Buyout For HCs Moving Forward

[BullyPulpit]

1 minute ago, SANJAY said:

Taggart was here 4 years. Every transition ha some instability. 

If you have to fire them the revenue becomes an expense, see the payouts to Holtz and Heath. 

Holtz was given a ridiculous contract. You make the buyouts more palatable beyond 3 years. Again, we shouldn't be hiring and firing coaches in less than 3 years anyways. 

[Bulls1181]

I agree College Football is a business and we should treated as such. A big buyout is a must going forward. 

[SANJAY]

Just now, BullyPulpit said:

You make it more palatable in year 3 and beyond. We shouldn't be firing coaches after 1 or 2 seasons anyways without cause and then we would have a contractual provision that would eliminate their buyout if it was for just cause.  

We've fired a coach for cause (cost us $2.75 million), fired a coach for performance (cost us $2.5 million) and had a coach leave for another job (will pay us $1.7million). The buyouts don't stop a really big program from poaching us but can be a real millstone around a program with limited funds.

[BullyPulpit]

11 minutes ago, George Jenkins said:

If my agent signed me to a contract with a buyout like that, he'd be fired on the spot.

We have the leverage though. We are either giving a coach his first chance to be a HC or taking a coach who has been recently fired and giving him a chance at redemption. There are only 128 HC openings in college football and only 60 of them are better than the spots in the AAC. Our ADs need to see that we have the leverage. There are more capable coaches than there are coaching openings. We hold the cards, we need to play them appropriately. 

[BullyPulpit]

1 minute ago, SANJAY said:

We've fired a coach for cause (cost us $2.75 million), fired a coach for performance (cost us $2.5 million) and had a coach leave for another job (will pay us $1.7million). The buyouts don't stop a really big program from poaching us but can be a real millstone around a program with limited funds.

Leavitt's "cause" was BS. If he had actually struck Miller the University wouldn't have paid that much. Holtz's contract was a nightmare and a good AD wouldn't have given him that. Taggart's buyout for the extension was priced right. You are missing the point. The really big buyout number would only be for the first 2 years. The number would then become more manageable thereafter. It prevents us from being poached every year or two and constantly be in a state of flux that will kill our program. 

[Paisa el Toro]

39 minutes ago, SANJAY said:

We've fired a coach for cause (cost us $2.75 million), fired a coach for performance (cost us $2.5 million) and had a coach leave for another job (will pay us $1.7million). The buyouts don't stop a really big program from poaching us but can be a real millstone around a program with limited funds.

And if we can get the poaching school to schedule a one-and-one as a condition in said coach's contract, I think that would also take the sting out of things. 

[2000bull]

1 minute ago, Paisa el Toro said:

And if we can get the poaching school to schedule a one-and-one as a condition in said coach's contract, I think that would also take the sting out of things. 

add that to a buy out similar to what taggart has now and I think you'd be in a good spot

I wouldn't think a coach would mind his new school having to play his old school as part of his buyout

[GaUSFBull]

1 hour ago, BullyPulpit said:

I hope Harlan and company see the writing on the wall. We need to make sure that the contractual buyouts for our head coaching contracts are our new source of revenue moving forward. If a coach is going to be committed to the school they should have no problem signing with a $6/$4/$2 million buyout clause. $6 million after one year, $4 million after 2 years, $2 million after three years, and then drop it $500,000 per year thereafter. Someone like Kiffin will come in for one season, go 10-2, and then take his show on the road to greener pastures. We need to make sure that we have the funds available to find a good replacement each time this happens. 

My wife and I were discussing this this morning.  I do not believe this is possible for one school to do by themselves.

The entire G5 conferences need to band together and do this, somehow, as a group.  It's the only way.  

[SANJAY]

1 minute ago, GaUSFBull said:

My wife and I were discussing this this morning.  I do not believe this is possible for one school to do by themselves.

The entire G5 conferences need to band together and do this, somehow, as a group.  It's the only way.  

Conferences and schools banding together to not hire people who won't agree to specific terms? Pretty sure that's an anti-trust violation of some sort. Not that I am an expert in that.

[GaUSFBull]

Just now, SANJAY said:

Conferences and schools banding together to not hire people who won't agree to specific terms? Pretty sure that's an anti-trust violation of some sort. Not that I am an expert in that.

Hmm, not really to band together to "not hire" people ... it would be more for purposes of coming up with a high buyout, across the board for all G5 schools, so that, since we get shut out of most of the revenue in college football, if they're going to take our coaches, we are going to get broke off.  

I'm not a legal expert, just an aficionado ... and it seems like we've been dealing with an anti-trust violation just with the way the P5 operates for the last several years.