Why Aren’t Buyouts Tied To Success?

The market kind of dictates contracts. Who do you think has the leverage, coaches or ADs?

Dont be lame and make this political.

Clearly coaches have the power, so they dictate terms. You can put this type of wording in a contract, but good luck getting a good established coach with it

Excluding private schools (who aren't required to disclose terms), the 2 highest paid coaches who don't have buyouts are ...

Pat Narduzzi and Sam Pittman.

That's the caliber of coaches you're going to attract with your plan.

Coaches/Their agents have held ADs by their balls for a while now. Not sure if the bubble will burst but it is absolutely ridiculous schools feel like fully guaranteed or near fully guaranteed super long term deals are actually a good idea. I can guarantee you Woodward on Saturday night is having huge second thoughts now on seeing Kelly have SEVEN years remaining on his deal at 90% guarantee with us sitting with 4 losses in year 3 with 3 games remaining (incl. bowl).

The MS thing with the longest contract allowed being 4 years seems like a great idea on paper however would they ever attract a big name coach with something like that?

quote:

---

Why can’t the buyouts be structured the same way? The buyout should have to be earned or at least traunched.

---

I'm really interested to hear you further explain how a buyout would be earned.

I can agree that a 10 year, fully guaranteed contract is too much. But I can't even begin to fathom what system you're actually trying to call for.

quote:

---

Wait. So if you are paying a coach millions of dollars a year and he is not getting the job done you should pay him more millions to fire him for not doing his job? What universe does that make sense in?

---

The one where both sides agreed to the terms in writing and signed off on the deal.

Perhaps the people who offered the deal should be handed their walking papers as well.

The entire discussion of what coaches are paid is completely irrelevant. You aren't competing at this level without -$10M a year guaranteed contract. You either pay them up front to entice them to leave a program or pay to keep them if they have success.

Bottom line, if they shite the bed and you want to fire them, you are paying them.

quote:

---

Who do you think has the leverage, coaches or ADs?

---

Agents

quote:

---

it is absolutely ridiculous schools feel like fully guaranteed or near fully guaranteed super long term deals are actually a good idea.

---

Fans/donors DEMAND a championship coach and won't accept anything less than a "splash" hire. The pool of coaches who fit that criteria is small. The pool that might actually leave their current position is even smaller. When you have that much demand and that little supply, the supply side holds ALL of the leverage.

Now, there is a logical argument for the long term deals. When Jimbo signed his (then) huge 10 year $75M contract in 2018 it was a market shaking event. Fast forward 6 years later and that $7.5M annual salary would be ranked 20th, tied with Lance Liepold, at Kanas, in terms of highest annual salary. The logic is that you are basically locking in a contract that will remain stable against market inflation and, over time, produce a better ROI. Of course, the hope is that you are getting the results you want from that contract. Kelly is ranked 8th in annual salary. It's likely with inevitable changes/raises, etc, that ranking will be lower next season.

What I have learned over the last few days is that many LSU fans believe LSU can fire Kelly today, eat the nearly $70M to buy out he and his staff, then hire a "big name" HC who will agree to a 3 year contract with an annual salary of $200k, plus incentives, and no buyout.

quote:

---

Are you really this dense?

---

Are you retarded? What's your point? It's a DISCUSSION BOARD dumb arse.