West Virginia Football Trouble

[SonomaCat]

It would be a sad day for the integrity of student-athletics if Kramer walked away with a $1M settlement. Only corporate executives are supposed to be able to fail on such a magnificent scale and then get paid on the way out the door.

[Yorick]

I really don't understand on what grounds his suit is. according to the paper, he did not have a contract in place and they gave him one year severance pay. They initially offered him a 3 year contract, but withdrew it before it was signed, then offered a 1 year that was never signed. To me, the most he could go for is 3 years pay @ $150,000, but maybe that is way too logical.

[crazycat]

It would be a sad day for the integrity of student-athletics if Kramer walked away with a $1M settlement. Only corporate executives are supposed to be able to fail on such a magnificent scale and then get paid on the way out the door.

It's a much sadder day when people make judgements without knowing the facts. You're feebly trying to set this up to make Kramer look like the bad guy no matter what comes forward. Don't you want to hear both sides of the story or at least feel that the monetary settlement in some way tells you the story? Seems like you have a protect the University at all costs attitude here. It will cost the State X amount of dollars to go to court, but not $1 million, so that should tell you something if it's the case. If he gets next to nothing, then obviously Kramer didn't have a leg to stand on. Just wait and see, you may be guessing right on this.

If Kramer walks away with that much money, please explain how this is a sad day for student-athletes, but not a reflection on a poorly run institution that can let something like this (an improper firing) happen?

[crazycat]

I really don't understand on what grounds his suit is. according to the paper, he did not have a contract in place and they gave him one year severance pay. They initially offered him a 3 year contract, but withdrew it before it was signed, then offered a 1 year that was never signed. To me, the most he could go for is 3 years pay @ $150,000, but maybe that is way too logical.

He's looking for lost 'potential' wages. He and Edwards contend that his reputation was soiled to the point that he can no longer attain the earnings that he would have had had MSU not 'wrongfully' fired him.

[SonomaCat]

It would be a sad day for the integrity of student-athletics if Kramer walked away with a $1M settlement. Only corporate executives are supposed to be able to fail on such a magnificent scale and then get paid on the way out the door.

It's a much sadder day when people make judgements without knowing the facts. You're feebly trying to set this up to make Kramer look like the bad guy no matter what comes forward. Don't you want to hear both sides of the story or at least feel that the monetary settlement in some way tells you the story? Seems like you have a protect the University at all costs attitude here. It will cost the State X amount of dollars to go to court, but not $1 million, so that should tell you something if it's the case. If he gets next to nothing, then obviously Kramer didn't have a leg to stand on. Just wait and see, you may be guessing right on this.

If Kramer walks away with that much money, please explain how this is a sad day for student-athletes, but not a reflection on a poorly run institution that can let something like this (an improper firing) happen?

Ummm, what facts am I missing?

Has the program been failing academically for four straight years now, resulting in penalties among the highest in the country?

Yes.

Has our football program developed a strong association with images of murderers and drug dealers in the eyes of the general public?

Yes.

Would I look down on any program that had these attributes if it wasn't my own school?

Yes.

What other side of the story do we want to hear? How none of that was Kramer's fault and how he didn't deserve to be fired for it? Those statements would not be "facts," and are instead merely philosophical and legal arguments.

And philosophical and legal arguments don't offset my statement that it would be a sad day for the integrity of student-athletics for a man who utterly failed in his oversight of the academic progress of the student-athletes in his football program to be awarded $1M. It would be the embodiment of everything that is wrong with college athletics, and a perfect example to be used for those who feel that college athletics are a detriment to educational institutions.

And yes, I do feel that protecting the University (that place that is supposed to exist for the purpose of educating students) against claims of a person who was fired for not having his values aligned with that of the mission of the university (again, to produce quality graduates) is the right answer.

[crazycat]

It would be a sad day for the integrity of student-athletics if Kramer walked away with a $1M settlement. Only corporate executives are supposed to be able to fail on such a magnificent scale and then get paid on the way out the door.

It's a much sadder day when people make judgements without knowing the facts. You're feebly trying to set this up to make Kramer look like the bad guy no matter what comes forward. Don't you want to hear both sides of the story or at least feel that the monetary settlement in some way tells you the story? Seems like you have a protect the University at all costs attitude here. It will cost the State X amount of dollars to go to court, but not $1 million, so that should tell you something if it's the case. If he gets next to nothing, then obviously Kramer didn't have a leg to stand on. Just wait and see, you may be guessing right on this.

If Kramer walks away with that much money, please explain how this is a sad day for student-athletes, but not a reflection on a poorly run institution that can let something like this (an improper firing) happen?

Ummm, what facts am I missing?

Has the program been failing academically for four straight years now, resulting in penalties among the highest in the country?

Yes.

Has our football program developed a strong association with images of murderers and drug dealers in the eyes of the general public?

Yes.

Would I look down on any program that had these attributes if it wasn't my own school?

Yes.

What other side of the story do we want to hear? How none of that was Kramer's fault and how he didn't deserve to be fired for it? Those statements would not be "facts," and are instead merely philosophical and legal arguments.

And philosophical and legal arguments don't offset my statement that it would be a sad day for the integrity of student-athletics for a man who utterly failed in his oversight of the academic progress of the student-athletes in his football program to be awarded $1M. It would be the embodiment of everything that is wrong with college athletics, and a perfect example to be used for those who feel that college athletics are a detriment to educational institutions.

And yes, I do feel that protecting the University (that place that is supposed to exist for the purpose of educating students) against claims of a person who was fired for not having his values aligned with that of the mission of the university (again, to produce quality graduates) is the right answer.

The facts I'm refering to are the ones pertaining to how Kramer's firing was handled. But I'm pretty sure you know that. You've obviously made up your mind that Kramer was fired properly and nothing MSU or any court could say or do will change your mind. I can accept that stance, but will never agree with it. So there's really no point in continuing on with this.

[homeytennis]

If they are paying him off for the duration of the contract, then he should have no damages. I suspect the University can bring in an expert witness say a former D-1 athletic director to say he could earn X as an assistant coach at UCLA doing X's and O's and that Kramer is actually dollars ahead with this decision. He could also go and try and coach in that league called the NFL or in the CFL.

[SonomaCat]

And as I've said many times ... the amount of money that Kramer does or does not get is not a measure of whether he did or did not deserve to get fired. That's merely a measure of the ability of Edwards to utilize the existing laws and legal system to extract money from MSU. If he ends up getting punitive damages, then and only then would I take it as a sign that MSU was in the wrong in firing him.

And unless anybody wants to argue that every CEO or other corporate exec who gets fired for poor performance and then pockets millions of company money as a settlement as they walk out the door is a testament to the fact that they didn't deserve to get fired, either, then I assume we will allow that myth to die its deserving death.

[SonomaCat]

The facts I'm refering to are the ones pertaining to how Kramer's firing was handled. But I'm pretty sure you know that. You've obviously made up your mind that Kramer was fired properly and nothing MSU or any court could say or do will change your mind. I can accept that stance, but will never agree with it. So there's really no point in continuing on with this.

Those arguments have no bearing whatsoever on my statement.

If Kramer is awarded $1M as a result of being fired for failing to properly oversee the academic progress of the players he recruited, it will be a sad day for student-athletics.

I have made no statements about whether he was "properly fired." Again, that is a legal distinction, and it has no bearing on what I am talking about.

My original stand stands on its own as self-evident, independent of any legal argument.

[Yorick]

Just to add some fuel to the fire:

Campus hearsay says that Kramer and Fields were summoned to Gamble's office. A press conference had been schedule to announce 1. That we had been penalized by the NCAA for APR of the football team and Kramer was taking full responsibility for his failure in this area and would correct the issue in the coming year, or 2. that Kramer was fired. In Gamble and Fields told Kramer that he could take responsibility for the APR or leave. he could not see how the academic problems of football players was his problem and therefore would not take responsibility for it.

Again, rumors.

[crazycat]

The facts I'm refering to are the ones pertaining to how Kramer's firing was handled. But I'm pretty sure you know that. You've obviously made up your mind that Kramer was fired properly and nothing MSU or any court could say or do will change your mind. I can accept that stance, but will never agree with it. So there's really no point in continuing on with this.

Those arguments have no bearing whatsoever on my statement.

If Kramer is awarded $1M as a result of being fired for failing to properly oversee the academic progress of the players he recruited, it will be a sad day for student-athletics.

I have made no statements about whether he was "properly fired." Again, that is a legal distinction, and it has no bearing on what I am talking about.

My original stand stands on its own as self-evident, independent of any legal argument.

That's nice a personal sidebar to know about, but this (proper firing, improper dismissal I guess is the correct term) is what the pursuit of a settlement is about. If he was improperly fired and his reputation has been sullied and he cannot find work because of it, then he is entitled to restitution from those responsible. Then 'they' will have been held accountable (there's that word again).

Kramer would never be awarded $1 million for improper oversight of the football team, he'd be awarded that amount because he was improperly dismissed by the institution. I.e.: There was a lack of oversight on his firing.

[SonomaCat]

Just to add some fuel to the fire:

Campus hearsay says that Kramer and Fields were summoned to Gamble's office. A press conference had been schedule to announce 1. That we had been penalized by the NCAA for APR of the football team and Kramer was taking full responsibility for his failure in this area and would correct the issue in the coming year, or 2. that Kramer was fired. In Gamble and Fields told Kramer that he could take responsibility for the APR or leave. he could not see how the academic problems of football players was his problem and therefore would not take responsibility for it.

Again, rumors.

That's not inconsistent with what he seemed to suggest (that it wasn't his responsibility) in his press conference with Edwards on the first day of the coaching candidate interviews.

[SonomaCat]

Kramer would never be awarded $1 million for improper oversight of the football team, he'd be awarded that amount because he was improperly dismissed by the institution. I.e.: There was a lack of oversight on his firing.

In other words, he would be awarded $1M because they didn't dot an i or cross a technical t when they fired him for all of the very valid reasons we have discussed?

I would consider that a sad day for student-athletics ... that's not the kind of thing that a University (or society) should be wasting money on.

As for this "reputation" talk ... are you guys really saying that getting fired by MSU would sully his reputation, but that his program's academic record and criminal record did NOT sully his reputation? That one doesn't make much sense to me. If he was applying for a position at your school, knowing what you know about our program (and let's pretend he wasn't fired by the previous school), would you hire him? I doubt many people would objectively say yes. Fair or not, the failures of the players in his program off the field sullied his reputation more than MSU could ever do (unless they start telling stories in the course of a deposition ... that could get interesting).

[tetoncat]

Look at the many coaches that have been fired recently for either personal or professional issues. Nuehiesel, the guy from Colorado, mike Price. Most have landed on their feet in another coaching job even though they were the ones that screwed up. If Kramer has a good enough coaching reputation he will get another job. He has contacts and could use them. Whether or not he wants to be an assistant coach is another question. I think some schools would look at the good he did in resurrecting MSU Football, look at the negatives that have come out in the press and from his firing, put restrictions in place to help prevent them from happening again and give him a chance. i do not believe he will not have opportunities for another job unless something comes out in a court case that he knowingly looked the other way on grades and perhaps drug use on the team.

[Cat_gld]

Bobby Knight man-handled student athletes at Indiana U and was fired for that and perhaps a number of issues. Knowing this up front, Texas Tech had no problem hiring him....although perhaps for less $$. Kramers sullied reputaion because of his firing is BS. If he has an achilles heel, it's a slightly better than mediocre win/loss record in 1_AA football.

[crazycat]

Kramer would never be awarded $1 million for improper oversight of the football team, he'd be awarded that amount because he was improperly dismissed by the institution. I.e.: There was a lack of oversight on his firing.

In other words, he would be awarded $1M because they didn't dot an i or cross a technical t when they fired him for all of the very valid reasons we have discussed?

I would consider that a sad day for student-athletics ... that's not the kind of thing that a University (or society) should be wasting money on.

As for this "reputation" talk ... are you guys really saying that getting fired by MSU would sully his reputation, but that his program's academic record and criminal record did NOT sully his reputation? That one doesn't make much sense to me. If he was applying for a position at your school, knowing what you know about our program (and let's pretend he wasn't fired by the previous school), would you hire him? I doubt many people would objectively say yes. Fair or not, the failures of the players in his program off the field sullied his reputation more than MSU could ever do (unless they start telling stories in the course of a deposition ... that could get interesting).

You're persistence is getting you no where. This isn't about dotting i's and crossing t's it's about right and wrong. You seem to have lost touch with that. Kramer is accusing the school of wrongful dismissal. The school isn't just going to shell out a considerable amount of cash if it was in the right. It's the school's responsibility to understand the laws of Montana in terms of hiring and firing employees. Their inability to do that and Kramer's ability to do that "Could" represent the gap that will be reflected in a sum of cash for a settlement. If the school is right, then you have nothing to worry about -- as all of Winifred will be able to send all its children and its children's children to school to at Grand Ol' MSU. That said, opine all you want about what 'should' be right and wrong, but please acknowledge the law as it pertains to this case. We all know you're capable of that. Just as I am capable of seeing that the parties will either come to an agreement or this will move on to a higher order and the courts will decide. Perhaps you'll be selected for jury duty and can sway your peers to invoke jury nullification as a last resort.

[SonomaCat]

You're persistence is getting you no where. This isn't about dotting i's and crossing t's it's about right and wrong. You seem to have lost touch with that. Kramer is accusing the school of wrongful dismissal. The school isn't just going to shell out a considerable amount of cash if it was in the right. It's the school's responsibility to understand the laws of Montana in terms of hiring and firing employees. Their inability to do that and Kramer's ability to do that "Could" represent the gap that will be reflected in a sum of cash for a settlement. If the school is right, then you have nothing to worry about -- as all of Winifred will be able to send all its children and its children's children to school to at Grand Ol' MSU. That said, opine all you want about what 'should' be right and wrong, but please acknowledge the law as it pertains to this case. We all know you're capable of that. Just as I am capable of seeing that the parties will either come to an agreement or this will move on to a higher order and the courts will decide. Perhaps you'll be selected for jury duty and can sway your peers to invoke jury nullification as a last resort.

True or false: A person can be fired for failing at to do their job competently, but still win a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

If you say false, do you want me to start dredging up lists of absurd cases that the plaintiffs have won, despite obviously deserving to be fired?

Are you really taking the position that every single piece of ligitation in this country is justified and based solely on the principles of right and wrong? Is every plaintiff who wins a settlement proven to be "right?" That's certainly what you are arguing so far. And I respectfully disagree.

I have done nothing but speak in very clear and precise terms this whole time -- I haven't denied that Kramer might win money from MSU (just the opposite). I have also stressed that whether he wins money or not does not detract from "sad day for student-athletes" thing.

I have also said nothing of jury nullification (which is a term that only applies to criminal cases, but whatever...).

So, once again, plainly and simply, it will be a sad day for student-athletics if Kramer is awarded $1M for getting fired by MSU. If you disagree, that's fine. But I personally think it is a horrible use of money that can and should be used for much more noble purposes (yes, like educating kids from small towns in Montana, for instance).

[GOKATS]

Why this thread was ever on the Bobcat Athletics Forum to begin with is beyond me, but since it's been hijacked so bad to this point I hope somebody (BAC you are a mod, right?) can get the pi$$ing match off the Bobcat Athletics Forum. JMHO

[crazycat]

You're persistence is getting you no where. This isn't about dotting i's and crossing t's it's about right and wrong. You seem to have lost touch with that. Kramer is accusing the school of wrongful dismissal. The school isn't just going to shell out a considerable amount of cash if it was in the right. It's the school's responsibility to understand the laws of Montana in terms of hiring and firing employees. Their inability to do that and Kramer's ability to do that "Could" represent the gap that will be reflected in a sum of cash for a settlement. If the school is right, then you have nothing to worry about -- as all of Winifred will be able to send all its children and its children's children to school to at Grand Ol' MSU. That said, opine all you want about what 'should' be right and wrong, but please acknowledge the law as it pertains to this case. We all know you're capable of that. Just as I am capable of seeing that the parties will either come to an agreement or this will move on to a higher order and the courts will decide. Perhaps you'll be selected for jury duty and can sway your peers to invoke jury nullification as a last resort.

True or false: A person can be fired for failing at to do their job competently, but still win a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

If you say false, do you want me to start dredging up lists of absurd cases that the plaintiffs have won, despite obviously deserving to be fired?

Are you really taking the position that every single piece of ligitation in this country is justified and based solely on the principles of right and wrong? Is every plaintiff who wins a settlement proven to be "right?" That's certainly what you are arguing so far. And I respectfully disagree.

I have done nothing but speak in very clear and precise terms this whole time -- I haven't denied that Kramer might win money from MSU (just the opposite). I have also stressed that whether he wins money or not does not detract from "sad day for student-athletes" thing.

I have also said nothing of jury nullification (which is a term that only applies to criminal cases, but whatever...).

So, once again, plainly and simply, it will be a sad day for student-athletics if Kramer is awarded $1M for getting fired by MSU. If you disagree, that's fine. But I personally think it is a horrible use of money that can and should be used for much more noble purposes (yes, like educating kids from small towns in Montana, for instance).

True. But the case isn't about WHAT they fired him for, it's about HOW he was fired. That's what this particular case is about. You're talking about a slightly different issue, but it's different face it. Kramer/Edwards contend that the school did not follow the proper procedure. The rest is fluff. End of story.

I haven't taken a position on any other case in the country. I'm only talking about this one case and what it pertains to. You're talking about this case and what it doesn't pertain to, which is 'why,' instead of 'how.' It's not about money to anyone but Kramer and Edwards. It's about right or wrong in terms of proper firing to ...well... some people. The money has no effect on anyone but Kramer and Edwards and the state insurance balance.

The money awarded to Kramer, if any, will not have any ill effects on MSU scholarships, if that's what you mean by a sad day. It will come out of the state insurance coffers and we Montanans have that for these kinds of instances. MSU will not lose money, but it may lose, then gain, an administrator or two. The school will march on forever. It will take more than a wrongfully dismissed football coach to change that.

Like it or not, this is a good process (might even be as good as the head coach hiring process at MSU ). It assures employees that they will not be wrongfully dismissed from a job. You wouldn't want it to happen to you (yes, I know, I know, you're from Cali and this rule/law/whatever doesn't apply there, then again maybe it does), I wouldn't want it to happen to me. Hopefully, no one ever has to have it happen to them.

[SonomaCat]

True. But the case isn't about WHAT they fired him for, it's about HOW he was fired. That's what this particular case is about. You're talking about a slightly different issue, but it's different face it. Kramer/Edwards contend that the school did not follow the proper procedure. The rest is fluff. End of story.

Yep ... you are just restating what I have already said when I explained why your responses to my statements were not lining up. You are talking about the technical legal arguments. I was talking about something else ... and something that I prefer not to think of as merely "fluff." I'm not sure what the word "but" is doing after your "True," though. It should be an "and." Your paragraph is merely restating the exact point I was making. A person can deserve to be fired, but still win a settlement based on legal technicalities.

But I am happy that you finally now realize that I was not and am not opining on the legal merits of the case ... although there was nothing I ever said that even suggested that I was.

I am not certain that either of us is qualified to discuss the legal merits of the case, as I'm pretty sure neither of us has ever seen the contract. You can debate the merits of the case if you'd like, but I don't think it would be very fruitful considering that we don't have the information or the technical legal knowledge to sort out whether or not MSU jumped through all of the proper technical hoops in firing Mr. Kramer.

And I think we need to establish some definitions so that we aren't talking past one another. A civil case like this doesn't determine "right" or "wrong" any more than it is a test of "guilty" or "not guilty." It merely determines whether someone else is "liable," which is a something different altogether. If there is a crack in your sidewalk and somebody falls and hurts themselves because they were drunk and clumsy ... and they sue you ... they could probably win. Does that make you "wrong" and them "right?" Of course not. It just means that you are liable because that's how the law works.

If Kramer deserved to get fired because of the problems in the program, but MSU ends up paying him $1M because they didn't jump through the right hoops or tripped up on a legal technicality when they fired him, then I don't think that is a equitable or socially redeeming answer ... regardless whether the law allows it to happen or not. This is my opinion based on my own values (consistent with what I have been saying throughout this thread). You can disagree with that opinion if you like. If you do, we can agree to disagree.