The Year is 2016 and you are USF's AD

[Triple B]

But there's just so much else about the investigation process that seemed rushed and unprofessional that I don't think the pre-termination meeting will be the only issue.

Bingo.

[cmhatter]

if usf had anything to worry about they would have already agreed to pay him for termination w/o cause...

what is the point in defending yourself if you put yourself at risk in the process?

[SANJAY]

if usf had anything to worry about they would have already agreed to pay him for termination w/o cause...

what is the point in defending yourself if you put yourself at risk in the process?

Parties in litigation are usually far apart on any potential settlement, that is after all why they are in litigation.  It is often necessary for the parties to beat on each other a bit in the discovery process before any settlement is possible.  During discovery facts may come out that may make one party less sure of their position (most often) or more sure of their position (less common). 

Also, the point of defending oneself is that a settlement may be possible today (all hypothetical numbers) for $7million but may be possible 3 years from now for $4million and after having spent $1million on fees and costs.  USF would have saved $2million and also received the interest on the $4million.  Now substitute other numbers and you have an idea of what the defense theory is on settlement.

[cmhatter]

if usf had anything to worry about they would have already agreed to pay him for termination w/o cause...

what is the point in defending yourself if you put yourself at risk in the process?

Parties in litigation are usually far apart on any potential settlement, that is after all why they are in litigation.  It is often necessary for the parties to beat on each other a bit in the discovery process before any settlement is possible.  During discovery facts may come out that may make one party less sure of their position (most often) or more sure of their position (less common). 

Also, the point of defending oneself is that a settlement may be possible today (all hypothetical numbers) for $7million but may be possible 3 years from now for $4million and after having spent $1million on fees and costs.  USF would have saved $2million and also received the interest on the $4million.  Now substitute other numbers and you have an idea of what the defense theory is on settlement.

well explained.

thanks

[cmhatter]

if usf had anything to worry about they would have already agreed to pay him for termination w/o cause...

what is the point in defending yourself if you put yourself at risk in the process?

Parties in litigation are usually far apart on any potential settlement, that is after all why they are in litigation.  It is often necessary for the parties to beat on each other a bit in the discovery process before any settlement is possible.  During discovery facts may come out that may make one party less sure of their position (most often) or more sure of their position (less common). 

Also, the point of defending oneself is that a settlement may be possible today (all hypothetical numbers) for $7million but may be possible 3 years from now for $4million and after having spent $1million on fees and costs.  USF would have saved $2million and also received the interest on the $4million.  Now substitute other numbers and you have an idea of what the defense theory is on settlement.

There is a bit of a twist on this lawsuit, though.  Jim Leavitt was defamed and continues to be defamed.  He wants his name cleared and that really can only be done by examining all the evidence and communications between Gonzales, USF officials and major donors and making that information public.  Of course the more they prove the investigation was just a sham, it also builds the case for more monetary damages.  I don't think the traditional "stratedgery" of dragging this out is a good move for USF and will work against them in the end.  I think Wooldard is now trying to cover his own ass at the expense of USF.  If Leavitt wins, Woolard loses.

you dont see a settlement coming?

[SANJAY]

if usf had anything to worry about they would have already agreed to pay him for termination w/o cause...

what is the point in defending yourself if you put yourself at risk in the process?

Parties in litigation are usually far apart on any potential settlement, that is after all why they are in litigation.  It is often necessary for the parties to beat on each other a bit in the discovery process before any settlement is possible.  During discovery facts may come out that may make one party less sure of their position (most often) or more sure of their position (less common). 

Also, the point of defending oneself is that a settlement may be possible today (all hypothetical numbers) for $7million but may be possible 3 years from now for $4million and after having spent $1million on fees and costs.  USF would have saved $2million and also received the interest on the $4million.  Now substitute other numbers and you have an idea of what the defense theory is on settlement.

There is a bit of a twist on this lawsuit, though.  Jim Leavitt was defamed and continues to be defamed.  He wants his name cleared and that really can only be done by examining all the evidence and communications between Gonzales, USF officials and major donors and making that information public.  Of course the more they prove the investigation was just a sham, it also builds the case for more monetary damages.  I don't think the traditional "stratedgery" of dragging this out is a good move for USF and will work against them in the end.  I think Wooldard is now trying to cover his own *** at the expense of USF.  If Leavitt wins, Woolard loses.

Leavitt has a maximum total value to his case, being the balance of his contract and prejudgment interest (which combined with the litigation costs represents USF's full exposure).  The first is constant and the second goes up as the case goes along.  This means that his claim for damages aren't (in the absence of some sort of basis for punitive damages) really going to go up from where they are now.  The variable cost for USF then is the litigation costs, and they see this as worthwhile to spend some time in litigation to try and knock Leavitt's claims down.  May be unsuccessful, which as I noted is a possibility in discovery that one side feels better about his case. 

Don't forget, that the discovery will include depositions of players and Leavitt's lawyers will get to see how they handle being cross examined and what their stories are.  If the players hold up well in deposition, Leavitt will get advice from his counsel as to how a jury would perceive a witness and what credibility the jury would ascribe to that witness.  Maybe Miller and Erskin come of as shaky but other players come off as great witnesses for USF and without axes to grind.  Possible, and Leavitt will have to evaluate that with his counsel.

The problem that Leavitt has with this being dragged out is that he does want to coach again.  The litigation remaining open will make it harder for a school to bring him on board, but if it was settled quickly that would help him move on with another job.

[slick1ru2]

if usf had anything to worry about they would have already agreed to pay him for termination w/o cause...

what is the point in defending yourself if you put yourself at risk in the process?

Parties in litigation are usually far apart on any potential settlement, that is after all why they are in litigation.  It is often necessary for the parties to beat on each other a bit in the discovery process before any settlement is possible.  During discovery facts may come out that may make one party less sure of their position (most often) or more sure of their position (less common). 

Also, the point of defending oneself is that a settlement may be possible today (all hypothetical numbers) for $7million but may be possible 3 years from now for $4million and after having spent $1million on fees and costs.  USF would have saved $2million and also received the interest on the $4million.  Now substitute other numbers and you have an idea of what the defense theory is on settlement.

There is a bit of a twist on this lawsuit, though.  Jim Leavitt was defamed and continues to be defamed.  He wants his name cleared and that really can only be done by examining all the evidence and communications between Gonzales, USF officials and major donors and making that information public.  Of course the more they prove the investigation was just a sham, it also builds the case for more monetary damages.  I don't think the traditional "stratedgery" of dragging this out is a good move for USF and will work against them in the end.  I think Wooldard is now trying to cover his own *** at the expense of USF.  If Leavitt wins, Woolard loses.

Leavitt has a maximum total value to his case, being the balance of his contract and prejudgment interest (which combined with the litigation costs represents USF's full exposure).  The first is constant and the second goes up as the case goes along.  This means that his claim for damages aren't (in the absence of some sort of basis for punitive damages) really going to go up from where they are now.  The variable cost for USF then is the litigation costs, and they see this as worthwhile to spend some time in litigation to try and knock Leavitt's claims down.  May be unsuccessful, which as I noted is a possibility in discovery that one side feels better about his case. 

Don't forget, that the discovery will include depositions of players and Leavitt's lawyers will get to see how they handle being cross examined and what their stories are.  If the players hold up well in deposition, Leavitt will get advice from his counsel as to how a jury would perceive a witness and what credibility the jury would ascribe to that witness.  Maybe Miller and Erskin come of as shaky but other players come off as great witnesses for USF and without axes to grind.  Possible, and Leavitt will have to evaluate that with his counsel.

The problem that Leavitt has with this being dragged out is that he does want to coach again.  The litigation remaining open will make it harder for a school to bring him on board, but if it was settled quickly that would help him move on with another job.

The lawsuit makes him unattractive no matter what the outcome. First off, he tampered with witnesses during an investigation, no matter what  happened. Second, he sued his former employer who was giving him 10s of thousands of dollars as settlement. He wanted millions instead. No one wants to hire someone who will sue if fired for cause as Leavitt has now done. They will look at how Leavitt did not walk away and instead went the lawsuit route. Anyone who hires him knows if they fire him for cause he is going to sue them. Pretty risky. There are too many qualified coaches that haven't sued their employer out there to hire. If he does get hired again don't expect it to be a HC job and don't expect a contract. He will join unemployed men's basketball HCs who sued their universities Jim O'Brien and Billy Gillispie.

[USF_Grouper]

The problem that Leavitt has with this being dragged out is that he does want to coach again.  The litigation remaining open will make it harder for a school to bring him on board, but if it was settled quickly that would help him move on with another job.

I really don't see the litigation as a problem for future employment for Leavitt.  I think the school would either want him as a coach or not.  If USF is banking on that I again think their approach and stratedgery is all bassackwards.  I believe the more this drags out the more the discovery/depositions will favor Leavitt. 

Well perhaps in comparison to the fact that he has been fired from a previous job for abusing a player, yeah it might be a small issue.  That being said, he hasn't had much luck finding a job yet...

[USF_Grouper]

If he does get hired again don't expect it to be a HC job and don't expect a contract. He will join unemployed men's basketball HCs who sued their universities Jim O'Brien and Billy Gillispie.

I don't think anyone seriously expected Leavitt to get a HC job.  USF could have fired him in Ocotober of last year and I doubt he would have been a serious candidate for any D1-A coaching position - let alone a BCS school.  Leavitt's stockw as high at one time, but as USF has begun to tailspin midway through the year for so many years straight, Leavitt's name has not been raised seriously for coaching vacancies. 

I think he was looking at an NFL assistant type position.  THat would be a better fit for him for a while.  There are really no issues there with coach/player abuse -- if anything the abuse would go the other way.

[smazza]

usf will not pay real money