Poll about grounds for terminating a head coach for cause

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Just curious how people view a reasonable standard for firing a head coach "for cause."
One anonymous vote per person. Hopefully the moderator respects the anonymity.
You have to vote to see the results...
I tried to cover a wide range so that everyone would find a choice that suited him (her).

 

[ricko654321]

Just curious how people view a reasonable standard for firing a head coach "for cause."
One anonymous vote per person. Hopefully the moderator respects the anonymity.
You have to vote to see the results...
I tried to cover a wide range so that everyone would find a choice that suited him (her).

I mean the answer here is the legal / contractual standard here, no? Not what any of us thinks about it. And based on what I know, the answer is pretty clear. Unless it was raised directly to Fitz and documented that he was aware of it, then there’s no legal grounds for a “for cause” firing. And even if there were that, with the sequencing of the statements by NU post the investigation to the subsequent firing, where there was supposedly an “agreement” between Fitz and NU on what to do post the investigation which found no evidence he was aware of it (which NU acknowledges I believe)… I think Fitz would have the better side of the case.

I’m not a lawyer, but don’t see how NU gets out of this one.

 

[Fitz51]

Well, I am not only a lawyer, but a labor and employment lawyer. And this is a really simple question.

The answer - the only answer - is how “Cause” is defined in Fitzgerald’s contract. Once you have that definition, and in a private employment agreement between parties, it can be defined however they agree, *then* you can argue about whether the grounds for termination reached a “for Cause” standard.

The rest of this is mental masturbation.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Its great that people understand the law and are willing to share their knowledge.
I'm just asking what people think are legitimate (fair) grounds to fire a head coach for cause, in any college sport.
Not just the emotional situation of Pat Fitzgerald's termination or his contract.

 

[ricko654321]

Its great that people understand the law and are willing to share their knowledge.
I'm just asking what people think are legitimate (fair) grounds to fire a head coach for cause, in any college sport.
Not just the emotional situation of Pat Fitzgerald's termination or his contract.

Well given that "for cause" is a legal term, here I personally think that legitimate / fair grounds are what the legal & contractual standard is haha. Which isn't really clear in terms of answering the poll...

 

[phatcat]

These choices are not sufficient. Why not add one that says: "the head coach administered an atomic wedgie"?

What is needed is one that is what actually happened, except the administration bungled it. It looks like this.

"There is a report that verifies that hazing occurred on a recurring basis over a numerous of years. While there is no evidence that the head coach knew, he has a legal AND contractual obligation to know. ("Knew or should have known ")" ✔️

I studied economics, not physics. We work in probability, not certainty. Fitz probably knew, and if he didn't, he should have. I have been in a leadership position for more than 25 years. Managers are legally and by company policy, responsible for protecting their people.

 

[Colonel Kong]

Yeah, I don't really get the "he didn't know" reasoning. I'm absolutely ready to believe Fitz didn't know. But how is that a defense? He's indisputably in charge of and ultimately responsible for the program. He's by far the highest paid person within the University. This happened within the program, a part of the University. Make the reducto ad absurdum argument - there is drug dealing within a college football program over a period of years, yet the HC didn't know. Does that absolve them?

 

[FeralFelidae]

I studied economics, not physics. We work in probability, not certainty. Fitz probably knew, and if he didn't, he should have. I have been in a leadership position for more than 25 years. Managers are legally and by company policy, responsible for protecting their people.

In the quantum realm, they very much do work in probability.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Again, trying to take a poll of how people view the role of a head coach in college sports, not specifically Pat Fitzgerald at NU.

If it helps, lets stipulate that no criminal charges have been brought against anyone.

 

[phatcat]

Again, trying to take a poll of how people view the role of a head coach in college sports, not specifically Pat Fitzgerald at NU.

If it helps, lets stipulate that no criminal charges have been brought against anyone.

Go ahead. But offer reasonable choices. Not a) the coach led the hazing or B) he keeps his job. Your choices are intentionally ridiculous

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Go ahead. But offer reasonable choices. Not a) the coach led the hazing or B) he keeps his job. Your choices are intentionally ridiculous

Give me a break.
I can't possibly list 1000 choices so that your personal choice is spelled out precisely to your specifications.
I think most people believe that it matters (a lot) if the coach knew, didn't know or was ordering the questionable behavior.
Surely, the nature of the misbehavior, as seen by "90% of the players" matters as well.

Remember, we are talking about conduct that has apparently led to no player being punished.

 

[NUCat320]

Give me a break.
I can't possibly list 1000 choices so that your personal choice is spelled out precisely to your specifications.
I think most people believe that it matters (a lot) if the coach knew, didn't know or was ordering the questionable behavior.
Surely, the nature of the misbehavior, as seen by "90% of the players" matters as well.

Remember, we are talking about conduct that has apparently led to no player being punished.

Good point.

 

[phatcat]

Give me a break.
I can't possibly list 1000 choices so that your personal choice is spelled out precisely to your specifications.
I think most people believe that it matters (a lot) if the coach knew, didn't know or was ordering the questionable behavior.
Surely, the nature of the misbehavior, as seen by "90% of the players" matters as well.

Remember, we are talking about conduct that has apparently led to no player being punished.

Cool, make the poll a) he knew b) didn't but should have c) didn't and isn't responsible. Those the the only choices that matter. The others are last week's cat litter

 

[rwhitney014]

Its great that people understand the law and are willing to share their knowledge.
I'm just asking what people think are legitimate (fair) grounds to fire a head coach for cause, in any college sport.
Not just the emotional situation of Pat Fitzgerald's termination or his contract.

The point is that “what people think” is irrelevant. One problem we have in society right now is that everyone thinks their own opinions on all subject matters are equally worthy and merited. This is one such situation. With regard to how to decide what constitutes termination for cause in the current situation, our resident L&E attorney has correctly answered your question already in this thread. None of our opinions on this question matter; the premise is flawed.

- a lawyer, though not an employment one.

 

[FeralFelidae]

The point is that “what people think” is irrelevant. One problem we have in society right now is that everyone thinks their own opinions on all subject matters are equally worthy and merited. This is one such situation. With regard to how to decide what constitutes termination for cause in the current situation, our resident L&E attorney has correctly answered your question already in this thread. None of our opinions on this question matter; the premise is flawed.

- a lawyer, though not an employment one.

Since the university acknowledges that they can't prove that he knew, they presumably must fall back on the standard that he should have known. How is the "should have known" standard applied in law?

 

[rwhitney014]

Since the university acknowledges that they can't prove that he knew, they presumably must fall back on the standard that he should have known. How is the "should have known" standard applied in law?

“Should have known” has different meanings in different contexts, but broadly relates to negligence where a party has a duty of care to another party and failed that duty, causing harm to the other party.

In the context of whether Fitz should have known about whatever may have been going on, the question of whether the failure to ascertain facts and act on them in a manner that would meet his duty of care constitutes cause to terminate his contract depends on - wait for it! - how termination for cause is defined in his employment contract.

Unless and until the contract becomes public, perhaps through discovery or oral argument if the wrongful termination claim makes it to those stages, the public won’t know and any of our guesses are just that.

Someone like @Fitz51 may be able to speak to reasonable definitions in these types of employment agreements if he has experience with employees similarly situated to Fitz. But given Fitz’s leverage over NU in prior employment negotiations, I would expect that “cause” was narrowly construed. In any event, my own expectations are, as I will continue to repeat as many times as possible, meaningless!

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

None of our opinions on this question matter; the premise is flawed.

Perhaps it is your understanding of the question that is flawed?

You are discussing the determination of whether Pat Fitzgerald was legitimately fired "for cause" based on his contract and legal precedent.

Thats not the question the poll is asking.

The poll is asking people to state their opinion as to what situation would warrant terminating a head coach for cause. In other words - what is a fair standard?

For you to opine "What people think is irrelevant" when we are trying to conduct an opinion poll... well that strikes me as pretty funny.