Everyone has an opinion which they're entitled to. Suspect Jeff Van Gundy has less insight into CMA's last year than most posters here, which is admittedly a low standard.
Mike Anderson - Former Coach
- Thread starter paultzman
- Start date
Boo Harvey
Well-known member
I don’t remember Wusu being suspended or disciplined. This article doesn’t mention PoshNY POST
Jeff Van Gundy takes issue with St. John’s ‘trumped-up’ firing of Mike Anderson
As Jeff Van Gundy’s former boss Rick Pitino takes over at St. John’s, he sees an injustice surrounding the team’s predecessor.nypost.com
Was Anderson advised/warned about academic issues prior to his termination?
Unless you know the wording of CMAs contract, which I doubt, especially the provisions concerning grounds for termination, I suggest we wait to see the outcome of the arbitration.
L J S A
Well-known member
I remember someone here mentioning he had been disciplined, but I suppose discipline could take a form other than suspension or first half benching.
Iowa state game or first Dominican Republic trip game. Or both can’t remember.
Anybody recall if Jeff Van Grundy opens his mouth and supported DeMelo when Anderson fired him after his Heart Attack ? I don’t .,
I doubt JVK even knows who Demeo is. And like the current contract situation with CMA none of us know what actually happened there either. Let’s move on.
I would ask the following:
1- Is JVG covering College Basketball?
2- Who are JVG sources?
3- Has he been on Campus…like ever?
I’ve always liked JVG and I admittedly have NO IDEA what the situation is. NO IDEA who is right or wrong so I haven’t said a word on the topic. Anything I would say would be completely irrelevant.
So why does he feel entitled to comment on litigation he knows absolutely NOTHING about.
1- Is JVG covering College Basketball?
2- Who are JVG sources?
3- Has he been on Campus…like ever?
I’ve always liked JVG and I admittedly have NO IDEA what the situation is. NO IDEA who is right or wrong so I haven’t said a word on the topic. Anything I would say would be completely irrelevant.
So why does he feel entitled to comment on litigation he knows absolutely NOTHING about.
Kind of like most of us right? But at least
most of us know better than to speculate
On the merits without knowing any of the underlying facts!
RedStormRising
Well-known member
Just so I know the rules, what is okay to speculate on?
Anthony Mattia
Well-known member
I never understood why not winning wasn't grounds for termination. That is literally job function 1 of a coach.
You can put that in the terms of a contract problem will be getting the guy you want to sign it.
basketballjones
Well-known member
You can fire any coach for losing, or any other reason I guess. However, he wants to be paid according to what his contract says and that’s where it’s not so simple
Employment contracts are all essentially similar and must comply with state and federal labor laws.
NYS is an "at will" state meaning employment can be terminated at the will of the employer for no reason at all, so long as if there is a reason it doesn't conflict with existing law. You therefore cannot terminate for reasons of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, etc.
While you can terminate for failure to perform this generally falls into the category of misfeasance. For example, not properly managing subordinates, poor communication, etc. Still these things fall under termination without cause.
Malfeasance is another story. Deliberately ignoring ncaa rules, breaking state or federal law, or deliberately failing to comply with university published standards can all be reasons for termination with cause.
The standards for termination with cause are generally well defined and fall under malfeasance.
I have no reason to believe that Anderson acted with malfeasance but i guess if this comes to trial evidence of such will have to be proven.
This could be a ploy to get Anderson to setlle for less than his contract specifies he is guaranteed, especially considering this can be dragged out for several years by the university
NYS is an "at will" state meaning employment can be terminated at the will of the employer for no reason at all, so long as if there is a reason it doesn't conflict with existing law. You therefore cannot terminate for reasons of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, etc.
While you can terminate for failure to perform this generally falls into the category of misfeasance. For example, not properly managing subordinates, poor communication, etc. Still these things fall under termination without cause.
Malfeasance is another story. Deliberately ignoring ncaa rules, breaking state or federal law, or deliberately failing to comply with university published standards can all be reasons for termination with cause.
The standards for termination with cause are generally well defined and fall under malfeasance.
I have no reason to believe that Anderson acted with malfeasance but i guess if this comes to trial evidence of such will have to be proven.
This could be a ploy to get Anderson to setlle for less than his contract specifies he is guaranteed, especially considering this can be dragged out for several years by the university
So much of the above is wrong.
I have been waiting for you to chime in on this thread as i am as certain as possible that there is no one on this board with a fraction of your knowledge in terms of executive employment law.
I respect disagree and believe most of that is generally correct. But it’s all contract specific and dependent on the negotiated terms.