re: "What was Joe Alleva thinking when he offered this contract?"- footballscoop.com

quote:

---

I've always wondered what the line is between for cause/without cause. Are the applicable 'causes' spelled out in the contract?

---

Pretty cut and dry "with cause" reasons would be NCAA penalties (show cause, program penalties) directly attributable to the coach, individual legal problems, etc.

"With Cause" claims that would be challenged in court would probably be personal matters that are embarrassments to the University (Petrino), accusations of wrongdoing that are not confirmed by a court of law (no convictions), NCAA penalties being appealed or that were not directly laid at the coaches feet, etc.

"With cause" would never be for performance related failures. "With cause" is basically stating that the individual violated written or unwritten but understood rules and regulations pertaining to his job. Because of that, the contract is voided and the buyout is irrelevant because the coach's actions voided the contract, including the buyout.

This is why "with cause" firings are almost always taken to court unless it is just a sure fire slam dunk reason, and why a lot of schools pay buyouts or portions of buyouts even when coaches violate or appear to violate regulations. They'd rather pay 25% of the buyout then deal with the coach in court (including the public humiliation of it) for years to come.