The annual offseason routine of coaches leaving one school and joining another took a slight detour for one college football coach this spring. Shortly after taking over as Head Football Coach at the University of Massachusetts, Don Brown was forced to the sideline by Northeastern University, his previous employer.

The reason? Northeastern had filed a lawsuit against Brown and UMass, claiming that the coach broke a contract with the school that ran through 2008. The contract required Brown to receive approval from Northeastern before talking to other schools, and Northeastern said it had denied a UMass request to speak with Brown. Another bone of contention was that Brown had agreed to a contract extension with raises for himself and his assistants along with other program enhancements a few months before taking the UMass job. The school also claimed that Brown told Northeastern Athletic Director Dave O'Brien he had turned down a UMass offer three days before submitting his resignation.

A Massachusetts Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited Brown from serving the UMass program in any capacity. "There is no question Brown willfully and intentionally breached his contract with Northeastern," Judge Thomas E. Connolly wrote in his decision granting the injunction. "There [also] appears to be no question that UMass actively induced the breach when it had been told of the restriction on Brown's talking to other potential football employers and of his existing long-term contract with Northeastern."

The injunction was lifted a few weeks later when both schools agreed to settle the case out of court. As a result of the settlement, Brown and UMass offered public apologies to Northeastern. In addition, UMass suspended Brown for the first three games of the 2004 season and paid Northeastern $150,000 to compensate for costs incurred while bringing in a new football staff.

"We are appreciative of Judge Connolly's decision," O'Brien said in a statement. "All along we have believed that a contract is a two-way street and should be viewed that way. The court's decision and statement are reflective of that principle."