The two parties are in agreement on this: Jerome Tang is no longer the men’s basketball coach at Kansas State.
Things get dramatically more complicated from there. Kansas State holds that Tang, who was fired on Sunday, can be dismissed “for cause,” which would invalidate the $18.7 million buyout associated with his contract.
“This was a decision that was made in the best interest of our university and men’s basketball program," athletics director Gene Taylor said in a statement.
“Recent public comments and conduct, in addition to the program’s overall direction, have not aligned with K-State’s standards for supporting student-athletes and representing the university. We wish Coach Tang and his family all the best moving forward.”
Hayes: K-State embarrassing itself not to protect basketball, but help football
March Sadness: College basketball's 10 most disappointing teams
Taylor’s remarks refer to comments Tang made following a 91-62 loss to Cincinnati on Feb. 11, which dropped the Wildcats’ record to 10-15 overall and 1-11 in Big 12 play.
“This was embarrassing,” Tang had said. “These dudes do not deserve to wear this uniform, and there will be very few of them in it next year. I'm embarrassed for the university, I'm embarrassed for our fans, and our student section. It's just ridiculous.”
Tang’s attorneys, Tom Mars and Bennett Speyer, pushed back on the school’s characterization.
If Taylor and university president Richard Linton “really think the school was embarrassed by recent events,” they said in a statement shared with ESPN, “that’s nothing compared to the embarrassment that both of them are about to experience.”
What does it mean to be fired “for cause”?
Dozens of major-conference men’s basketball and football coaches will be fired in any given year, the wide majority for simply failing to win enough games.
That’s certainly the case with Tang, who led Kansas State to an unexpected Elite Eight appearance as the first-year coach in 2023 but was unable to capitalize on that early success. Since losing to Florida Atlantic in the regional final that March, the Wildcats have gone a combined 45-47 with one postseason appearance, a trip to the NIT in 2024 that ended in the first round.
Occasionally, however, schools are able to fire coaches for contractual violations that can minimize or even outright negate agreed-upon buyout figures.
“The most important part of a contract is not what is being paid, but how you get fired, how you get terminated,” said Martin Greenberg, a sports lawyer and professor of sports law at Marquette University. “That’s the most important part of a contract these days.”
In these scenarios, universities can dismiss a coach for missteps related to NCAA penalties, inappropriate behavior or, as stated in Tang’s contract, a “failure or refusal to perform his duties and responsibilities as head coach.”
“A university’s most realistic options often are to: (1) continue to employ the coach because of the coach’s success or because it is cost prohibitive to terminate the coach’s employment without cause; or (2) attempt to terminate the coach with cause and likely encounter litigation,” University of Iowa Professor Josh Lens wrote in a 2022 article for the Villanova Law Review.
One recent example is former Ohio football coach Brian Smith, who was placed on leave in early December and then fired later that month for "serious professional misconduct and activities that reflect unfavorably on the University,” the school said.
Another is former Michigan coach Sherrone Moore. The Wolverines’ second-year coach was terminated with cause in December after an investigation unearthed an inappropriate relationship with a staff member, saving the school from paying the roughly $14 million buyout he was owed in his contract.
Did Jerome Tang violate his contract?
According to a contract signed in 2023, Tang agreed he could be fired for cause without being “entitled to the payment of any compensation, benefits, or damages.”
In addition to “serious or multiple violations” of NCAA rules or “material fraud or dishonesty,” issues that could lead to a for-cause firing were “insubordination” or “objectional behavior” and “intentional, negligent or other failure or refusal in any material respect to perform the duties and responsibilities of Head Coach required under this Agreement.”
Kansas State’s efforts to obtain a for-cause firing seem to hinge on responsibilities outlined to Tang under the category of “Specific Duties and Responsibilities.”
In addition to requiring Tang to devoting his “full professional time” to serving as the Wildcats’ head coach, the list of responsibilities included two key requests:
One, “promoting and encouraging support of the Team’s student-athletes. And two, to avoid engaging in “any behaviors, actions, or activities” that could subject the university “to public disrepute, embarrassment, ridicule, or scandal.”
By absolving itself of the need to pay Tang’s buyout, Kansas State could save a significant sum of money at a time when many major-conference athletics departments are attempting to piece together revenue-sharing payments given directly to student-athletes under last year’s House v. NCAA settlement.
The crux of Kansas State’s argument comes down to this: By disparaging members of the team, did Tang fail to conduct himself in a manner consistent with being the Wildcats’ head coach?
“I am deeply disappointed with the university's decision and strongly disagree with the characterization of my termination," Tang said in a statement. “I have always acted with integrity and faithfully fulfilled my responsibilities as head coach.”
What happens next with Jerome Tang and Kansas State?
Tang and Kansas State should eventually come to an undisclosed financial agreement that ends any potential litigation and permanently severs the relationship between both parties.
This is what unfolded in the high-profile disagreement between LSU and former football coach Brian Kelly. Two weeks after relieving Kelly in late October, the school informed his representatives it would be attempting to fire him for cause. If successful, LSU would have been off the hook for Kelly’s full buyout of $54 million.
According to Kelly’s contract, he could have been fired for cause because of “substantial” rules violations, a felony conviction or conduct that damaged the university’s brand. By the end of November, LSU agreed to pay Kelly’s full buyout, which became the second-largest in NCAA history.
One factor that stands to complicate Kansas State’s argument is Taylor’s willingness to allow Tang to remain as coach through the end of the season with a renegotiated buyout number, Taylor said on Monday.
If open to retaining Tang for another month, Tang’s lawyers could contend, how could the school find his behavior to be inappropriate enough to warrant an immediate for-cause dismissal?
In the end, both Kansas State and Tang will likely find a sort of common ground, one that absolves the school of some financial commitment and avoids a very public and possibly embarrassing legal back-and-forth that could cause damage to both parties’ reputation.
“It’s better to settle these things in the boardroom rather than the courtroom,” Greenberg said. “To let out the dirty laundry in public doesn’t do any good for the school, doesn’t do any good for the students, doesn’t do any good for recruiting or for donations.”
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Does Kansas State have a case for 'for cause' firing of Jerome Tang?
