[Goose]

In addition, as also pointed out, one wonders what Stanford's motivation would be to both pay Dawkins the full value of his remaining contract and drop the mitigation clause. One reason might be that Dawkins has some kind of dirt on Stanford, which I think is the same thing as your comment that "it may have been in return for the "hold harmless" agreement from Dawkins that had value to Stanford".

It could be that Dawkins had some kind of dirt. However, if that were true, it would be in Stanford's interest to keep Dawkins happy. They did not, so I doubt that could be the reason. It also could be that the Athletic Department just wanted a clean break with no acrimony or "bad blood" existing, especially in public. We needed to hire a new coach.  Remember, Dawkins could just sit on his rear and collect the money, so the powers-that-be may have decided it was a sunk cost and were willing to just let it go. Additionally, it could be that Dawkins didn't know this clause would be waived until the very last minute, and so structured the UCF contract as if it weren't going to happen. When it did happen, it was too late/too time consuming to re-do the contract.

Another might be that Stanford didn't do so.

True. But I find it real hard to believe that Dawkins would claim they had unless he had some kind of evidence that he could present to the court. I am sure his lawyers would tell him that a purported verbal agreement with no witnesses wouldn't have any traction. I would not be surprised that "upon further review" the Stanford powers-that-be decided to not honor an agreement that Dawkins at least believed that he had. We have a new coach. Ripples now matter less. I could be totally wrong here, but given a choice between believing Dawkins is acting irrationally or that Stanford is trying to pull a fast one, I would pick the latter. It is also possible there is just genuine confusion in both camps. It certainly isn't a good look publicity wise for Stanford. If Stanford wins, nobody will remember. If Stanford loses, it won't make us look very good.

[Goose]

In addition, as also pointed out, one wonders what Stanford's motivation would be to both pay Dawkins the full value of his remaining contract and drop the mitigation clause. One reason might be that Dawkins has some kind of dirt on Stanford, which I think is the same thing as your comment that "it may have been in return for the "hold harmless" agreement from Dawkins that had value to Stanford".

It could be that Dawkins had some kind of dirt. However, if that were true, it would be in Stanford's interest to keep Dawkins happy. They did not, so I doubt that could be the reason. It also could be that the Athletic Department just wanted a clean break with no acrimony or "bad blood" existing, especially in public. We needed to hire a new coach.  Remember, Dawkins could just sit on his rear and collect the money, so the powers-that-be may have decided it was a sunk cost and were willing to just let it go. Additionally, it could be that Dawkins didn't know this clause would be waived until the very last minute, and so structured the UCF contract as if it weren't going to happen. When it did happen, it was too late/too time consuming to re-do the contract.

Another might be that Stanford didn't do so.

True. But I find it real hard to believe that Dawkins would claim they had unless he had some kind of evidence that he could present to the court. I am sure his lawyers would tell him that a purported verbal agreement with no witnesses wouldn't have any traction. I would not be surprised that "upon further review" the Stanford powers-that-be decided to not honor an agreement that Dawkins at least believed that he had. We have a new coach. Ripples now matter less. I could be totally wrong here, but given a choice between believing Dawkins is acting irrationally or that Stanford is trying to pull a fast one, I would pick the latter. It is also possible there is just genuine confusion in both camps. It certainly isn't a good look publicity wise for Stanford. If Stanford wins, nobody will remember. If Stanford loses, it won't make us look very good.