|
Post by HC92 on Sept 29, 2019 14:07:39 GMT -5
The most compelling evidence of the BS nature of the Cooper allegations is that a player from her high school who played for the same high school coach committed to play for Gibbons after the Cooper allegations had become public. Doesn’t seem like the folks who would know Ashley best gave her allegations much weight.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 30, 2019 0:37:45 GMT -5
HC13, this note by the Marquette law professor recites the substance of Cooper 's complaint (which references the incident at the Brown game and a Lehigh game as well), and includes the text of several letters of support for Gibbons from former players and Worcester area coaches. law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/gIBBINS.2614.pdf(He has written a second subsequent note that mentions briefly that the case was settled.) Cooper's pleading is phrased in terms most favorable to her, and as the case was settled, there was no adjudication of the factuality of her claims. Suspension or no suspension, Gibbons' in his lawsuit, claims that the college pushed him out the door because the college wanted to hire a younger and cheaper coach; that there was a budgetary shortfall in the program and a means for making up this shortfall was to hire a younger and cheaper coach. To me, that is the core of his complaint. (He was paid during the suspension, and paid after the suspension term ended, so no damages there.) In other words, but for his age and his salary, he should have been given a contract extension. Though perhaps, I am more sensitive to age discrimination complaints, having been the defendant in one. The government lawyer representing me was very good, and plaintiff lost. She is no longer a government lawyer, but from time to time, is quoted in the press. See Gordian knot quote in this NY Times article on WeWork. www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/wework-jpmorgan.html?module=inline I googled the one woman mentioned. She is quite impressive and if you had a decision making capacity above her you are even more impressive. I also followed the link for her sister, a former Dean of Harvard Law School who was considered to replace Justice Stephens on the Supreme Court. Amazing that you won your case.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 30, 2019 1:16:54 GMT -5
Wasn't McInerney Gibbons' lead recruiter? Recruits often build their foremost relationships with the recruiter, not the head coach. There haven't been any 2020 de-commitments, have there?
Putting aside the different accounts of what led to the suspension, it was perfectly reasonable for Holy Cross to have let Gibbons go at the end of his contract - both parties likely knew well in advance of the suspension that he was finished here. Yes she was and no de-commits that we know of. I have given them cudos for keeping both '19 signees & that so far as we know keeping the '20s. I have also stated & will restate my belief that going the interim route was idiotic. Again, the fact of no new commits and a noticeable lack of announced offers is worrying. We have at least 2 opennings each for 20 & 21 Maybe ADMB, having become familiar with the claims in the BG suit, wants a full season to meet his responsibility to evaluate the entire coaching staff with the option of conducting a Nationwide search to find the best head coach available, like he did with MBB instead of just promoting an assistant to head coach and having everyone move up a rung. It is very appropriate for the entire staff to have a prove it year. As FIADBS said, with the talent on this team, Holy Cross expects better results. Maybe ADMB plans on a national search no matter what the results are and will invite AM to interview with the other finalists. Maybe that is his policy or his mandate from TPTB when contracts expire as a way of breaking the cycle of losing across the department.
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Sept 30, 2019 6:09:46 GMT -5
I appreciate our perspective, but they should have either given her a 3 yr contract so she can recruit with confidence or perhaps the better route and based on all the info out there now that we are aware of, the smarter one was to have done a full house cleaning and get a fresh start. By not doing so, this suit is only going to keep HC & the team in the news and likely not in a very favorable light.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 30, 2019 7:00:39 GMT -5
HC13, this note by the Marquette law professor recites the substance of Cooper 's complaint (which references the incident at the Brown game and a Lehigh game as well), and includes the text of several letters of support for Gibbons from former players and Worcester area coaches. law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/gIBBINS.2614.pdf(He has written a second subsequent note that mentions briefly that the case was settled.) Cooper's pleading is phrased in terms most favorable to her, and as the case was settled, there was no adjudication of the factuality of her claims. Suspension or no suspension, Gibbons' in his lawsuit, claims that the college pushed him out the door because the college wanted to hire a younger and cheaper coach; that there was a budgetary shortfall in the program and a means for making up this shortfall was to hire a younger and cheaper coach. To me, that is the core of his complaint. (He was paid during the suspension, and paid after the suspension term ended, so no damages there.) In other words, but for his age and his salary, he should have been given a contract extension. Though perhaps, I am more sensitive to age discrimination complaints, having been the defendant in one. The government lawyer representing me was very good, and plaintiff lost. She is no longer a government lawyer, but from time to time, is quoted in the press. See Gordian knot quote in this NY Times article on WeWork. www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/wework-jpmorgan.html?module=inline I googled the one woman mentioned. She is quite impressive and if you had a decision making capacity above her you are even more impressive. I also followed the link for her sister, a former Dean of Harvard Law School who was considered to replace Justice Stephens on the Supreme Court. Amazing that you won your case. A clarification. Her sister is the former dean of Harvard Law, who succeeded the dean of Harvard Law, Elena Kagan, after the latter's appointment to the Supreme Court. The employee who filed the discrimination complaint upon his termination didn't work in my division, so I was not his supervisor. The employee was a high salary, senior employee with a Ph. D in agricultural economics. He worked in a division that studied the economics of industries. By background, he was somewhat of a fish out of water, and performing poorly. My division oversaw the land area of the United States, and the waters therein. While he continued to work in his division, I became the one who gave him his work assignments. The assignments covered agriculture, his area of knowledge; e.g., calculate the potential cost of agricultural displacement resulting from runoff from irrigated fields in the West. (Upstream agricultural users get clean water, downstream farmers draw water that is increasingly contaminated with leached mineral salts.,And you ain't lived until you've walked through the briarpatch of water rights in the West.) I gave him a series of assignments over six-nine months and then evaluated the work product. He continued to perform poorly. He was given a choice of retiring, or being terminated for poor performance. He chose the latter. At the end of it all, I said, 'I am never going to do this again.' The degree of individual supervision and the ridiculous level of documentation required was very time-consuming. Some of the latter was because I don't have a degree in economics, and the highest level economic courses I took were in international economics and finance. So who am I to evaluate the work product of a Ph. D agricultural economist with 25 years of experience?
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 30, 2019 15:21:07 GMT -5
Reminds me of the old saying about Federal employees: "After a year of service it takes an Act of Congress to get rid of one and after three years of service it takes an Act of God."
BTW, the sister's Wiki or Google write up states she was under consideration for the Supreme Court as well as Emily Kagan. Since there usually is no official list of non-nominees, that's not a bad tidbit to get into your Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 30, 2019 18:27:24 GMT -5
I appreciate our perspective, but they should have either given her a 3 yr contract so she can recruit with confidence or perhaps the better route and based on all the info out there now that we are aware of, the smarter one was to have done a full house cleaning and get a fresh start. By not doing so, this suit is only going to keep HC & the team in the news and likely not in a very favorable light. That's a good point also. The "wow wow wow wow wow" is the gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 30, 2019 19:41:47 GMT -5
HC13, this note by the Marquette law professor recites the substance of Cooper 's complaint (which references the incident at the Brown game and a Lehigh game as well), and includes the text of several letters of support for Gibbons from former players and Worcester area coaches. law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/gIBBINS.2614.pdf(He has written a second subsequent note that mentions briefly that the case was settled.) Cooper's pleading is phrased in terms most favorable to her, and as the case was settled, there was no adjudication of the factuality of her claims. Suspension or no suspension, Gibbons' in his lawsuit, claims that the college pushed him out the door because the college wanted to hire a younger and cheaper coach; that there was a budgetary shortfall in the program and a means for making up this shortfall was to hire a younger and cheaper coach. To me, that is the core of his complaint. (He was paid during the suspension, and paid after the suspension term ended, so no damages there.) In other words, but for his age and his salary, he should have been given a contract extension. Though perhaps, I am more sensitive to age discrimination complaints, having been the defendant in one. The government lawyer representing me was very good, and plaintiff lost. She is no longer a government lawyer, but from time to time, is quoted in the press. See Gordian knot quote in this NY Times article on WeWork. www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/wework-jpmorgan.html?module=inline Why do you keep going back to the Cooper thing? This lawsuit is about an assistant coach, Gibbons and HC. Cooper is old news for which Gibbons was found to be in the right. 1. The college retains records of all investigations of alleged employee misconduct until that employee is no longer employed by the college. 2. With respect to the investigation of a new complaint against the employee, the investigators can consider prior claims of misconduct, and factor such claims in any penalty that results from the new investigation. 3. The investigative files are sealed, as are the terms of Cooper's settlement. Its a fair presumption that a payment of a significant but unknown amount was made to her. No conclusion can be drawn that "Gibbons was found to be in the right." 4. Gibbons lawsuit is more than just about an assistant coach. His basic claim is that Nate Pine kicked him out the door because of his age and his relatively high salary. Gibbons does not make a claim that HC did not pay him during the suspension, or for the weeks between when the suspension ended and the end of June.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Sept 30, 2019 19:59:54 GMT -5
Why do you keep going back to the Cooper thing? This lawsuit is about an assistant coach, Gibbons and HC. Cooper is old news for which Gibbons was found to be in the right. 1. The college retains records of all investigations of alleged employee misconduct until that employee is no longer employed by the college. 2. With respect to the investigation of a new complaint against the employee, the investigators can consider prior claims of misconduct, and factor such claims in any penalty that results from the new investigation. 3. The investigative files are sealed, as are the terms of Cooper's settlement. Its a fair presumption that a payment of a significant but unknown amount was made to her. No conclusion can be drawn that "Gibbons was found to be in the right." 4. Gibbons lawsuit is more than just about an assistant coach. His basic claim is that Nate Pine kicked him out the door because of his age and his relatively high salary. Gibbons does not make a claim that HC did not pay him during the suspension, or for the weeks between when the suspension ended and the end of June. If Gibbons was guilty in the Cooper affair wouldn't he have been fired then?
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Sept 30, 2019 20:14:45 GMT -5
Why do you keep going back to the Cooper thing? This lawsuit is about an assistant coach, Gibbons and HC. Cooper is old news for which Gibbons was found to be in the right. Its a fair presumption that a payment of a significant but unknown amount was made to her. For someone who generally relies overwhelmingly on facts and figures, your continuous reliance on unfounded speculation when it comes to Ashley Cooper’s allegations is surprising. Upon what basis is it a fair presumption that her case settled for a significant amount?
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 30, 2019 20:31:04 GMT -5
Its a fair presumption that a payment of a significant but unknown amount was made to her. For someone who generally relies overwhelmingly on facts and figures, your continuous reliance on unfounded speculation when it comes to Ashley Cooper’s allegations is surprising. Upon what basis is it a fair presumption that her case settled for a significant amount? She and her parents and her team of lawyers went away is one clue.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Sept 30, 2019 21:08:11 GMT -5
That same clue could lead one to believe that her claims were never very strong from the start.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 30, 2019 22:13:19 GMT -5
That her claims were not very strong from the start is not in doubt. I recall PP stating that HC settled shortly after a Court ruled the Trustees could be deposed.
So, if AC was asking for two years tuition to NYU and legal fees and their ace was they could depose the Trustees, and HC's ace was there was little evidence, perhaps they settled for one year tuition and a Fandango certificate for her lawyers to go see "Legally Blonde 2". ☺️
Actually HC92 is correct that we will never and should never know what the resolution was so everything is speculation. I don't know if Clarence Thomas was a Trustee at the time, but there are some prestigious people on the board and the right to depose them could have been a match for weak evidence.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Sept 30, 2019 22:44:13 GMT -5
Its a fair presumption that a payment of a significant but unknown amount was made to her. For someone who generally relies overwhelmingly on facts and figures, your continuous reliance on unfounded speculation when it comes to Ashley Cooper’s allegations is surprising. Upon what basis is it a fair presumption that her case settled for a significant amount? Figures - as in dollars, is all he cares or knows about. Facts? Hardly.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 1, 2019 6:05:56 GMT -5
That her claims were not very strong from the start is not in doubt. I recall PP stating that HC settled shortly after a Court ruled the Trustees could be deposed. So, if AC was asking for two years tuition to NYU and legal fees and their ace was they could depose the Trustees, and HC's ace was there was little evidence, perhaps they settled for one year tuition and a Fandango certificate for her lawyers to go see "Legally Blonde 2". ☺️ Actually HC92 is correct that we will never and should never know what the resolution was so everything is speculation. I don't know if Clarence Thomas was a Trustee at the time, but there are some prestigious people on the board and the right to depose them could have been a match for weak evidence. For actual damages, Cooper sought compensation for the cost of two years of matriculation at NYU; for her mental anguish, emotional stress, and loss of self-esteem; and for attorney fees; plus punitive damages for the failure of the college generally, and the AD and an assistant AD specifically, to properly supervise Gibbons. There is no basis for assessing whether her claims were strong, weak, or fictional, as the case was settled. Cooper did not set a dollar amount for the damages she incurred. Gibbons, I believe, is seeking $750,000. As for when it was settled, the college had successfully moved the case from state court in New York to Federal court. In Federal court, Cooper was allowed to add the Board of Trustees as defendants, several of whom lived in New York. (I believe one was the head of the athletics committee of the BoT.) With that change, the Federal court sent the case back to the New York state court for trial. Before discovery began, which would include depositions and turning over documents, such as the findings of the sports psychologist that HC hired to examine the psychological dynamics of the woman's basketball team, HC settled. When the legal piranhas from other firms began jumping in, I don't think they did so because they are altruistic souls, or because they thought Cooper had a weak case. Here are two profiles of an attorney who joined the case after it was underway. www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/ben-brafman-the-last-of-the-big-time-defense-attorneystherealdeal.com/issues_articles/the-closing-benjamin-brafman/
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Oct 1, 2019 12:06:51 GMT -5
Why do you keep going back to the Cooper thing? This lawsuit is about an assistant coach, Gibbons and HC. Cooper is old news for which Gibbons was found to be in the right. 1. The college retains records of all investigations of alleged employee misconduct until that employee is no longer employed by the college. 2. With respect to the investigation of a new complaint against the employee, the investigators can consider prior claims of misconduct, and factor such claims in any penalty that results from the new investigation. 3. The investigative files are sealed, as are the terms of Cooper's settlement. Its a fair presumption that a payment of a significant but unknown amount was made to her. No conclusion can be drawn that "Gibbons was found to be in the right." 4. Gibbons lawsuit is more than just about an assistant coach. His basic claim is that Nate Pine kicked him out the door because of his age and his relatively high salary. Gibbons does not make a claim that HC did not pay him during the suspension, or for the weeks between when the suspension ended and the end of June. Nate Pine was NOT employed by Holy Cross though when it was decided to not have him return to the program.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Oct 1, 2019 13:02:43 GMT -5
I hate to rehash the AC case, but these are the facts that we know: 1. She brought the case in NY state court 2. College removed to federal court in Manhattan based upon diversity jurisdiction (All defendants,i.e. the College and the coaches and maybe the AD were residents of MA and the plaintiff was a resident of NY) 3. Plaintiff moved to remand to state court making close to frivolous arguments that the College could be considered a resident of NY because some trustees lived there. Knowing that was going to fail, she sought to amend the complaint to add individual trustees as defendants. 4. The court allowed her to add defendants noting that she would have to be able to make good faith allegations of their individual liability which would have been tough since MA gives trustees qualified immunity and MA law would likely have applied in any forum. 5. That seemed like a good time for all involved to call it quits and settle. There is no way of knowing whether the settlement was cheap or not based upon the public information.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 1, 2019 15:32:35 GMT -5
I appreciate our perspective, but they should have either given her a 3 yr contract so she can recruit with confidence or perhaps the better route and based on all the info out there now that we are aware of, the smarter one was to have done a full house cleaning and get a fresh start. By not doing so, this suit is only going to keep HC & the team in the news and likely not in a very favorable light. It is my opinion that, in terms of the suspension, Coach Gibbons was the victim of a ridiculously over sensitive assistant, but in 2019 society bends to the feelings of the ridiculously over sensitive. If you go with a fresh start, bring in a new head coach with his/her own assistants, the problem child magically disappears without any fuss or liability.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 1, 2019 15:44:40 GMT -5
I hate to rehash the AC case, but these are the facts that we know: 1. She brought the case in NY state court 2. College removed to federal court in Manhattan based upon diversity jurisdiction (All defendants,i.e. the College and the coaches and maybe the AD were residents of MA and the plaintiff was a resident of NY) 3. Plaintiff moved to remand to state court making close to frivolous arguments that the College could be considered a resident of NY because some trustees lived there. Knowing that was going to fail, she sought to amend the complaint to add individual trustees as defendants. 4. The court allowed her to add defendants noting that she would have to be able to make good faith allegations of their individual liability which would have been tough since MA gives trustees qualified immunity and MA law would likely have applied in any forum. 5. That seemed like a good time for all involved to call it quits and settle. There is no way of knowing whether the settlement was cheap or not based upon the public information. That's pretty much it. As originally filed, the BOT (collectively) were a listed defendant. The switch to individual trustees brought in several who were NY residents, including, IIRC, the chair of the athletics committee. The potential future cost for several defendants may have also been a factor in settling the case, --if they chose to have their own representation, rather than rely on the college's lawyers. (For example, in the civil case against Dr. Nassar, Michigan State University, the MSU BoT, et al, an individual defendant, a long-time professional employee of MSU, was represented by his own counsel.) ___________________ The college, in a public statement released immediately following the filing of Cooper's lawsuit, acknowledged that Cooper had complained about Gibbons while she was still a student at HC. The college seems not to have investigated this further because IIRC the procedures, call for the complaining party to be informed of the outcome of an investigation. Cooper's complaint was possibly voiced in the course of the college's investigation of the complaint of the unidentified player. .
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 2, 2019 6:22:25 GMT -5
BG is in many ways a 20 century basketball coach regarding style, demeanor, recruiting and techniques. General observation he did not evolve as other coaches were able to do. As much as it pains me to say, Coach Gilmore may have shared some traits with BG and certainly the two respective teams seemed to be following similar late trajectories regarding W-Ls and recruiting. TGs very abrupt and unusual exit (immediately after the midseason Yale game) did result in a cleaner break...that may be the result of TG's resume (and subsequent hiring at Wake and Lehigh) and a host of particularities.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Oct 2, 2019 7:02:59 GMT -5
I think the shelf life of this thread expired a while back. Or should have.
|
|
|
Post by spenser on Oct 2, 2019 9:04:18 GMT -5
I think the shelf life of this thread expired a while back. Or should have. So right.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Oct 2, 2019 9:52:38 GMT -5
He. wasn't. getting. the. job. done. Simple. No. contract. extension. The rest is noise. 88-93-32 (.488) 39-98 (.285) Those are the records of the Men's Ice Hockey and Softball teams under their current coaches, who both received multi-year contract extensions last year -- and those numbers don't even fully display Bedard's extraordinarily abysmal postseason performance at HC. Let's not act like there is some high bar for success in HC athletics right now.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 2, 2019 10:06:40 GMT -5
I think the shelf life of this thread expired a while back. Or should have. Blame TurtleBoy for resurrecting.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Oct 2, 2019 11:07:58 GMT -5
While I'd love the thread to die and at risk of extending it another 4 pages ... By the same token, let's not pretend that the resources made available to the coaches in those 3 sports to succeed as measured by wins & losses is anywhere near similar Sport | # of Participants | Expense per Participant | Women's BB | 15 | $ 16,386 | Men's Hockey | 28 | $ 12,580 | Softball | 19 | $ 4,935 |
Or that the results we expect from a coach with those resources entering his 34th year making somewhere in the range of $200K who'd been under-performing for 10+ years are the same as what we'd expect from: - a hockey coach making significantly(?) less than who was about to enter his 5th season
- a softball coach who is definitely making much less than that who was finishing her third season
Bottom line - and hope the thread dies after this
1. Most of this thread is hypothesis based on about 3 known facts and at this point we have no way of learning more to prove any of these hypotheses 2. If Pine and/or the College were not going to extend Gibbons, they should have terminated terminated him at the end of the prior season
Let's move on.
|
|