U faces skeptical Supreme Court in Jimmy Williams case

  • Article by: ROCHELLE OLSON , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 3, 2012 - 7:40 PM

The U's attempt to get out from under a $1 million award in the basketball coach's aborted hiring brought questions from the bench.

  • 13
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
nomorebrewMay. 3, 12 8:09 PM

If the U has money to bankroll Maturi and all of the other clowns what is another million dollars? Pork waste at its best...

8
4
philgorngieMay. 3, 12 8:33 PM

More of the millions of dollars Maturi's incompetence cost the U

16
2
maddyinmplsMay. 3, 12 9:50 PM

Rotenberg's arguments are ridiculous. There is no such "bedrock"principle. The only bedrock principle is that Rotenberg stays on as the U's general counsel because the U Admin and the Bd of Regents aren't willing to be leaders. Everybody just goes along to get along and collect their big salaries. The Regents, of course, are not paid. Which makes their lack of questioning status quo even more ridiculous.

11
0
rafannonMay. 3, 1210:09 PM

Jimmy Williams would have been an asset to the U... Maturi is gone... let the U hire Mr Williams now... He is a great recruiter. Hope the U loses this case

14
0
goldengoph3rMay. 3, 1210:58 PM

I know how smug the Office of the General Counsel is, and this will be a huge disappointment for them. I'm a proud alumnus, but there are occasions when the 'U' operates with a sense of impunity, and this was one of those occasions. Incidentally, it's a fitting end to Maturi's tenure: a poor decision concerning a flagship program with lasting repercussions.

14
0
cheaptrick84May. 4, 12 6:47 AM

Why hasn't the U dropped this and moved on? They are costing taxpayers so much money trying to avoid paying for their own mistake. Maturi is already gone. It's time to kick Rotenberg to the curb as well.

8
0
notsidMay. 4, 12 8:26 AM

Doesn't seem to me that this is Maturi's fault rather than it being a presumptuous behavior on the part of Smith and Williams. Smith apparently "hired" Williams either regardless or in spite of William's previous association with recruiting scandals at the U of M when he was an assistant coach. Williams may have acted less than wisely by resigning from his them current job without a signed contract in hand. Maturi had no choice but to squash whatever Smith had set in motion by his unilateral actions with Williams given the past history, something that Smith should have known about and/or talked it over with Maturi before giving Williams the "come and join us" invitation. This one appears to rest right on the shoulders of(and mouth)the Tubster and not on Little Joel.

1
1
notsidMay. 4, 12 9:08 AM

This has nothing to do with Maturi who was only doing his job. This is all about the poor judgment of Smith in offering Williams the job without clearing it with Little Joel and with Williams for resigning his position without a legal contract in hand.

0
1
basia2186May. 4, 1210:03 AM

I wouldn't quit another job until I had a contract, on U of M letterhead. If Williams had not contract this should not be in the courts.

1
1
hjlazniMay. 4, 1210:37 AM

Smith believes he is a power coach and could do as he pleased at his new school. Maturi believed he had to please the NCAA and keep Williams away. The real issue here is how the NCAA is allowed to operate outside the law and rules that apply to everyone else causing Williams to lose his rights to employment at the maroon painted Williams Arena.

1
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT