieved as a scholar athlete, or simply a student.
Cincinnati can be a nutty town - and this is one of it nuttier days.
Indeed a rare event. Golfer hope you are not feeling a tad sheepish.
One interesting wrinkle to this story - the UC alumni are calling in (700WLW et al) ripping Zimpher a new bodily orifice. Not so much for stuffing Huggins, nor for the manner in which the (presumptive) firing is being handled - though few directly welcome that outcome. No, what has them steamed is Zimpher's poor choice of words when defending the decision to oust Huggins because he didn't drink the UC-21 Kool-Aid like a good soldier. Way Zimpher phrased this it came off to the alumni that she was denigrating and devaluing their degrees - whether achieved as a scholar athlete, or simply a student.
Cincinnati can be a nutty town - and this is one of it nuttier days.
Upvote
0
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
Apparently at least one guy at Fox Sports likes what Zimpher is doing:
More schools should follow Zimpher's lead
Ian O'Connor / Special to FOXSports.com
Posted: 27 minutes ago // front-end hack to remove postedTime from Rumors page until a better way can be determined if (document.URL.indexOf("/name/FS/rumors") != -1) document.getElementById("postedTime").style.display = 'none';
College presidents always find religion too late in the game, long after the winners and losers are defined in the bright scoreboard lights. They talk about reform one minute, then cower under their desks the next, too afraid to take on the big-time sports machine that has steamrolled across academia without a stop light in sight.
Nancy Zimpher finally held up her right hand, traffic-cop style, and brought the madness to a dead halt. The president of the University of Cincinnati told Bob Huggins she could no longer serve as an enabler to a basketball program with rap sheets and graduation rates that would make Jerry Tarkanian blush.
University of Cincinnati president Nancy Zimpher gave Bob Huggins an ultimatum Tuesday: Quit or get fired. (Al Behrman / Associated Press)
The moment Huggins stumbled through that drunk-driving arrest tape last year was the moment Zimpher decided enough was enough. The coach's demise had become a matter of when, not if.
Zimpher was through hearing about how a degree at Cincinnati, over time, had been devalued beyond recognition. On Tuesday, Huggins finally got lawyered out of a job.
"Character counts," Zimpher would say. "Our coaches must be exemplary role models on the court and off."
What a better place major college athletics would be if more campus leaders had Zimpher's fortitude and nerve. Take Betsy Hoffman, for example, the educator who presided over the University of Colorado recruiting scandal. An independent commission told Hoffman that sex, alcohol and drugs were used as football recruiting tools, and that coach Gary Barnett had "behaved with insensitivity toward issues of sexual assault," and that "systemic failings that jeopardized students' safety" should be blamed on the school's leadership.
Hoffman didn't fire Barnett, administrators, herself, anybody. She did less for the women's movement than Anna Nicole Smith. "(Hoffman) was intimidated by the good old boys and she wanted to fit in with the good old boys and she let them do what they wanted to do," said Kathy Redmond, founder of the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes.
Zimpher wasn't intimidated by Huggins and the garden-variety yahoos who worship at the altar of false Division I gods. The Cincinnati president wasn't intimidated by a coach who had been to the Final Four, a coach who was two first-semester halves away from his 400th victory at the school.
So what if she'll have to make a seven-figure payment to Huggins to make him disappear. At least Zimpher had the guts to cut the check.
Consider James Duderstadt, the president at Michigan when the school made a landmark campus-wide deal with Nike, sold everything and anything the Fab Five touched, and nurtured a football program with a budget to put George Steinbrenner's to shame. Duderstadt would preach reform and rage against major-college ills in his book, "Intercollegiate Athletics and the American University," written after he left office, of course.
"I'd be the first to acknowledge I should've done more," Duderstadt would tell me as the Chris Webber case and NCAA probation lurked around the Ann Arbor bend.
Even in the Ivy League one can find evidence that after-the-fact reformers are a dime-a-dozen breed. "There's an ever-widening divide between the academic and athletic sides of the house at (Ivy League) schools," William G. Bowen, former Princeton president, would tell me as he promoted the book he co-authored, "Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values." Bowen would write that Ivy League schools served up one set of rules for the jocks and another for the nerds.
But on Bowen's watch, the Ivy League restored freshman basketball eligibility, added a 10th game to the football schedule, and waved the pom poms during Pennsylvania's charge to the 1979 Final Four and during Princeton's near-miss upset of top-seeded Georgetown in the 1989 NCAA tournament.
"I know so much more now," Bowen would concede. "When I was president, I had real worries and concerns. ... But at that time I wasn't clever enough or smart enough to understand this was something to look at."
Zimpher will never have to make that confession. At a time when college presidents do everything for their multimillionaire coaches but fill the Gatorade cups and man the tackling dummies, Zimpher checked Huggins out of the game.
It wasn't easy. Cincinnati is sitting on the Big East's doorstep, and recruits will want to stay clear of the smoky ruins Huggins leaves in his wake. But the pain is worth the gain. Cincinnati proved it is not an appendage of an athletic program that had, at times, majored in embarrassment. Other educators need to follow Nancy Zimpher's lead.
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/4803192
More schools should follow Zimpher's lead
Ian O'Connor / Special to FOXSports.com
Posted: 27 minutes ago // front-end hack to remove postedTime from Rumors page until a better way can be determined if (document.URL.indexOf("/name/FS/rumors") != -1) document.getElementById("postedTime").style.display = 'none';
College presidents always find religion too late in the game, long after the winners and losers are defined in the bright scoreboard lights. They talk about reform one minute, then cower under their desks the next, too afraid to take on the big-time sports machine that has steamrolled across academia without a stop light in sight.
Nancy Zimpher finally held up her right hand, traffic-cop style, and brought the madness to a dead halt. The president of the University of Cincinnati told Bob Huggins she could no longer serve as an enabler to a basketball program with rap sheets and graduation rates that would make Jerry Tarkanian blush.
The moment Huggins stumbled through that drunk-driving arrest tape last year was the moment Zimpher decided enough was enough. The coach's demise had become a matter of when, not if.
Zimpher was through hearing about how a degree at Cincinnati, over time, had been devalued beyond recognition. On Tuesday, Huggins finally got lawyered out of a job.
"Character counts," Zimpher would say. "Our coaches must be exemplary role models on the court and off."
What a better place major college athletics would be if more campus leaders had Zimpher's fortitude and nerve. Take Betsy Hoffman, for example, the educator who presided over the University of Colorado recruiting scandal. An independent commission told Hoffman that sex, alcohol and drugs were used as football recruiting tools, and that coach Gary Barnett had "behaved with insensitivity toward issues of sexual assault," and that "systemic failings that jeopardized students' safety" should be blamed on the school's leadership.
Hoffman didn't fire Barnett, administrators, herself, anybody. She did less for the women's movement than Anna Nicole Smith. "(Hoffman) was intimidated by the good old boys and she wanted to fit in with the good old boys and she let them do what they wanted to do," said Kathy Redmond, founder of the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes.
Zimpher wasn't intimidated by Huggins and the garden-variety yahoos who worship at the altar of false Division I gods. The Cincinnati president wasn't intimidated by a coach who had been to the Final Four, a coach who was two first-semester halves away from his 400th victory at the school.
So what if she'll have to make a seven-figure payment to Huggins to make him disappear. At least Zimpher had the guts to cut the check.
Consider James Duderstadt, the president at Michigan when the school made a landmark campus-wide deal with Nike, sold everything and anything the Fab Five touched, and nurtured a football program with a budget to put George Steinbrenner's to shame. Duderstadt would preach reform and rage against major-college ills in his book, "Intercollegiate Athletics and the American University," written after he left office, of course.
"I'd be the first to acknowledge I should've done more," Duderstadt would tell me as the Chris Webber case and NCAA probation lurked around the Ann Arbor bend.
Even in the Ivy League one can find evidence that after-the-fact reformers are a dime-a-dozen breed. "There's an ever-widening divide between the academic and athletic sides of the house at (Ivy League) schools," William G. Bowen, former Princeton president, would tell me as he promoted the book he co-authored, "Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values." Bowen would write that Ivy League schools served up one set of rules for the jocks and another for the nerds.
But on Bowen's watch, the Ivy League restored freshman basketball eligibility, added a 10th game to the football schedule, and waved the pom poms during Pennsylvania's charge to the 1979 Final Four and during Princeton's near-miss upset of top-seeded Georgetown in the 1989 NCAA tournament.
"I know so much more now," Bowen would concede. "When I was president, I had real worries and concerns. ... But at that time I wasn't clever enough or smart enough to understand this was something to look at."
Zimpher will never have to make that confession. At a time when college presidents do everything for their multimillionaire coaches but fill the Gatorade cups and man the tackling dummies, Zimpher checked Huggins out of the game.
It wasn't easy. Cincinnati is sitting on the Big East's doorstep, and recruits will want to stay clear of the smoky ruins Huggins leaves in his wake. But the pain is worth the gain. Cincinnati proved it is not an appendage of an athletic program that had, at times, majored in embarrassment. Other educators need to follow Nancy Zimpher's lead.
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/4803192
Upvote
0
I heard she said something about anyone who didn't graduate was a failure. Not sure how exactly she phrased it but I know burbank was going on about this on his show yesterday.sandgk said:
Upvote
0