[Goose]

Some facts.  Note the back loaded contract for Dawkins this past season and next

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/20/st...r-lawsuit/

The back loaded contract could make lots of sense to Dawkins because he was going to get 2.3 million from Stanford to cover those years anyway and didn't need the money up front. Besides, I don't see how that is even relevant. Either Stanford waived the mitigation clause or they didn't. If the termination agreement says that they will pay 2.3 million and doesn't refer to the mitigation clause, I think Stanford has a problem here, no matter what the original contract said. Now, if the termination agreement says less than that, but Dawkins says he had a verbal agreement to that effect, it could get messy. 

[Goose]

Some facts.  Note the back loaded contract for Dawkins this past season and next

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/20/st...r-lawsuit/

The back loaded contract could make lots of sense to Dawkins because he was going to get 2.3 million from Stanford to cover those years anyway and didn't need the money up front. Besides, I don't see how that is even relevant. Either Stanford waived the mitigation clause or they didn't. If the termination agreement says that they will pay 2.3 million and doesn't refer to the mitigation clause, I think Stanford has a problem here, no matter what the original contract said. Now, if the termination agreement says less than that, but Dawkins says he had a verbal agreement to that effect, it could get messy.