West Virginia Football Trouble

[SonomaCat]

And I'm not really sure about the whole philosophy about the money not mattering because an insurance company will pay for it. Isn't that what causes insurance premiums to rise, and then "we" collectively end up paying for it. It's wealth redistribution one way or another ... the insurance company can't just print the money, and they certainly never lose money out of their own pocket. If $1M goes to Kramer and Edwards (not necessarily in that order), we will be paying for it one way or another.

And that, in a nutshell, is one of the reasons I am not a fan of gratuitous lawsuits. Unless real harm and injury is done to a person (and not just hurt feelings), I don't like the idea of filing a lawsuit over it. And I hope Kramer doesn't choose to pursue that path nor threaten to do so for personal gain.

[AlphaGriz1]

Marcel Yates was on SportsTalk Radio in Boise last week and he was asked what was the main problem with Montana State football and his response was "recruiting." A one word answer that says a lot.

Wow ... that's an interesting comment to come from one of our own former assistant coaches. I wonder if he thought that at the time, or if this is just his conclusion in retrospect?

Thats what I was wondering too. Did he just realize this after seeing how Hawkins and Peterson go about recruiting or did he know that something a was wrong with Kramers recruiting practices. Interesting how we continue to get a better picture of the situation as time goes by.

Did the interviewer continue down the line of questioning or leave it at that?

BSU has it's share of bad apples that were "recruited". It's silly to think that this problem is only at a few schools. Every team at every level has the same potential problems that MSU and UM have had. Some come into fruition and others blossom after the player has left the team.

This isn't isolated, it isn't solvable, and it will happen again on every football team in every state, at every level, sooner than later. This is the world we live in.

Figuring out how to stop this stuff is a gigantic waste of time. If you put half of the time wasted on "understanding why this happens" into protecting yourself and your family and possibly isolating, and positioning yourself from these kind of things you would be better off.

[crazycat]

True. But the case isn't about WHAT they fired him for, it's about HOW he was fired. That's what this particular case is about. You're talking about a slightly different issue, but it's different face it. Kramer/Edwards contend that the school did not follow the proper procedure. The rest is fluff. End of story.

Yep ... you are just restating what I have already said when I explained why your responses to my statements were not lining up. You are talking about the technical legal arguments. I was talking about something else ... and something that I prefer not to think of as merely "fluff." I'm not sure what the word "but" is doing after your "True," though. It should be an "and." Your paragraph is merely restating the exact point I was making. A person can deserve to be fired, but still win a settlement based on legal technicalities.

But I am happy that you finally now realize that I was not and am not opining on the legal merits of the case ... although there was nothing I ever said that even suggested that I was.

I am not certain that either of us is qualified to discuss the legal merits of the case, as I'm pretty sure neither of us has ever seen the contract. You can debate the merits of the case if you'd like, but I don't think it would be very fruitful considering that we don't have the information or the technical legal knowledge to sort out whether or not MSU jumped through all of the proper technical hoops in firing Mr. Kramer.

And I think we need to establish some definitions so that we aren't talking past one another. A civil case like this doesn't determine "right" or "wrong" any more than it is a test of "guilty" or "not guilty." It merely determines whether someone else is "liable," which is a something different altogether. If there is a crack in your sidewalk and somebody falls and hurts themselves because they were drunk and clumsy ... and they sue you ... they could probably win. Does that make you "wrong" and them "right?" Of course not. It just means that you are liable because that's how the law works.

If Kramer deserved to get fired because of the problems in the program, but MSU ends up paying him $1M because they didn't jump through the right hoops or tripped up on a legal technicality when they fired him, then I don't think that is a equitable or socially redeeming answer ... regardless whether the law allows it to happen or not. This is my opinion based on my own values (consistent with what I have been saying throughout this thread). You can disagree with that opinion if you like. If you do, we can agree to disagree.

You're not carping about people being hung up on technicalities, then invoking a technicality of your own are you? All after accusing me of not being consistent. Someone is liable, but that's not the same as wrong? OK, yes, that can be 'technically' true in some cases. "And" instead of "But." Who's worried about technicalities?

You're assuming Kramer's at fault (you've made a concession by using the word "IF") when that hasn't been proven in any instance that I know of. If he had no knowledge of wrongdoing and was not negligent, then he deserves, like everyone, a reasonable opportunity to amend those problems before he is fired. We don't know if he was given a reasonable opportunity.

But (And/Or?) all that aside, you still haven't acknowledged that this case (if I can call it that w/o getting called out on a technicality) will never be about why Coach Kramer was fired, it will be about how he was fired. Feel free to accuse me of splitting hairs. Why and how I mow my lawn are two different things.

It's worthwhile to keep in mind that this case could go a long way in a positive sense and maybe it already has. Athletic departments in Montana will hopefully be paying attention to this case, so they don't repeat the same mistakes and cost the taxpayers more money.

[billy bob]

Let's look at the facts. Mike Kramer has made a living the past few years signing IA-type talent from CA, WA, and OR. Some are JC players, some are IA drop-downs. But ALL were very talented football players.

Did you ever wonder how Kramer was able to sign this calibre of talent year after year? The reason should be rather obvious. These players were passed over by the IA boys because of their off-the-field problems, NOT because of their talent. Kramer overlooked these problems and gave them a scholarship, in his quest to play at a level equal to his rival UM.

Eventually, signing kids who are thugs will catch up to the coach. Always does. West Virginia is finding that out now.

I still have vivid memories of watching the Bobcat pre-game player introductions a couple of Griz/Cat games ago. I have never seen such a display of classless thugism in all of my years as a football fan...at any level.

I knew then and there that the MSU program was in trouble, and that it was not IF, it was WHEN the house of cards would tumble. The rest, my friends, is history.

[SonomaCat]

crazycat: Answer me one question: In your opinion, what harm was done to Mike Kramer by MSU for which he deserves to be compensated $1M?

And keep in mind that everybody in his industry was already well aware of the whole academic and legal issue mess.

[SonomaCat]

You're assuming Kramer's at fault (you've made a concession by using the word "IF") when that hasn't been proven in any instance that I know of. If he had no knowledge of wrongdoing and was not negligent, then he deserves, like everyone, a reasonable opportunity to amend those problems before he is fired. We don't know if he was given a reasonable opportunity.

I'm still confused by this line of thinking. Is a head football coach of a university football team NOT responsible for the academic success of the players he recruits (especially when NCAA sanctions are involved)?

If he's not ... who is?

[crazycat]

crazycat: Answer me one question: In your opinion, what harm was done to Mike Kramer by MSU for which he deserves to be compensated $1M?

And keep in mind that everybody in his industry was already well aware of the whole academic and legal issue mess.

That is a very good question. Had MSU not fired Kramer no harm would've been done to him. By firing him, some (how much) personal harm may have been done. If they fired him improperly significant damage may have been done.

Had MSU fired Kramer in a responsible way no harm would've been done, because in that scenario they would've fired him for a reason supported by law or policy and Kramer would've had no choice but to accept that. Which means he would've harmed himself.

He may have been harmed because MSU may have fired him for improper reasons. Had he had a chance to rectify the problems (which Montana says is a chance he should recieve), he may have been able to earn the money MSU would've paid him and/or the money he would've made had he gotten a job at a higher paying school, which he may have done.

At the far end of the spectrum Kramer may have turned the academic situation around and continued on to win a championship or two, which would've gained him acclaim the like we've never seen for a MSU coach. That has a value, but not a price tag. Fame. A price tag that knows no bounds. I, for one, think he had fame in his sights and it may have been slapped to the ground.

Then again he may be the biggest crook in he history of this state. He may have brought in known drug dealers and low IQ individuals just to win a game or two.

I'm going to decide if that's the case when I hear what his settlement was. If they pay a lot, I'm going to have to side with Kramer, if not I'll side with MSU's stance.

Other than that, have I told you lately that I love you?

[crazycat]

You're assuming Kramer's at fault (you've made a concession by using the word "IF") when that hasn't been proven in any instance that I know of. If he had no knowledge of wrongdoing and was not negligent, then he deserves, like everyone, a reasonable opportunity to amend those problems before he is fired. We don't know if he was given a reasonable opportunity.

I'm still confused by this line of thinking. Is a head football coach of a university football team NOT responsible for the academic success of the players he recruits (especially when NCAA sanctions are involved)?

If he's not ... who is?

No, not solely. Kramer is one of the people that is responsible and maybe you could say he is the most responsible. I'm not sure what I've said that makes you ask this question. Obviously he has some say, but he can't dictate whether or not a student does well. Put some parameters on your question. That's too broad.

The coach should go to the AD, other coaches etc. and see if they agree with his selection. If Kramer was just blatantly bringing in bone heads, then yes he's at fault. But I have to believe that he was running his recruits by others on staff at MSU. MSU has a recruit test named after a faculty or administrative person called the (insert person's name) test. If a player passes that test, then school officials agree that the player is capable of making it at MSU academically.

[SonomaCat]

You're assuming Kramer's at fault (you've made a concession by using the word "IF") when that hasn't been proven in any instance that I know of. If he had no knowledge of wrongdoing and was not negligent, then he deserves, like everyone, a reasonable opportunity to amend those problems before he is fired. We don't know if he was given a reasonable opportunity.

I'm still confused by this line of thinking. Is a head football coach of a university football team NOT responsible for the academic success of the players he recruits (especially when NCAA sanctions are involved)?

If he's not ... who is?

No, not solely. Kramer is one of the people that is responsible and maybe you could say he is the most responsible. I'm not sure what I've said that makes you ask this question. Obviously he has some say, but he can't dictate whether or not a student does well. Put some parameters on your question. That's too broad.

The coach should go to the AD, other coaches etc. and see if they agree with his selection. If Kramer was just blatantly bringing in bone heads, then yes he's at fault. But I have to believe that he was running his recruits by others on staff at MSU. MSU has a recruit test named after a faculty or administrative person called the (insert person's name) test. If a player passes that test, then school officials agree that the player is capable of making it at MSU academically.

So you're sorta kinda maybe sayin' that it's not really his ultimate responsibility?

If he recruited a bunch of players who were bad football players, would that have been his sole responsibilty, or would that get a pass as well?

And from what we have been told, recruits were Kramer's decision -- not anyone else in the administration. That function was entrusted to his judgment.

[crazycat]

You're assuming Kramer's at fault (you've made a concession by using the word "IF") when that hasn't been proven in any instance that I know of. If he had no knowledge of wrongdoing and was not negligent, then he deserves, like everyone, a reasonable opportunity to amend those problems before he is fired. We don't know if he was given a reasonable opportunity.

I'm still confused by this line of thinking. Is a head football coach of a university football team NOT responsible for the academic success of the players he recruits (especially when NCAA sanctions are involved)?

If he's not ... who is?

No, not solely. Kramer is one of the people that is responsible and maybe you could say he is the most responsible. I'm not sure what I've said that makes you ask this question. Obviously he has some say, but he can't dictate whether or not a student does well. Put some parameters on your question. That's too broad.

The coach should go to the AD, other coaches etc. and see if they agree with his selection. If Kramer was just blatantly bringing in bone heads, then yes he's at fault. But I have to believe that he was running his recruits by others on staff at MSU. MSU has a recruit test named after a faculty or administrative person called the (insert person's name) test. If a player passes that test, then school officials agree that the player is capable of making it at MSU academically.

So you're sorta kinda maybe sayin' that it's not really his ultimate responsibility?

If he recruited a bunch of players who were bad football players, would that have been his sole responsibilty, or would that get a pass as well?

And from what we have been told, recruits were Kramer's decision -- not anyone else in the administration. That function was entrusted to his judgment.

If someone isn't totally responsible for something can they be ultimately responsible? Yes, and Kramer is ultimately responsible for those players. I don't know that their post-football woes are his responsibility. I have a feeling, however, that Fields and he set forth a plan to remedy bringing in those problem players (post-football or current) and it's at that point that a shift in responsibility occurs.

Fields is ultimately responsible for following the proper procedures in firing Kramer, which, as has been stated, is what the case is about. This, I'm pretty sure, is dependent on how Fields described to Kramer what needed to be done. A problem was identified and it was Fields responsibility to talk to Kramer about it and have him fix it.

We don't know if Fields detailed a plan for Kramer to follow to improve the APR or a plan to somehow keep players out of trouble, which is what I assume is why he was fired. If Kramer failed to follow those plans, then Fields is probably OK, if he did follow the plan and was showing improvement then Fields will be the reason the State has to pay a settlement to Kramer, not the other way around.

My guess is that Fields is saying he told (whether it's in writing or verbal may make a difference, too) Kramer to do this, that and the other thing and that Kramer either failed or refused to do it. Kramer on the other hand is probably saying we ID'd a problem and we were making progress in fixing it.

Call it a technicality if you wish, but that's like saying we lost a football game due to turnovers and really shouldn't have lost, so can we take that out of the loss column and put in the win column. "Well MSU shouldn't have to settle with Kramer, but we improperly fired him, so now we lose, but we shouldn't have lost.

I think Bleedinbluegold has some experience in this area and described something similar to this in a previous thread. If so, maybe he can shed some more light on the subject.

[tetoncat]

CrazyCat:At the far end of the spectrum Kramer may have turned the academic situation around and continued on to win a championship or two, which would've gained him acclaim the like we've never seen for a MSU coach. That has a value, but not a price tag. Fame. A price tag that knows no bounds. I, for one, think he had fame in his sights and it may have been slapped to the ground.

Now wouldn't that have been ironic. Bring in kids that get in trouble and don't do well in school, then get rewarded for fixing the problem. I think i will try that at work. don't do what I am hired for and let the business begin to fail, then come up with a plan to resurrect the business with bountiful profits. I can see the large raise and bonus coming my way.

[SonomaCat]

CrazyCat:At the far end of the spectrum Kramer may have turned the academic situation around and continued on to win a championship or two, which would've gained him acclaim the like we've never seen for a MSU coach. That has a value, but not a price tag. Fame. A price tag that knows no bounds. I, for one, think he had fame in his sights and it may have been slapped to the ground.

Now wouldn't that have been ironic. Bring in kids that get in trouble and don't do well in school, then get rewarded for fixing the problem. I think i will try that at work. don't do what I am hired for and let the business begin to fail, then come up with a plan to resurrect the business with bountiful profits. I can see the large raise and bonus coming my way.

Great idea! Then if they fire you for letting the business fail, you can sue them because they denied you the opportunity to become the next Steve Jobs! That should be worth billions in damages, right?

[crazycat]

CrazyCat:At the far end of the spectrum Kramer may have turned the academic situation around and continued on to win a championship or two, which would've gained him acclaim the like we've never seen for a MSU coach. That has a value, but not a price tag. Fame. A price tag that knows no bounds. I, for one, think he had fame in his sights and it may have been slapped to the ground.

Now wouldn't that have been ironic. Bring in kids that get in trouble and don't do well in school, then get rewarded for fixing the problem. I think i will try that at work. don't do what I am hired for and let the business begin to fail, then come up with a plan to resurrect the business with bountiful profits. I can see the large raise and bonus coming my way.

Great idea! Then if they fire you for letting the business fail, you can sue them because they denied you the opportunity to become the next Steve Jobs! That should be worth billions in damages, right?

Great!! Not.

Kramer, as you know so well by now, won't be getting rewarded for any indiscretions as we all know. He may, however, win a wrongful dismissal suit, which, again, is what the case is about. We know he was doing something wrong, we don't know if and how he was instructed to rememdy it. Therein lies the case. Take it or leave it. I do enjoy how you keep trying to escape into a chasm of irrelevance. Fly, fly fly. Fly, fly, fly. Fly, fly, fly.

[tetoncat]

No Kramer won't but you were using that as possible justification that he was harmed some way by the firing. I was simply pointing out the flaw in that line of thinking. you don't seriously believe that he was harmed because he lost the opportunity to turn around problems which he should have been monitoring in the first place. Do you

[crazycat]

No Kramer won't but you were using that as possible justification that he was harmed some way by the firing. I was simply pointing out the flaw in that line of thinking. you don't seriously believe that he was harmed because he lost the opportunity to turn around problems which he should have been monitoring in the first place. Do you

That's basically what his lawyer contended. I was just speculating a bit that he might've gleaned some fame along the way as his career progressed. Obviously, what I believe in terms of his lost opportunity doesn't really matter. There's apparently a law of some sort in Montana that says you have to give state employees a warning about their performance before you can fire them. I don't know exactly how it applies to Kramer, but this is the crux of his case. Edwards has experience with this type of claim and is using it.

I believe BAC is saying this is BS rule, while I think it's a good rule. And that's what we're going back and forth about. We probably won't be able to convince each other.

[SonomaCat]

No Kramer won't but you were using that as possible justification that he was harmed some way by the firing. I was simply pointing out the flaw in that line of thinking. you don't seriously believe that he was harmed because he lost the opportunity to turn around problems which he should have been monitoring in the first place. Do you

That's basically what his lawyer contended. I was just speculating a bit that he might've gleaned some fame along the way as his career progressed. Obviously, what I believe in terms of his lost opportunity doesn't really matter. There's apparently a law of some sort in Montana that says you have to give state employees a warning about their performance before you can fire them. I don't know exactly how it applies to Kramer, but this is the crux of his case. Edwards has experience with this type of claim and is using it.

I believe BAC is saying this is BS rule, while I think it's a good rule. And that's what we're going back and forth about. We probably won't be able to convince each other.

Actually ... there's nothing in the law ... even in MT ... even for state employees (who don't have special laws that apply to them when it comes to whether they have grounds to sue for getting fired), that says what you just said (which makes me wonder why you have been debating this point so long).

The requirements say that a person must be fired in accordance with the employee handbook of the employer. Or, in the case of a person with a contract, by the terms of the contact. There is no general law that says you have to allow any employee time to correct their mistakes.

I posted that material several times ... I just assumed that you had read it.

Boss: I caught you raping that child in the basement of our business, you're fired!

Employee: That's not fair! I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to rape that child! You have to give me another chance to not rape that child!

crazycat: That's right ... I heard someplace that you can't fire him until you explain to him why he is being fired, and then you have to give him time to correct that action, or else you are wrong and he is right and he can sue you. And I think this is a good law, even though I haven't done any research to find out if it really is a law or whether I am just arguing myself into a corner.

It's all with love, crazycat -- I know you're a good guy (and I'm certainly looking forward to talking about happier topics over a beer sometime and using our wicked wits against a more deserving common foe) ... but I'm using a bit of nasty hyperbole here just to try to crash through some of our communication barriers to make a point and to show why it is that I have been saying what I have been saying.

A law like the one you have been describing as a "good law," even though it doesn't exist, would be an absurd law.

I suspect that, in reality, Edwards is instead trying to parse the contract to find some semantic twists that he can use to argue that there was a breach of contract by MSU. But that's not something I really even care to speculate about, nor do I care about it, as I think the whole exercise is something that would be best avoided (for all parties involved ... except the attorney, of course).

[crazycat]

OK, yes, there's not a law. But there's something that has a term associated with it such as, 'rule, regulation, procedure, policy...." Oh, requirement! Are you sure that's the right word?

Anyway, whether it's a requirement or whatever it is, Kramer and Edwards are saying that MSU didn't follow it. Is this 'requirement' there for no reason?

That is some nasty-assed bowl of hyper you just served up. I'll just have me ham-n-cheese sammich. While I wait-n-see how this all plays out.

Here's something we can argue about in the meantime. My neutral stand (can there be such a thing?) or your waste of everyone's time stand. If Kramer gets nothing, I agree that it was a waste of everyone's time.

[SonomaCat]

To answer your question about the "requirement" that you can't even begin to verbalize because you don't know what it is (or whether one even exists), let's go back to this comment I made many, many post ago:

I am not certain that either of us is qualified to discuss the legal merits of the case, as I'm pretty sure neither of us has ever seen the contract. You can debate the merits of the case if you'd like, but I don't think it would be very fruitful considering that we don't have the information or the technical legal knowledge to sort out whether or not MSU jumped through all of the proper technical hoops in firing Mr. Kramer.

The technical part of the conversation should have ended right there.

Instead, everybody who read this thread witnessed how true my statement really was.

[GOKATS]

To answer your question about the "requirement" that you can't even begin to verbalize because you don't know what it is (or whether one even exists), let's go back to this comment I made many, many post ago:

I am not certain that either of us is qualified to discuss the legal merits of the case, as I'm pretty sure neither of us has ever seen the contract. You can debate the merits of the case if you'd like, but I don't think it would be very fruitful considering that we don't have the information or the technical legal knowledge to sort out whether or not MSU jumped through all of the proper technical hoops in firing Mr. Kramer.

The technical part of the conversation should have ended right there.

Instead, everybody who read this thread witnessed how true my statement really was.

What we actually saw, was how horrendously a thread can be hijacked into a pissing match between two posters. JMHO

[SonomaCat]

Hijacked from what, exactly? A compelling discussion about how a random school with less problems than MSU didn't fire their coach?

I'm not sure there was much to hijack there, but apologies if you think our discussion distracted from what would have otherwise been a compelling thread.

I kinda assumed you would just quit reading it after I granted your request and moved it. You were apparently mesmerized by the discussion to such an extent that you kept reading, even after you complained about it and even after it was moved to the secondary board.

That must make crazycat and I a couple of incredibly entertaining pissers. High five, crazy! Wait, let's zip up first.