forums

Why do schools not lock up their coaches better?

S

Saltycane

Sophomore
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
1,010
I always wondered why they don't put a buyout in so big that it locks them in to honor the contract? For instance if FSU nearly doubles dumbo's salary why can't they require a $20 million buyout?
 
Advertisement
Saltycane said:
I always wondered why they don't put a buyout in so big that it locks them in to honor the contract? For instance if FSU nearly doubles dumbo's salary why can't they require a $20 million buyout?
Click to expand...

Because Jimbo (or most coaches with good agents) won't sign contracts under those unfavorable terms?

Also, if a coach wants to leave, you don't really want to hold them captive to a huge buyout.

One more thing, what happens if you're a school on the other end of the deal and you want to poach
someone else's coach, are you going to pay that huge buyout for the coach you covet?
 
Listen if I am giving that huge salary you either sign or I find someone else. The schools need to be the ones with the leverage. As for hiring a coach you get a young up and comer or an assistant or a fired coach.
 
Most have some type of percentage for both. That was the Butch problem and why he walked away. They offered a 20/80, which means that if they wanted to can his ***, the U only had to pay 20% of the remaining contract, and if he wanted to leave, he would have to pay 80% of the value of the remaining contract. It was called the bitter pill option, and ultimately was the only reason that he left.

There is generally around a 33/33 or 50/50 option in the contracts, but the more leverage the coach has, the less bitter the pill.
 
Advertisement
Saltycane said:
Listen if I am giving that huge salary you either sign or I find someone else. The schools need to be the ones with the leverage. As for hiring a coach you get a young up and comer or an assistant or a fired coach.
Click to expand...

Yeah umm no. Contracts don't work that way.
 
EFIL 4 ENAC said:
Saltycane said:
Listen if I am giving that huge salary you either sign or I find someone else. The schools need to be the ones with the leverage. As for hiring a coach you get a young up and comer or an assistant or a fired coach.
Click to expand...

Yeah umm no. Contracts don't work that way.
Click to expand...

This. They do not work with just the salary. In fact, Butch left not because of the money, but the other language mentioned above.
 
hcanes100 said:
EFIL 4 ENAC said:
Saltycane said:
Listen if I am giving that huge salary you either sign or I find someone else. The schools need to be the ones with the leverage. As for hiring a coach you get a young up and comer or an assistant or a fired coach.
Click to expand...

Yeah umm no. Contracts don't work that way.
Click to expand...

This. They do not work with just the salary. In fact, Butch left not because of the money, but the other language mentioned above.
Click to expand...

You believed that fable Butch spun the other day?
 
Advertisement
Saltycane said:
Listen if I am giving that huge salary you either sign or I find someone else. The schools need to be the ones with the leverage. As for hiring a coach you get a young up and comer or an assistant or a fired coach.
Click to expand...


Leverage exists via the NCAA. It is THEY (and by default their signatory Universities) who are allowing this "arms race" within college athletics to occur. This is what is creating the aggressive job market for high level coaches.

That said, both sides will always want an "out" built into the contract. What if the coach doesnt pan out for some reason? THe universities will want an out. An iron clad contract that a coach cant get out of also keeps a Randy Shannon locked in for another 3 years. It keeps a Mike Price coaching the spring game the week after getting busted in a south alabama ***** house.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top