Local Issues....Pick one

**Boo Boo** · March 28th, 2006, 12:01 AM

I'm starting to think that Cronin was in the works from the very beginning of the season. I think Kennedy knew that, and was paid very well for this year and given the chance to prove himself. Which he did.

As I said, I jsut hink the PR dept of UC did not handle this well. I do think once next season starts....all will be forgotten. At least I hope so.

**reason** · March 28th, 2006, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Oldie Blonde Kenobi:
I'm starting to think that Cronin was in the works from the very beginning of the season. I think Kennedy knew that, and was paid very well for this year and given the chance to prove himself. Which he did.

As I said, I jsut hink the PR dept of UC did not handle this well. I do think once next season starts....all will be forgotten. At least I hope so.

BTW, I do think the administration needs to work on it's PR, but I also think Huggins pretty much waged a media campaign against Zimpher, one that has taken on a life of it's own.

I mean every little thing is now blamed on Zimpher, even the selection committee's decision. (As it turns out, it looks like they did a really good job.)

I found an awesome summary on Duke.com regarding last summer's debacle. It's more thorough than my analysis, but it fits to a T what I've been saying. Will post later.

**travelinman** · March 28th, 2006, 11:56 AM

Duke sucks

**reason** · March 28th, 2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Law Dawg:
Zimpher was brought in to rein in Huggins. Huggy Bear had gotten too big for his britches. I'll check with my CPD sources about any prior Huggins "incidents"

Zimpher also wouldn't have given Cronin a 6 year deal if she was trying to sever all ties to Huggins.

.

I have sent you an email regarding Huggins.

**reason** · March 28th, 2006, 01:22 PM

I do believe that Nancy should have stepped in and fired him immediately, since it was obvious (or should have been) that the lame duck 2 year run-off period wasn't going to work.

In hindsight, I think firing Huggins would have been the best option. Here are reasons why they didn't fire right away:

1. You don't just fire someone like Bob Huggins. Yeah, it's easy for you to say fire the guy, but firing someone who just raised you from the dead and took you to 14 straight NCAA tournament appearances isn't exactly the easiest or most logical thing to do.

2. When this all came down, Zimpher was brand new. She may not have had the clout to do the deed, nor the credibility points to outright fire the guy, particularly since the University gave Huggins free reign for so long.

3. The University may have felt that nudging him out instead of firing him outright was the more politically correct and professional thing to do.

Think about it: One of the primary arguments people have against Zimpher is that she DIDN'T fire Huggins instead of letting him stay on. Crazy, ain't it?

It can also be argued that maybe the administration didn't think Huggins would accept a no-win lame duck coaching position, which is exactly what Huggins did - at least outwardly. It's clear Huggins only took the position simply to wage a media campaign against the University and specifically against Zimpher.

4. Extracurriculars. I'm fairly convinced the general public doesn't know the full details in the Bob Huggins file. If this stuff I've heard is true, it would go a long way toward explaining the nature and timing of the termination. Along the way, the University figured that some of this stuff was simply too much of a public relations nightmare and Huggins was too much of a liability.

*********************

Say what you want about Zimpher, but UC's rankings are up, student retention is up, enrollment is up, donations to the University are up, student satisfaction is up (according to an independent, third party survey).

From my own personal experience, I can tell you the school is so much more customer service oriented than it was when I attended back in the 80's. I had difficulty during the enrollment process over a year ago, so I filled out an online form. In short order, I had the assistant dean of the college call me with an apology, followed by a call from the head of the department. My problem was solved.

That NEVER would have happened years ago. This type of thing is the direct result of Zimpher's efforts to put students at the forefront. There's still work to be done, but things have improved dramatically.

My two cents worth.

[ March 28, 2006 09:28 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]

**Boo Boo** · March 28th, 2006, 05:11 PM

Reason, I think you have some very valid points.

My daughter has heard that UC's rankings for Dap, Engineering programs have gone down. Now that's from the college campus rumor mills and I don't have much stock in it. They have been proven wrong before. She's out of there in June(Thank God)

I do know my sister works with Nancy on occasion, and does not like her. She pretty tight-lipped as to why.

As for Huggins, your assesemnt is close. I think Huggins was instramental in waging this media war. I was really pissed when he showed up of the X-town shootout. He got more camera time then Kennedy...and Bob knew it was going to cause a stir. The classy thing would of been to watch it somewhere else IMO.

The one factor you did miss, was the move to the Big East. I do think Huggin's record(Not his police one) was a little bit of a help. Firing Huggins and an uncertain baksetball program, could of been a deal breaker. Let's face it, the foootball team does have much pull. LOL

**reason** · March 28th, 2006, 05:19 PM

As for Huggins, your assesemnt is close. I think Huggins was instramental in waging this media war. I was really pissed when he showed up of the X-town shootout. He got more camera time then Kennedy...and Bob knew it was going to cause a stir. The classy thing would of been to watch it somewhere else IMO.

Thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU!

I said the exact same thing! I'm watching the game thinking WHY! WHY IS HUGGINS THERE?

I mean, we were coming down the home stretch and UC is playing its heart out...and we saw Huggins something like 15 times in the last three minutes (literally). He got more time than Kennedy and Miller combined.

I argued this point on Cincinnati.com, and Huggins lovers saw no problem with Huggins' presence.

I think the courtside seat at the West Virginia game was even more heinous.

Oh...btw, after posting an anti-Huggins article from dukebasketballreport.com on Bearcatlair.com (which was very well written and documented), I was blacklisted from the UC site!

I was very careful to abide by the rules (no profanity, etc), and this article was the last thing I posted. I'm awaiting for the response to the question why I was blacklisted.

In the meantime, my post was met with profanity by Huggins lovers, yet they can still post. I'll provide the "offending article."

[ March 28, 2006 01:21 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]

**reason** · March 28th, 2006, 05:20 PM

From Dukebasketballreport.com

This is an excellent summary of what I've been saying all along. Most awesome. Especially the part of how Huggins has been using the media against UC:

The Demise Of Bob Huggins 8/24/2005
The reaction in Cincinnati to the ultimatum given to Bob Huggins (resign or be fired) has been fast and furious.

The Cincinnati Enquirer has a page up for people to make comments about the situation, and the posts have been overwhelmingly angry.

And surprisingly, Nick Lachey, husband of Jessica Simpson, was wound up enough to write an article for the Cincinnati paper which sums up the basic position of the Supporters Of Bob (S.O.B's? Nahhh....)

We've listened to Cincinnati talk radio today via the Web and can't remember hearing a single comment against Huggins.

We're guessing unless you live in Cincinnati, you can't really understand the hold Huggins has on the city's affection.

And yet.

It's hard to overlook some things. One of the dissenting posts on the Enquirer's site read: "My favorite memory is when the player punched the police horse. No, it was when the one player used drugs and never got booted off the team. No, it was when the one player duct taped his roommate to the chair and beat him up. No, it was when the one player beat up his pregnant girlfriend and didnt (sic) get booted off the team. No, it was when the one player stole the University phone charge number and ran up a big bill and never got booted."

We have a Cincinnati fan who writes periodically to protest and say that these charges are usually not quite accurate, and that the Bearcats actually do graduate players. We just wanted to publicly note that to save him the time from saying it again.

The correspondence between attorneys, which is out, is revealing. Monica Rimai, general counsel for the University, and Richard L. Katz, who represents Huggins, starts off quite cordially, although Mr. Katz, who seems to be a bit of a rah-rah-go-team type, perhaps made a mistake in addressing her by her first name.

Well at least until her letter of August 8th. While relentlessly professional and cordial, Rimai really goes in for the kill:

"...If the past is indeed prologue, Mr. Huggins' actual track record of behavior belies an ability to deliver on his purported commitment."
"For example, the information you have shared with me states that over the course of his career at UC, 27 of his players....have eventually graduated from UC or another University. It is important, however, that we put that number into context. While coaching at UC, 95 students have either played for or been recruited by Mr. Huggins. Thus, according to your data, less than 30 percent of your client's players have graduated or gone on to success in the NBA. Moreover, twenty-seven graduates over sixteen years averages out to less than two per year, a rather unimpressive number given that first and foremost, UC is in the business of educating and graduating its students."
"In fact, according to [the] NCAA...since the 1990 recruiting class the overall graduation rate for UC basketball players is 20 percent, the lowest graduation rate of all athletic teams at UC. In four of nine reporting years, the graduation rate was zero."
"Moreover, by the end of this past Spring quarter the basketball team had posted the lowest average GPA of any other team in the athletic department. Of the players on that team, one student had a 0.0 gpa during the spring quarter, another would have, but for two incompletes, and two other students withdrew altogether...these 27 [graduates] are the exception not the rule for hte basketball program during the last 16 years."
"In addition, Mr. Huggins continues to recruit individuals that exhibit a disregard for the law and respectful behavior....For UC basketball recruit (sic) classes between 1990 and 2006, 21 of Mr. Huggins players have had significant encounters with law enforcement, most of those consisting of arrests, with many ending in convictions. This disturbing pattern continues right up to the present as three of Mr. Huggins' recruits or players have had very serious charges brought against them during the past year. Mr. Huggins' own behavior over the course of the last sixteen years, both on and off the court, demonstrates an inability to consistently model disciplined and professional conduct."
"In short, although Mr. Huggins' may claim some specific successes, the University is seeking an environment and climate where the development of the whole student is sought and the successful education of all our students is realized. And while some may argue that academically challenged individuals who experience difficulty conforming their behavior to appropriate norms deserve a chance at success that a winning collegiate basketball team can provide, UC believes that it can better advance its mission by building a winning program around scholar-athletes who earn degrees that will allow them to succeed not only in athletics but more importantly in life generally."
After this letter, Katz, obviously infuriated, drops any attempt at salutation, and simply starts his letter: "This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 8..."

Up until this point, having no dog in this fight, we found Rimai to be the smoother of the two attorneys, and certainly the more articulate. At right about here is where Katz just starts letting it fly:

"Although responding to the University's allegations means that I stoop to it's level I find it necessary on behalf of my client to refute the absurd contentions."
"I also submit that the University speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It cannot make positive contributions towards solving economic and social challenges while at the same time casting aside those who may come to it for help as a result of economic and/or social disadvantages."
"Your suggestion that earning a degree is the only road to success in life flies directly in the face of and is a direct slap in the face to...Kenyon Martin, Nick Van Exel and others who have made millions [in the NBA]."
"...[m]any of the wealthiest individuals in the nation have built their wealth without college degrees. Bill Gates is one who comes to mind. These people probably believe that they are successful."
"Furthermore, the statement that he continues to recruit individuals 'that exhibit a disregard for hte law and respectful behavior' demeans everyone that he has recruited. Are you familiar with the facts surrounding each of the alleged '21 players' who have had significant encounters with law enforcement'?
"My client would also like to know what is meant by the characterization that 'the profile of the 2005-06 men's basketball team projects limited academic success and off-court discipline problems'? Has there been some expert evaluation that my client and his staff are unaware of or is this based upon an expert evaluation of someone not qualified to make such a statement? ... Shall we suggest to the basketball team that they are expected to fail and cause off the court problems this year since that is what their 'profile' indicates?"
"If the University desires to sever it's relationship with Bob Huggins then we are demanding $3,630,000...we will agree to negotiate the manner of payment. The alternative is a guaranteed extension to a total of five (5) years or a restoration of the four year roll-over contract."
"Please be further advised that this demand will remain open until 9 am on Tuesday, August 16, 2005. I cannot guarantee confidentiality after that time if this matter is not resolved."
The sarcasm and the threat Katz employed did not have a positive effect. Back to the unflappable Rimai, whose response is pretty much an instant classic:

"Dear Mr. Katz...Thank you for contacting me on August 9...regarding my letter of August 8...discussing the termination of Mr. Huggins' employment relationship with the University...and your letter of August 12...also in response to my August 8th letter. I appreciate your candor regarding this manner. Suffice it to say that our clients have remarkably different perspectives on the present situation, lending further credence to the notion that it is time for the University and Mr. Huggins to part company."

Ms. Rimai then spells out the specific legalities, which you can read for yourself, before slipping in a very professional insult: "...[you] argue that because UC failed to give subsequent notice, there remains three years on Mr. Huggins employment contract, not the two that we have discussed during the course of our negotiations. Frankly, Mr. Katz, I simply do not follow your logic on this claim."

Rimai continues:

"On May 11, 2005, a meeting did take place...to discuss your client's employment status. At the meeting, Mr. Huggins was presented several options to consider [about ending his career at UC]...the University directed Mr. Huggins to consider these options and to then contact Mr. Wesner, through you, with a decision....Neither you nor Mr. Huggins contacted UC as directed by the institution...Instead, Mr. Huggins held a press conference..where he announced that he planned on fulfilling his current contract instead of retiring...Perhaps more importantly, a continued long term employment relationship...makes little sense as a practical matter given all that has transpired in the media since May 11th....In sum, UC intends to terminate your client's contract...without cause..on a date certain.
"While there are significant differences between our clients' positions, with some creativity and a willingness to consider alternative approaches, I still believe we can find a mutually acceptable compromise. I do not believe, however, that we can find such a resolution if the matter once again becomes headline news. In my experience, public negotations are never productive because they stifle creativity and discourage candor. Indeed, I suspect earlier opportunities to resolve this situation were lost because of hyperbole and misrepresentations in the media...That said, you were very clear in your August 12th letter that after Tuesday morning you would no longer be bound by our confidentiality agreement. Let me be equally clear in saying that UC will not negotiate a resolution of this matter in the media, but instead, will execute its rights under the existing contract.
On August 15, Katz restored salutations, addressing her as "Dear Ms. Rimai." The letter is terse, only six paragraphs, contesting again the length of the contract and again demanding a list of the 21 players who had contact with the judicial system.

In Rimai's answer on August 23, the repeated warnings come to fruition:

"In addition, notwithstanding our agreement ot keep this matter confidential, information has been communicated to members of the media and influential members of the...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."
She then offers a timeline of events which led to this point.

Kind, but unnecessary: she has pretty much eviscerated him.

And while the University seems to have the law on its side, the Huggins camp clearly has the mob in their corner, and there is some indication in these do***ents that they mean to use it.

Rimai clearly understands the implicit threat Katz makes when he suggests breaking that he may start talking publicly. After reading the comments readers posted on Cincinnati.com and listening to some of the worst sports talk radio we've ever heard, it's clearly a potent weapon.

And for Huggins, it's a familiar weapon. His teams try to use intimidation, and at times, they do it well.

The problem with that as a coaching style is that when teams get past the intimidation, much like with bullies, there's not much left.

The same goes for this legal dispute. Rather than negotiate rationally, the Huggins camp chose to use sarcasm and attempted to intimidate the University by threatening to go public.

Didn't work.

You can agree or disagree with President Nancy Zimpher's desire to raise standards across the board at Cincinnati, but it's hard to argue with this: she engaged in a high-stakes poker game with Huggins and won. When the emotions of the day wear off, and people realize that he was essentially trying to blackmail the school, things may change somewhat.

Or they may not, and she may get run out of town.

That won't change the fact that she's very courageous. In fact, dumping Huggins may turn her into a hero among academics.

And at the end of the day, Huggins also has to face up to this: he has managed to intimidate a lot of men in basketball.

But two women who are new to their jobs at Cincinnati refused to back down. And that's the way it ended for old-school Bob Huggins.

**reason** · March 28th, 2006, 05:31 PM

Oldie,

There are many standards of measurement for academic programs, so what you say may be true. I cannot vouch for engineering, but my understanding is that DAAP is on a roll:

http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.asp?id=3443

About not liking Zimpher. I've come to the conclusion that she probably is a bitch. I don't care if she's a bitch if she's getting the job done.

Sorry to get all theoretical and such, but UC was in sore need of a cultural change in how it treats its customer base (students) and how it operates. Cultural change is enormously difficult, because as we all know, the unwritten rules are more important in how a company operates than the written rules.

Zimpher has had to rewrite the unwritten rules, so I can imagine that being a bitch may be a required thing.

The long and the short of it is that she was brought in to change the status quo. And as we all know this town is all about the status quo. I think Zimpher's doing great things, and for that reason most of us are going to hate her.

**reason** · March 28th, 2006, 08:19 PM

The one factor you did miss, was the move to the Big East. I do think Huggin's record(Not his police one) was a little bit of a help. Firing Huggins and an uncertain baksetball program, could of been a deal breaker. Let's face it, the foootball team does have much pull. LOL

I think that's a good point, but my argument against that is that Huggins' DUI and a host of other player problems (Legree's two citations, Roy Bright, Vincent Banks, etc) all came AFTER UC's entrance into the Big East. Not to mention this all happened just as the Pres was unveiling her academic plan.

I mean Huggins timing was so bonehead it's unbelievable. What's worse is that one of his arguments is (per the ESPN interview) "They should have fired me THEN!"

Riiiiight.

You know it's kind of the same thing with Kennedy whining he didn't make it into the tournament. He knew he wasn't a lock, but he *should* have been in.

Once you put your future into someone else's hands - which is what both Kennedy and Huggins did - don't come back and bitch when things don't go your way.

Take your pill and swallow it.

Huggins made a career of being Mr. Tough Guy. He wouldn't shake Gillen's hand because he "wasn't a phoney".

Well, what a phoney: Holding a press conference, telling everyone he's staying out of loyalty when behind the scenes he's saying he's not going to stay unless he gets an extension.

He frittered the summer away while we could have been recruiting, looking for a coach, etc.

Then to act like it was all a surprise, well, Huggy was just using his fans.

I don't know about you, but I don't like to be used.

Thread: Local Issues....Pick one

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions