AD Tom Jurich out at Louisville

**Bluegrasscard** · Oct 19, 17, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Getslow

It's not whether we think the cause is just. It's whether the cause for which he was terminated fits the definitions of cause for which the university and Jurich already contracted. That term is defined and that definition must be met or Jurich may be entitled to some compensation.

This.

Most I talked to this weekend at the football game indicated that they felt Pitino was a liability and there is not much angst on him. But many were still frustrated about the Jurich situation. Just wanting to 'clean house' or 'get ahead of the NCAA hammer' can be viewed at correct actions. And even if that is desired there are contracts in place that define what and how things should happen.

As of now, there is interim president, an acting men's basketball coach and now no AD. There is no way a permanent AD is hired quickly with an interim president. Everything is a drift now it seems.

**oldrambler** · Oct 19, 17, 10:31 AM

Last edited by oldrambler; Oct 19, 17 at 10:43 AM.

**The Professor** · Oct 19, 17, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Getslow

It's not whether we think the cause is just. It's whether the cause for which he was terminated fits the definitions of cause for which the university and Jurich already contracted. That term is defined and that definition must be met or Jurich may be entitled to some compensation.

Thanks. Wasn’t aware his contract was that strict in his favor. It sounds like the university agreed to a bad contract, for them anyway.

**CincySportsFan** · Oct 19, 17, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Getslow

It's not whether we think the cause is just. It's whether the cause for which he was terminated fits the definitions of cause for which the university and Jurich already contracted. That term is defined and that definition must be met or Jurich may be entitled to some compensation.

Could there be some sort of "lack of institutional control" definition that they used? I would think something like that might be vague enough to be able to include the current/past situations, wouldn't it?

**woodsrider** · Oct 19, 17, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard

This.

Most I talked to this weekend at the football game indicated that they felt Pitino was a liability and there is not much angst on him. But many were still frustrated about the Jurich situation. Just wanting to 'clean house' or 'get ahead of the NCAA hammer' can be viewed at correct actions. And even if that is desired there are contracts in place that define what and how things should happen.

As of now, there is interim president, an acting men's basketball coach and now no AD. There is no way a permanent AD is hired quickly with an interim president. Everything is a drift now it seems.

If you want to argue whether there is "cause" per his contract fine. But even if TJ can a fight that there was not cause per his contact so what? He still has to be fired. Do you not agree? I mean I would think any sane fan can't believe Tom should stay.

**Bluegrasscard** · Oct 19, 17, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by woodsrider

If you want to argue whether there is "cause" per his contract fine. But even if TJ can a fight that there was not cause per his contact so what? He still has to be fired. Do you not agree? I mean I would think any sane fan can't believe Tom should stay.

If a contract is terminated for cause that cause needs to be well documented and thoroughly reviewed by the legal teams. Termination for cause may require an action by the board but that action should be evident enough that the action is merely a procedural step to what should be clearly obvious on its face. In watching the video of the vote yesterday this action was raised as motion and then voted on. Three members voted against. So the board, like the fan base, is fractured on this. Many UofL fans, boosters and supporters sane or insane were not in favor of this action in this manner at this time.

Had the board terminated for convenience to simply clean house and move on that would be without much legal controversy. Just write the check. But to have an vote, raised on a simple motion, to terminate for 'cause' - when that cause is not established only muddys the already muddy water.

Personally, I think that Jurich did a lot of good things and I agreed with Brian Cromer's comments. But if there are violations of the contract terms and the termination for cause is legally justified - it should happen. That is why those clauses exist. But you do not usually vote on whether a contract term was breached or not. It usually a very black and white issue that has review and approval by council before making that declaration.

**woodsrider** · Oct 19, 17, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard

If a contract is terminated for cause that cause needs to be well documented and thoroughly reviewed by the legal teams. Termination for cause may require an action by the board but that action should be evident enough that the action is merely a procedural step to what should be clearly obvious on its face. In watching the video of the vote yesterday this action was raised as motion and then voted on. Three members voted against. So the board, like the fan base, is fractured on this. Many UofL fans, boosters and supporters sane or insane were not in favor of this action in this manner at this time.

Had the board terminated for convenience to simply clean house and move on that would be without much legal controversy. Just write the check. But to have an vote, raised on a simple motion, to terminate for 'cause' - when that cause is not established only muddys the already muddy water.

Personally, I think that Jurich did a lot of good things and I agreed with Brian Cromer's comments. But if there are violations of the contract terms and the termination for cause is legally justified - it should happen. That is why those clauses exist. But you do not usually vote on whether a contract term was breached or not. It usually a very black and white issue that has review and approval by council before making that declaration.

Again, you keep going back to cause or no cause. Doesn't matter, he had to go. Cause or no cause will be decided in court most likely. They could have a mountain of cause and this would still end up in court.

**BigVMan23** · Oct 19, 17, 01:58 PM

If we woke up this morning to a headline in the Lex Harold reading "Mitch Barnhart fired from UK"...THAT would need to include a statement. Jurich? The reasons are all in the news, and have been for months. There is absolutely no need for a statement, because if someone doesn't know, it's because they don't care or live under a rock.

**rockmom** · Oct 19, 17, 02:21 PM

I kind of feel like I don't give a crap what people who are 100% NOT invested in what happens at UL on any given day think about how UL fans react and expect.

**Wireman** · Oct 19, 17, 02:58 PM

UofL fans can act however they choose. But they aren't the only ones who can form an opinion. I find this to be an amazing case study

**plantmanky** · Oct 19, 17, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by BigVMan23

If we woke up this morning to a headline in the Lex Harold reading "Mitch Barnhart fired from UK"...THAT would need to include a statement. Jurich? The reasons are all in the news, and have been for months. There is absolutely no need for a statement, because if someone doesn't know, it's because they don't care or live under a rock.

While True, we have also had issue after issue after issue come up at UofL. If UK fired Barnhart tomorrow with no issues present, yeah there would need to be some substance behind it.

**Bluegrasscard** · Oct 19, 17, 07:37 PM

Article with Jurich contract:

SUNDAY EDITION | Why firing Tom Jurich could be ‘complicated or - WDRB 41 Louisville NewsRe
Name: Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 7.19.45 PM.png
Views: 204
Size: 436.5 KB

Name: Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 7.19.45 PM.png
Views: 204
Size: 436.5 KB

Termination for cause clauses are outlined in 6.3 a through d. 6.4 identifies a 30-day cure period for a and b. Since there was no 30 day period then that leaves only c and d as the reasons for termination for cause.

c) dishonest conduct resulting in detriment to the University
d) willful misconduct detrimental to the University, including conviction of a felony.

**John Anthony** · Oct 20, 17, 04:25 PM

The Godfather has left the building. Will be good for UL long term.

**rockmom** · Oct 20, 17, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by John Anthony

The Godfather has left the building. Will be good for UL long term.

Exactly how? And in the meantime?

**Jumper_Dad** · Oct 24, 17, 04:12 PM

University of Louisville skewers Tom Jurich in firing letter - WDRB 41 Louisville News

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- University of Louisville interim President Greg Postel blasted Tom Jurich in the formal letter firing the longtime athletics director last week.

“(Y)our own willful misconduct has also been demonstrated through ineffective management, divisive leadership, unprofessional conduct, and a lack of collegiality best characterized as intimidation and bullying that extends from student government to the University's senior leadership,” Postel wrote. “This has caused substantial damage to the University.”

In the letter, Postel accused Jurich of a “consistent and willful lack of supervision of head coaches” and noted “multiple compliance lapses occurring in multiple sports.”

The entire Letter is in the Link.