|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Dec 19, 2017 13:03:19 GMT -5
Unless Haley told you or told someone you know, this seems like a whole lot of somewhat unseemly speculation. That entire post was strange and ridiculous. I do not understand. It's part of the age discrimination aspect. USC is discriminating against younger spouses !! |
|
|
|
Post by 4cornervb on Dec 19, 2017 13:06:58 GMT -5
4corner, your comments are yours to make, and so are mine. So tell me about Mick's financial situation. Where were you able to get such privileged information? I know the answer to both of those questions: straight out of your a**. A lot of older people don't want to retire. Its not financial, rather the image of getting up in the morning with nothing meaningful to do can be terrifying. Some people like going to work because it gives them purpose. Some are absolutely fine with sitting around waiting to go on a week long cruise in a year or so. Mick doesn't fit in that category I don't believe. Read his comments and it is absolutely clear, he's not ready for retirement. You don't like him, great, but don't make up lies because of your feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by vballtruther2 on Dec 19, 2017 13:10:57 GMT -5
Does anyone know if Lynn/USC has given a time frame for when the new coach will be announced?
I wonder if we are going to see any transfers or de-commits. hope not.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 19, 2017 13:26:34 GMT -5
Does anyone know if Lynn/USC has given a time frame for when the new coach will be announced? I wonder if we are going to see any transfers or de-commits. hope not. I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see a transfer or two, as I've heard random crap in PM's, but nothing detrimental to the team for next year. the 2018 class already signed their contracts so at the point sans a NCAA appeal, they'd lose a year of eligilibty if they don't have releases from the school or go to another Pac-12 school (though the institution SHOULD show them mercy). 2019 and on is fair game though. I brought up a couple months ago about Owes. Not sure if it had any legs to it, but we'll see. The larger issue is that most competitive programs already have 2018 allocated and are working on wrapping up 2019. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 19, 2017 13:27:18 GMT -5
Yet, if he truly believed he was being singled out for his age, why would you want to work at a place like that anyway? It seems like everybody always asks that question. "Why would you want to work at a place that discriminates against you? Why would you want to buy a cake from bakers who hate your marriage? Why would you want to eat in a restaurant that doesn't like your skin color? Why would you want your kids to go to a school where they are not wanted?" First of all, it's kind of blaming the victims for not just accepting their discrimination. Secondly, people may feel like they are simply trying to right a wrong. Also, in the case of Haley, he's been there a lot longer than the bosses who want him to leave. I can certainly see him feeling like they are the interlopers who came in and kicked him out of his own program. If he wants to "lawyer up", then that's his choice to make. I don't know if its really discrimination or not. He can argue that the program has had a lot of success and nation relevance the entire time he has been there. But the school could argue that he won the national championship and PAC championship with somebody else's players, but he's never won either one again in the next 14 years. If USC argues that their desire is to win, not just be "relevant" or "come close", then I think they have a pretty good argument that they are behaving like they would with any of their coaches. In my experience, winning lawsuits like this often comes down to whether or not management was stupid enough to actually say on the record that they are firing you for an illegal reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Dec 19, 2017 13:27:57 GMT -5
Does anyone know if Lynn/USC has given a time frame for when the new coach will be announced? I wonder if we are going to see any transfers or de-commits. hope not. Someone posted 1/15 as the target date for announcing the hire to the team. |
|
|
|
Post by saywhatnow on Dec 19, 2017 13:45:10 GMT -5
The above post by 4cornervb does nothing but add baseless speculation as to why a coach does not want to leave. This post added nothing of value to this discussion. You have no idea what his wife and him discuss. You have no clue as to what his exit strategy was. You have no idea about his bank account and what he has saved. USC does NOT fall off the map, EVER. They are the equivalent to the Lakers - always in the discussion NO MATTER what their record. No one was worried about their vb program when Elliott left. It is my understanding that Mick had 1 more year on his contract, thus USC did not fulfill their end of the deal and decided to cut ties. LIFE INSURANCE? You are acting like this man had one foot in the grave. STOP IT! IF anything, Mick wanted to leave on his own terms and have an exit strategy in place instead of being pushed out. He wanted (and earned the right to have) a respectful departure.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4cornervb on Dec 19, 2017 13:54:37 GMT -5
4corner, your comments are yours to make, and so are mine. So tell me about Mick's financial situation. Where were you able to get such privileged information? I know the answer to both of those questions: straight out of your a**. A lot of older people don't want to retire. Its not financial, rather the image of getting up in the morning with nothing meaningful to do can be terrifying. Some people like going to work because it gives them purpose. Some are absolutely fine with sitting around waiting to go on a week long cruise in a year or so. Mick doesn't fit in that category I don't believe. Read his comments and it is absolutely clear, he's not ready for retirement. You don't like him, great, but don't make up lies because of your feelings. I don’t dislike Mick. AND, I do not know his financial situation so my comments are pure speculation. My point is that Mick could put his application in for any of the open positions, and maybe he has. Given his resume and experience I believe there is a university that would love to have a person with his energy and passion. The fact that the university is not Southern California is a bummer for Mick. Like most break ups, one party wants to give it more time and one party doesn’t. Both sides have their reasons for why they feel the way they do. If MIck’s rights have been violated then I am all for him lawyering up and getting paid. However, it sounds like his contract was up and USC is ready to break up. A contract is between two parties and both sides have the opportunity to make other choices when the contract is up. Kevin Hambly made a new choice when he took Stanford and Illinois wanted him to stay. I think we all understood that break up when it happened. I can see USC’s side in this but I am also bummed for Mick for all the reason already stated. |
|
|
|
Post by sunger4222 on Dec 19, 2017 13:57:22 GMT -5
The above post by 4cornervb does nothing but add baseless speculation as to why a coach does not want to leave. This post added nothing of value to this discussion. You have no idea what his wife and him discuss. You have no clue as to what his exit strategy was. You have no idea about his bank account and what he has saved. USC does NOT fall off the map, EVER. They are the equivalent to the Lakers - always in the discussion NO MATTER what their record. No one was worried it their vb program when Elliott left. It is my understanding that Mick had 1 more year on his contract, thus USC did not fulfill their end of the deal and decided to cut ties. LIFE INSURANCE? You are acting like this man had one foot in the grave. STOP IT! IF anything, Mick wanted to leave on his own terms and have an exit strategy in place instead of being pushed out. He wanted (and earned the right to have) a respectful departure. Dilly-Dilly |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 19, 2017 14:57:56 GMT -5
Yet, if he truly believed he was being singled out for his age, why would you want to work at a place like that anyway? It seems like everybody always asks that question. "Why would you want to work at a place that discriminates against you? ... First of all, it's kind of blaming the victims for not just accepting their discrimination. The more important question, why SHOULD they have to leave? Harassment and discrimination are illegal. Shouldn't the person who is doing something WRONG be the one who should leave instead? Unless, of course, you don't think age discrimination is wrong. But if that's the case, say it. Don't hide behind "why would he want to stay?" say it explicitly: age discrimination is acceptable and so he is going to have deal with it. But if you agree that age discrimination is wrong, then why hold him responsible? Similarly, if you don't think this is a case of age discrimination (and that is something he is going to have show in court), then make that argument. But seriously, if HE thinks it is age discrimination, then it makes perfect sense why he'd want to stay. If that is what he believes, then he believes he is in the right and the others are acting improperly. Why should he pay for their improper behavior? |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Dec 19, 2017 14:59:48 GMT -5
Yet, if he truly believed he was being singled out for his age, why would you want to work at a place like that anyway? It seems like everybody always asks that question. "Why would you want to work at a place that discriminates against you? Why would you want to buy a cake from bakers who hate your marriage? Why would you want to eat in a restaurant that doesn't like your skin color? Why would you want your kids to go to a school where they are not wanted?" First of all, it's kind of blaming the victims for not just accepting their discrimination. Secondly, people may feel like they are simply trying to right a wrong. Also, in the case of Haley, he's been there a lot longer than the bosses who want him to leave. I can certainly see him feeling like they are the interlopers who came in and kicked him out of his own program. If he wants to "lawyer up", then that's his choice to make. I don't know if its really discrimination or not. He can argue that the program has had a lot of success and nation relevance the entire time he has been there. But the school could argue that he won the national championship and PAC championship with somebody else's players, but he's never won either one again in the next 14 years. If USC argues that their desire is to win, not just be "relevant" or "come close", then I think they have a pretty good argument that they are behaving like they would with any of their coaches. In my experience, winning lawsuits like this often comes down to whether or not management was stupid enough to actually say on the record that they are firing you for an illegal reason. You make some good points. I don't think success/failure is relevant unless he was told his performance (won/loss record) was unsatisfactory and the reason for the non-renewal. If it was, maybe I missed it. It is very difficult to compare this age discrimination accusation to other forms of discrimination (gender, sexual orientation, race, religious, etc.). My point in asking why he'd want to remain working there is based on the obvious weak relationship he has with his AD. IMO, not wanting to pay him his current salary or an increased salary with a new contract extension is within USC's rights. The fact that there is a relatively new AD only adds to the potential that "new management" wants to go in a different direction. AD could have any of the following reasons (assuming some are relevant) for not wanting to renew Mick's contract: - Wants to bring in a head coach he is comfortable working with - Financial: His salary is too large; could hire someone more economical - Poor fan attendance - Style of play - Player discontentment - Complaints from his subordinates If he was treated unfairly based on strictly his age, then I don't agree with that tactic. But, if there is any other reason, the AD is allowed to make the decision to non-renew contract. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 19, 2017 15:05:28 GMT -5
If he was treated unfairly based on strictly his age, then I don't agree with that tactic. But, if there is any other reason, the AD is allowed to make the decision to non-renew contract. I'll just say here that there are three kinds of law that cover this: Federal law, state law, and local law. Those are going to be different for each state and locality, so you can't really generalize on that. Also, I don't know if he is considered an employee or a contractor. I assume if he's an employee then he's considered "exempt" and likely also considered to be a manager, all of which affect the employment rights. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Dec 19, 2017 15:07:56 GMT -5
If he was treated unfairly based on strictly his age, then I don't agree with that tactic. But, if there is any other reason, the AD is allowed to make the decision to non-renew contract. I'll just say here that there are three kinds of law that cover this: Federal law, state law, and local law. Those are going to be different for each state and locality, so you can't really generalize on that. Also, I don't know if he is considered an employee or a contractor. I assume if he's an employee then he's considered "exempt" and likely also considered to be a manager, all of which affect the employment rights. Not sure if it matters at all that USC is a private institution; I know they are not required to release coaching salaries like other state institutions, but not sure how else being private differs when it comes to legalities. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 19, 2017 15:08:55 GMT -5
It seems like everybody always asks that question. "Why would you want to work at a place that discriminates against you? ... First of all, it's kind of blaming the victims for not just accepting their discrimination. The more important question, why SHOULD they have to leave? Harassment and discrimination are illegal. Shouldn't the person who is doing something WRONG be the one who should leave instead? Unless, of course, you don't think age discrimination is wrong. But if that's the case, say it. Don't hide behind "why would he want to stay?" say it explicitly: age discrimination is acceptable and so he is going to have deal with it. But if you agree that age discrimination is wrong, then why hold him responsible? Similarly, if you don't think this is a case of age discrimination (and that is something he is going to have show in court), then make that argument. But seriously, if HE thinks it is age discrimination, then it makes perfect sense why he'd want to stay. If that is what he believes, then he believes he is in the right and the others are acting improperly. Why should he pay for their improper behavior? Unless reasoning given is an explicit- "you are too old to do this job", I don't buy the whole age discrimination argument in this matter. Even arguments alluding to it such as your methods are too old school, or we want new blood doesn't pass the age discrimination test when it comes to an athletics program, IMO, but this is just public opinion, I haven't done any case law research or what questions a jury may need to answer (though this is all gonna settle anyway, assuming there is a suit). |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 19, 2017 15:12:16 GMT -5
I'll just say here that there are three kinds of law that cover this: Federal law, state law, and local law. Those are going to be different for each state and locality, so you can't really generalize on that. Also, I don't know if he is considered an employee or a contractor. I assume if he's an employee then he's considered "exempt" and likely also considered to be a manager, all of which affect the employment rights. Not sure if it matters at all that USC is a private institution; I know they are not required to release coaching salaries like other state institutions, but not sure how else being private differs when it comes to legalities. USC is NOT immune from federal and state anti-discrimination laws. |
|
