Kentucky Basketball Breaks its Word to UMass
According to this story by Andy Katz, the UK basketball team has decided to buy out it's contract with the University of Massachusetts to avoid the return game of a home-and-home that was negotiated when Tubby Smith was the coach.
As many of you know, I am a big-time UK homer, and very often an apologist for them. But not this time. Kentucky broke its word, with Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart begging off due to the fact, apparently, that the new coach had a different schedule in mind. He offers us the excuse that this is the first time UK has done this in his tenure.
Mr. Barnhart, this is highly unethical and a black mark on Kentucky basketball. If the best we can do is to break our word when it is inconvenient to keep it, well, we just aren't setting a very good example for the kids we purport to be educating. UMass contracted with us in good faith, even securing another date when the first one proved to be inconvenient to UK. They worked hard to get this game done, and we hire a new coach and use that as an excuse to screw them.
What sort of leadership is it when you can't tell you new coach that, at UK, we are held to a higher standard of expectations not only on the floor, but in our dealings with other institutions? What I want to know is why you didn't insist that Gillispie honor the commitments made previously by the school? I know it is important to get off on the right foot with the coach, but this is just spineless.
As for Gillispie, he has a duty to live by the commitments the school has made and not try to ram changes down it's throat. It is bad business, poor judgment, and unless I hear a better reason than what I have so far, unethical. Gillispie even refused comment, leaving it to Barnhart to defend the obviously indefensible. If Kentucky is going to stand for excellence, it should be excellence in all things related to basketball, not just national championships and won-lost records.
The article offers us this reasoning as why Kentucky broke its word:
This is a reason? This is ridiculous, gobsmacking, and makes us look totally mercenary. Since when does a top 5 national program tuck it's tail and run from adversity? I am aghast, and highly disappointed in both our coach and AD. When a homer like me goes on a tirade about ethics, can a good mocking by the mainstream sports media be far behind?
Well, life must go on, but this is just unfortunate. UK fans deserve better, and should demand more from our athletic department. So far this week, Kentucky has lost Holsopple and breached a contract. I hope that's the last of the bad news, much more and two weeks will be too long to wait for my summer vacation.

And the mocking begins ...
Answer: The Kentucky Wildcats. Kentucky was scheduled to play UMass at Boston's TD Banknorth Garden on Nov. 24, but has instead decided to pay a $50,000 buyout to get out of the game. UMass officials obviously aren't happy. But Kentucky might be on to something here. If the Wildcats can afford to cancel their games against Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia and South Carolina, they have a shot at going undefeated in the SEC in Billy Gillispie's first season on the job. That would be quite an accomplishment!

UK Bias blog looks at the ESPN story that precipitated my post above with a jaundiced eye.
The Boston Herald has picked up the story.
The Minutemen are torqued off big time, and break out the U-word to CSTV. I agree with them.
0 recs |
39
comments
Comments
I can agree with much of your commentary....
dUKe regularly avoids any OOC away games, and I've no doubt those they play on neutral courts are only because they cannot get the preseason tourneys to change venues & schedule everything at Cameron. Meanwhile, dUKe plays this "weak" game season after season and are adored by the media nationwide.
What I found far more embarassing was PiNITno's refusal to renew the KU and UNC home-and-home series after his first couple of teams at Kentucky were handed their collective butts when he refused to make in-game adjustments.
I'm willing to take a "wait and see" approach on this one in the event additional information comes to light. What if the schedule change brings a big name to Rupp instead of the Cats heading to someone else's home? Would that make it justifiable in your eyes?
by ForeverBigBlue on May 21, 2007 8:29 AM EDT 0 recs
Absolutely not ...
Absolutely not. This isn't about games, or quality of opponents. It's about keeping our word to other schools.
This will cost UMass more than the 50K we are paying as a penalty for breaking the contract. Even if it got us a game with UCLA in Rupp Arena, it would still be wrong. The school gave its word, and now it is reneging because it wants another home game.
I love UK dearly, and I would love nothing more than to be able to rationalize this as ... well, anything. But it isn't possible, unless the ESPN story is just complete fiction. We stiffed UMass, pure and simple, for the sake of convenience at best, and scheduling another cupcake at Rupp at worst. Neither of those is acceptable.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 8:39 AM EDT
up
0 recs
99 times out of 100 ...
And even if it weren't, UK made an agreement. It should keep it barring extenuating circumstances. Wanting another home game doesn't qualify, in my book.
by Truzenzuzex on May 21, 2007 8:47 AM EDT 0 recs
Counts in mine...
by tiger85 on
May 21, 2007 9:08 AM EDT
up
0 recs
But at what cost?
UK dishonored itself by doing this, in my book. No monetary gain can justify that.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 10:15 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Contracting
Buyout clauses are never liquidated damages for breach of contract. Buyout clauses are negotiated outs to a contract, so that a party will have options other than breaching.
In other words, UK is not breaching its contract with UMass, it is simply exercising one avenue of the agreement that both parties placed in the contract through negotiations and consideration during the contracting process.
You can argue that "UK broke its word" all you want, but the truth is that standing by your word is an antiquated concept obviated by sophisticated contracting. The reason that UK didn't break it's word is that it's word was that it would play UMass, unless it paid UMass the 50K to get out of the commitment. UMass agreed to this deal, and they have no beef with us because they could have negotiated, earlier, for a higher buyout clause.
It's not unethical to exercise a mutually agreed to option.
EKO
by EKO on
May 21, 2007 10:37 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Perhaps, but ...
In the instant case, though, I seriouslly doubt it was a "buyout clause", because such an option wouldn't make sense - why wouldn't UK just pay UMass 50 grand up front not to have the home-and-home? Clearly, we make more than that on any home game in Rupp arena, and from a purely economic standpoint, it makes no sense whatever to do a home-and-home when the home team stands to make way more money in virtually every case, especially when it is UK at Rupp Arena?
Also, if it was a simple contractual option that UK was free to exercise at its discretion, why would UMass be mad? And why would Barnhart be using weasel words like (paraphrasing) "this is the first time we have done this since I have been at UK"?
Balderdash. I'll bet good money there was no "buyout clause", because it is totally illogical. This is liquidated damages for breach, I guarantee it.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 11:03 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Agree / Disagree, with a little evidence
I agree that the two terms are thrown around such that they are confused. I do, however, believe that this was a buyout, and not a liquidated damage, because of the facts in play.
Specifically, if it was a liquidated damage clause, it would have been unenforceable because in order to be legitimate the liquidated damage amount must be a reasonable estimate based on the expectation of the contracting parties. In more simple language, this means that the liquidated damage amount would have been closer to $300,000, instead of $50,000, because the amount that each party stands to lose in the event the games aren't played is pretty easy to estimate.
Instead, this was a buyout clause, as indicated in the Katz article: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2877223 ("The contract on the home-and-home series called for a $50,000 buyout.").
The reason that UMass is upset is that they didn't negotiate a higher buyout price (i.e. closer to the amount they expected to profit had the games been played). Their beef is with their contract negotiator, not with us.
In terms of your paraphrased quote, my understanding is that we haven't gotten out of a contract like this, and thus it is simply a factual statement. Doing what we are doing is clearly bad practice, because it mitigates our negotiating posture and power in future agreements. This interpretation of the situation, though, answers your "unethical action" argument pretty well.
EKO
by EKO on
May 21, 2007 11:21 AM EDT
up
0 recs
You make fair points.
Regarding liquidated damages, they are only reasonable if there is sufficient uncertainty as to their magnitude that they save both parties the difficulty of negotiating them in case of breach. the $300,000 figure cited by UMass seems high to me (especially since it is qualified as a "sellout"), which would make sense given the situation. $50K seems like a reasonable amount given the uncertainties of attendance driven by such things as the weather, the fan support of the teams, or any other unforeseen issues that could have affected fan turnout.
In fact, the 50K could just be an out-and-out financial penalty for breach rather than liquidated damages. There is no consistency in how the press, or anyone other than lawyers, refer to such issues, so I don't accept at face value it was simply an option that could be executed at will because that is illogical. I confess, however, just because something isn't logical doesn't mean it isn't so. :-)
When Tubby Smith was under pressure from the fans, the press without exception (that I am aware of) referred to the liquidated damages in his contract as a "buyout clause", even though it clearly isn't.
But even if UK was exercising an optional buyout clause, it is still a rotten thing for UK to do, and doing rotten things is still an ethical failure in my book. One may abide by the terms of a contract and still do the wrong thing.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 11:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Good thoughts, all
Your argument that the press and the fans make this stuff convoluted and thus impossible to know the truth without looking at the contract is completely correct.
I also agree that you can abide by the terms of the contract and still do the wrong thing. I do believe, all-in-all, this was a bad move, because it will have repurcussions in our dealings with UMass, specifically, and other schools, more generally. I still take issue, though, with your ethics claim.
Has been an interesting conversation, regardless.
Cheers,
EKO
by EKO on
May 21, 2007 12:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
As always, EKO.
Thanks again.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 12:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wow
Buyout clauses and liquidated damages...fun stuff.
by piketaylor on
May 21, 2007 1:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Holsopple
Obviously he must be doing something right if FL. football wanted him though.
by richlthompson on May 21, 2007 9:13 AM EDT 0 recs
Yeah ...
In a real sense, it may be bigger. But if so, I sure hate it. :-)
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 10:17 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Where is??
by richlthompson on
May 21, 2007 11:37 AM EDT
up
0 recs
This is disappointing
The way this went down is disgraceful. Barnhart should have told Gillispie to just deal with it. As I recall, Tubby would mention how he would like to have greater control over the basketball schedule, so why did Barnhart all of a sudden decide to give Gillispie control?
At best this makes UK look gutless and cowardly, at worst it floors their credibility and just gives writers one more thing to chide the school about.
by JLeverenz on May 21, 2007 9:18 AM EDT 0 recs
Katz and Holsopple
I understand your position Tru but I just disagree with it. I dont think there is really anything in your arguement that isnt valid I just dont think it's as big of a deal as you think it is. Contracts are made to be broken. It happens all the time. That's why a buyout clause is included. I dont see many programs as big as ours doing home and homes with A-10 teams anyway. You can highlight some part of my commentary if you would like. Im not trying to refute your argument I simply just disagree with you.
On Holsopple. THAT REALLY SUCKS. I thought he did an excellent job last year and it really sucks that we let him get away. Florida football makes sense for him though. I know we are Kentucky basketball but football is more of a sport for great s&c trainers. I dont think we will miss him as much as we would have if Billy G. wasnt our coach though. From what I hear he really puts his players through the wringer as far as conditioning goes and I fully expect to have a strong team that can run others into the ground.
by davw83 on May 21, 2007 10:14 AM EDT 0 recs
Well ...
I don't agree with the old saying "contracts are made to be broken". They get broken all the time, that's true, and sometimes there are very good reasons. But if I agree to do something and break my word purely for monetary gain or for the purpose of making my life easier, what good was my word to begin with? Worthless, I would say, and that is not something to be proud of.
My point is, UK didn't have a good reason. The fact that Gillispie is leaving it to Barnhart to defend the move is instructive, don't you think?
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 10:21 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Overheated
Not to mention, Tubby Smith's decision to run his teams through the ringer regardless of his returning squad doomed him to potential double-digit defeats and, at some point, seemed to stop having the effect of toughening the team up for conference season.
I am NOT in favor of the Syracuse/Pitt brand of scheduling so that you're 14-0 without a road game. Syracuse last season is a great example of how this doens't work.
However, I also think that when changes are made, there are naturally changed to be expected elsewhere. Gillispie is already saddled with his predecessor's players, good or bad. He's saddled with 99% of the schedule his predecessor put together. One change -- a change that UK apparently paid cash to make, no? -- isn't a sign of impending doom.
At least not to me.
The Online home of Big Blue Nation ...
by JL Blue on May 21, 2007 10:29 AM EDT 0 recs
Agree
So we soften a year, or not. Do we have any ideas on who is going to fill in the blank?
Pitino was always soft and it was CM that pushed the meatgrinder games and once he got Tubby it went in full steam and JL points out, didn't always work. Niether do DQ Soft Serve games all non-conf like Duke and syracuse.
And lets get real, buy-outs are absolutely fine and legal and in the contracts as PART of the contract. This happens every day at every school. It is why I do not have my S&S Tire pocket schedule in my hands yet and won't until September.
by wilson452 on
May 21, 2007 11:29 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Don't confuse ...
There is nothing illegal about breaching a contract that contains a financial remedy for the breach. However, in my book, it is unethical. Contracts are made with the understanding that both parties will perform unless something prevents that from happening.
What was that "something" here?
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 11:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Ptiorities
by kyjohn on May 21, 2007 11:02 AM EDT 0 recs
Katz ...
It is not OK for UK to do whatever "is in the best interests of their program" when it involves breaching contracts and breaking their word. Fans have demanded more from UK when it comes to success on the court, and in my humble opinion, they should call them to account when the do something wrong.
This is something wrong.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 11:07 AM EDT
up
0 recs
This is a tough one....
by blueblood on May 21, 2007 11:33 AM EDT 0 recs
contracts are made to be broken
I havent quite thought out the following idea so consider free flowing. You (Tru) seem to be really hung up on UK and ethical behavior in general, not that that's a bad thing just an observation. Dont you think that your passion towards UK might be coloring your thought process, especially when UK does something you dont agree with? It seems to me that this kind of thing happens all the time in real world. Just because it happens doesnt make it ethcical, I get it, but yours is the only voice in fandom that I have encountered today that is so hung up on this. So I ask, are you the only ethical fan around or perhaps are you blowing this out of porportion? Our schedule is so tough next year I would appreciate another home date but then again I dont think it was really necessarry to cancel with UMASS and I dont like Bill G avoiding the question. Its a tough call and could go both ways.
by davw83 on May 21, 2007 12:08 PM EDT 0 recs
Right or wrong?
Now that Tubby left our money minder AD saw that we could benefit by paying the paltry sum of 50 gees to tell UMASS to piss off and turn around and schedule ANYONE U to play us at home and make five times the amount. To heck with the fact that we said we would play the game. To heck with the fact that UMASS already lived up to their part of the bargain. We have a bs way of getting out of the return date so why not use it? It's not illegal, just the typical corporate mentality that says as long as the shareholders consistently get their money who cares if the little shmoes have money in their pocket?
I say eff the whole process. Schedule cupcakes at home for EVERY non-conference game and let the conference schedule toughen us up for the NCAA tourney. That will do it for us. That will get UK the most money and the fans get to see their boys more because they're at home every game. Don't go to other arenas cause we could lose out. And if for some god-awful reason we should have to play an away game, definitly don't go someplace where it wouldn't benefit us recruiting-wise. There are only UK fans in every corner of this tiny little sphere called earth, but they don't quite count unless they live near lexington since that is the only place you would watch them play prior to conference.
In a nutshell, I agree with TRU, this may not be illegal but it looks like the beginning of a trend. First we cancel with UMASS, what's next? Maybe we can join the ACC? The SEC has been a sucky conference, I'm sure as a charter member we could find some way to get out of it on the cheap. One frigging game would ruin our whole season next year? PLEEEEEAASSEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!
Barnhart should be a MAN and stick to the word of the University. I'm sure UMASS would have asked for a bigger buyout clause if they though UK would actually use that option. Well folks, now other teams will and when there is a legitimate reason to get out of a game UK will have to pay dearly and scritch barnhart and co will probably cry foul. I for one will be happy when people do what they say. GO BIG BLUE!!! (GO AWAY MONEY-MINDERS!)
by bluecrip on May 21, 2007 12:36 PM EDT 0 recs
Heh ...
by Truzenzuzex on May 21, 2007 12:47 PM EDT 0 recs
Whew....
by crumjon on May 21, 2007 12:48 PM EDT 0 recs
Paying for a budget increase?
by blueblood on May 21, 2007 1:26 PM EDT 0 recs
Huh?
by Clandestine on May 21, 2007 4:23 PM EDT 0 recs
the Gillispie scheduling philosophy?
Obviously Kentucky is a totally different situation, with 20+ win seasons and consecutive NCAA tourney appearances in the last decade. And he obviously wouldn't (or shouldn't) want to cancel out of the high-profile CBS contract games. But the pattern is there, the preference towards building a winning attitude at home with his new team.
I am okay with this for the first couple of years of a new coach taking over a program, but obviously I am not supporting Boeheim-style scheduling on Year #20!
by ncaahoopstoday on May 21, 2007 4:47 PM EDT 0 recs
Could be ...
For me, though, it's all about keeping your word. Gillispie never gave his word to UMass, but UK did when it agreed to play with Tubby Smith as agent. Barnhart should have held him to it, IMO.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 5:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Comment board on ESPN.com
by chirop1 on May 21, 2007 5:56 PM EDT 0 recs
I think that's a great point ...
I'm beginning to believe it.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 21, 2007 6:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't see the point?
Ethically, it's perfectly sound if it's a buyout clause because the agreement is being honored. Honoring the buyout clause portion is no less honorable than honoring the play-the-game portion. (EKO has discussed at length so I won't repeate it)
But it's weak, so I don't like it for that reason. What we love about UK is how aggressive we are with our schedule. We'll play anybody. We don't take the December Cake Walk like Duke, Syracuse, or Florida.
Then again, it may be a successful strategy for rebuilding. So I'll give Gillispie the benefit of the doubt. But I'm still not happy about it.
by EEWildcat on May 21, 2007 10:29 PM EDT 0 recs
Private plane...
Tip your waitresses they deserve it.
by bluecrip on May 22, 2007 1:18 AM EDT 0 recs
Top 5 better ways to spend $50,000.00 buyout
- Hotel room for Mitch to hide out until UK-UMass game is over (like he hid out during the NCAA).
- Spend that instead of extorting "donations" from season ticket holders who want only to renew.
- More scholarships.
- Begin collection to buy Mitch a heart.
- Begin collection to buy Mitch a brain.
by Fab5Fan on May 23, 2007 2:49 PM EDT 0 recs
That's ...
Well done.
by Truzenzuzex on
May 24, 2007 7:11 AM EDT
up
0 recs








