Buyout For HCs Moving Forward

[Brad]

On 12/7/2016 at 7:38 AM, Apis Bull said:

You have to get the coach to agree to that buyout.  Most won't.

Plus, the school has to be able to pay the buyout like Oregon.  Another day in G5 life.  You don't have the financial ability to protect your coach. Gone at any minute unless committed to school/players.   But we knew that.  

[BullyPulpit]

1 minute ago, Brad said:

Plus, the school has to be able to pay the buyout like Oregon.  Another day in G5 life.  You don't have the financial ability to protect your coach. Gone at any minute unless committed to school/players.   But we knew that.  

If the school can't pay it, then the coach stays and you have continuity in your program. It is a definite win-win scenario. 

[Bull94]

Just now, BullyPulpit said:

If the school can't pay it, then the coach stays and you have continuity in your program. It is a definite win-win scenario. 

problem is it goes both ways. if you want to fire the guy but can't afford to pay his buyout then you are in trouble.

 

no coach is going to agree to some ridiculously high buyout to leave while having a low buyout to fire him.

[Brad]

Need some creativity.  Like a sliding scale not on years, but on performance.  

I know, a coach wouldn't like it, but at some point you have to have a nonstandard agreement in this new world.

Don't have time to read five pages but will later.  Have been thinking a lot about this.

 

[BullyPulpit]

Just now, Bull94 said:

problem is it goes both ways. if you want to fire the guy but can't afford to pay his buyout then you are in trouble.

 

no coach is going to agree to some ridiculously high buyout to leave while having a low buyout to fire him.

I don't know if you guys understand how a buyout works. It isn't a two-way street in the sense you are thinking. Currently, if a school fires a coach under contract without cause, they are responsible for the entire amount of the remaining contract, unless they contracted for a lesser amount. Texas is on the hook for Strong's remaining $11.2 million, Oregon has to pay Helfrecht the $11 million plus he is owed. This happens even if their buyout is $0. These are not mutually exclusive terms we are talking about. Unless there is a big buyout, the University bears all of the risk. This would simply level the playing field. Yes, it will represent a paradigm shift in the way coaching contracts are structured, but one is needed. 

And yes, coaches looking for a chance to prove themselves or redeem themselves will take the chance on a 3 to 4 year minimum commitment and, if they won't, we don't want them. 

[BullyPulpit]

1 minute ago, Brad said:

Need some creativity.  Like a sliding scale not on years, but on performance.  

I know, a coach wouldn't like it, but at some point you have to have a nonstandard agreement in this new world.

Don't have time to read five pages but will later.  Have been thinking a lot about this.

 

I agree you can get creative with it and reduce the buyout amount if certain benchmarks are met (Conference Titles, 10+ win seasons, APR and graduation rate, etc.), but the game has changed dramatically and we can't afford to continue to play by the old rules in which we constantly get fleeced. 

[Orlando Bull]

Still think it should be based on their projected salary at their new job. If Oregon/Texas/UF come calling for a $5M/year coach, they can pony up more than Illinois/Iowa/Purdue probably. Your coach may decide not to take one of those lesser jobs because he is holding out for a better opportunity... it's also largely related to how well he is doing... if you're going 9-4 every year, you can move up to P5 at a lower level. If you're going 12-0/11-1, you likely have a shot at getting that BIG payday.

I also like the built-in home and home series.

[PlantainChipsForMe]

On 12/7/2016 at 10:32 AM, 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. 

Why a one for one? Let's make it a two for one, meaning two games at our home, one at theirs.

That would be more of an impediment than money in poaching our future coaches.

[BullyPulpit]

8 minutes ago, Orlando Bull said:

Still think it should be based on their projected salary at their new job. If Oregon/Texas/UF come calling for a $5M/year coach, they can pony up more than Illinois/Iowa/Purdue probably. Your coach may decide not to take one of those lesser jobs because he is holding out for a better opportunity... it's also largely related to how well he is doing... if you're going 9-4 every year, you can move up to P5 at a lower level. If you're going 12-0/11-1, you likely have a shot at getting that BIG payday.

I also like the built-in home and home series.

The contract is not with the school taking the coach, it is just with the coach. The coach is the one legally responsible for paying the buyout, but the new school always foots the bill. As far as a home-and-home series would go, that would be something that could possibly be negotiated with the new school to decrease the buyout amount, but it wouldn't be something a coach could agree to contractually. Finally, the buyout amount could always be negotiated down on the backside if necessary depending on the circumstances. 

[TallyBull]

1 hour ago, Brad said:

Need some creativity.  Like a sliding scale not on years, but on performance.  

I know, a coach wouldn't like it, but at some point you have to have a nonstandard agreement in this new world.

Don't have time to read five pages but will later.  Have been thinking a lot about this.

 

I agree we have to try something creative. AAC schools, in particular, have to start thinking outside the box.

Also, please check your email, been trying to reach you about something offline. Thanks.