Raiding the AAC for Coaches

[George_Bullnard_Shaw]

10 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

While I grant you that it might be preferential, the NCAA will never do it. There is no way they will even consider a rule such as that. Also, major coaches would never want more than a 2 year deal. You would actually create greater instability in the process. 

At least with my proposal we create stability (be it coaching or financial) and are able to enforce it without relying upon the NCAA to act. 

You get enough big buyouts, you can get to financially compete for at least a little while. If the get paid to lose to the Money 5 schools model is drying up as they refuse to play outside of the Money 5, then switch it to get paid to develop coaching for the Money 5. If they want a coaching farm league, then they have to support it somehow. Right now they are classically having their cake and eating it too. Keeping the G5 from competing for championships, getting tv money but relying on them to season up and coming coaches.

[smazza]

49 minutes ago, BullFan98 said:

The NCAA needs to implement a non compete provision which would result in a complete bar of raiding coaches while under contract.  This is the only fair way, I see, to an overhaul of this big problem.  You want to pay a coach a zillion dollars to leave his position at another school that is fine, but don't do it while the coach is under contract.  This will benefit coaches with increased salaries, but will also preserve the status quo of the athletic departments while its coaches are under contract.  

not legal

[smazza]

10 minutes ago, BDYZR said:

100% agree.

Face it, we are NOT going to hire a Saban type coach. How many head coaches are set in their respective position without fear? Even Fisher at FSU isn't safe if he loses a couple more games next year.

While USF may not be THE destination, we're a pretty darn good destination.

no one is  safe

[George_Bullnard_Shaw]

Just now, smazza said:

not legal

College football is arguably not legal in many ways.

[Orlando Bull]

Why not make it like a head-hunter fee. The buyout has a minimum, plus a direct connection to the salary of the coach... i.e. CWT buyout is $1.7M, let's say Oregon is going to pay him $4M, there could be an addition xx% of his salary that they would owe USF for hiring him while under contract, for the remainder of his contract here.

This would be similar to Texas paying Strong his entire buyout, unless he takes another job, then it's reduced by 50% of his new salary.

 

[Bulls Are We]

3 minutes ago, Orlando Bull said:

Why not make it like a head-hunter fee. The buyout has a minimum, plus a direct connection to the salary of the coach... i.e. CWT buyout is $1.7M, let's say Oregon is going to pay him $4M, there could be an addition xx% of his salary that they would owe USF for hiring him while under contract, for the remainder of his contract here.

This would be similar to Texas paying Strong his entire buyout, unless he takes another job, then it's reduced by 50% of his new salary.

 

Let's pay Charlie a $1 a year for the first two years.  Thanks Texas!  

[Bear]

10 minutes ago, George_Bullnard_Shaw said:

College football is arguably not legal in many ways.

this,,,

 

hey, let's raise hell for the NCAA, until they introduce 'voluntary' salary caps for coaches OR and more level playing field for ALL FBS programs

[BullFan98]

1 hour ago, BullyPulpit said:

While I grant you that it might be preferential, the NCAA will never do it. There is no way they will even consider a rule such as that. Also, major coaches would never want more than a 2 year deal. You would actually create greater instability in the process. 

At least with my proposal we create stability (be it coaching or financial) and are able to enforce it without relying upon the NCAA to act. 

I think both our proposals are a pipe dream (maybe mine more than yours). Up and coming coaches aren't going to agree to golden handcuffs via a "lucrative buyout". Which begs the question what is a "lucrative" buyout?  It needs to be significant enough to deter a larger program from raiding a smaller program. A lot of P5 schools have the money and it may be in their financial interest from a cost/benefit analysis to pay the money. Still doesn't solve the problem. 

[BullFan98]

1 hour ago, smazza said:

not legal

Is that your legal opinion counselor, because if so that is a broad and inaccurate conclusion. Perhaps in places like NY, but if done right not in Florida. Most states have their own varying statutory law on this issue. 

[BullyPulpit]

22 minutes ago, BullFan98 said:

I think both our proposals are a pipe dream (maybe mine more than yours). Up and coming coaches aren't going to agree to golden handcuffs via a "lucrative buyout". Which begs the question what is a "lucrative" buyout?  It needs to be significant enough to deter a larger program from raiding a smaller program. A lot of P5 schools have the money and it may be in their financial interest from a cost/benefit analysis to pay the money. Still doesn't solve the problem. 

The idea is to create stability either through continuity of coaching or financially. My idea is not far fetched. We are getting $1.7 million for Taggart's buyout as it is. The real idea is to prevent coaches from coming in for only one or two years and then taking off. If we were to hire Kiffin now, he comes in and goes 11-2, and then takes a job at Texas A&M or the like, we end up totally screwed. We have no continuity of coaching and philosophy, we have no consistency with recruiting, and our program falls back another 4 years. The large buyout would either prevent the cut and run by a coach like Kiffin or have us in an immediate position where we have the funds to make a "splash" hire of our own.

My idea just requires our AD to stand firm in what we expect from an incoming coach and to use their own promises of being committed to building something here against them. Your idea requires something short of an act of God by the NCAA that would go against what the richest and most influential member institutions would want.