re: Coaches pay should be based on winning not on the possibility of winning

quote:

---

It would be nice if the Contracts were low base pay with a high incentive pay, but we would never get a decent coach.

---

The irony is LSU HAD the opportunity to do just that with Orgeron. When he was hired in 2016 NO OTHER MAJOR SCHOOL IN AMERICA considered him even a candidate for their HC job. Thus, Orgeron had no negotiating leverage. His options were either take the LSU job at whatever salary LSU offered...or continue to not be a major conf. HC.

We can argue all day long as to if hiring him in the first place was a wise move. But the reality is his initial contract wasn't (relatively speaking) that onerous for LSU to bail out of if the hire didn't work out. It was ONLY when Woodward lost his mind following 2019 and gave Ed a huge raise and 6 year extension...despite O's market demand not significantly increasing...that LSU got stuck with a $17 million buyout when things quickly went south.

In the majority of instances the coach hold ALL of the leverage because he knows MULTIPLE schools will be willing to pay him big money for his services. If LSU won't give him what he demands...no sweat. He'll just stay where he's at or go to a school that will.

If you want to hire a guy who will agree to work on a contingency fee basis, then don't be upset when the only guys willing to accept such deals are guys desperate for a job whom no one else wants to hire.

quote:

---

It was ONLY when Woodward lost his mind following 2019 and gave Ed a huge raise and 6 year extension...despite O's market demand not significantly increasing...that LSU got stuck with a $17 million buyout when things quickly went south.

---

correct. NO OTHER SCHOOL was coming after O, so we didn't need to raise or extend him. Besides, the "model" didn't change - which was to underpay O and use the extra cash on hiring the best assistants.

So naturally LSU did the opposite - gave O a huge raise and hired newbie coordinators. Utter disaster.

Good luck with that, I am sure the top coaches in the country will be beating the door down to sign up.

The one football organization that bucks the market coincidentally wins more than any franchise in history.

Which way is Utopia? I can’t find it.

quote:

---

none of us hate capitalism, but it doesn't bother you when a bad coach gets a massive buyout merely for failing?

---

You don't understand how that works. A bad coach gets the buyout because the university is BUYING OUT out the remainder of the contract. Nobody is forcing that. The university could just as well not payout the remaining years and allow the coach to fulfill the job for the amount of years he was hired on to do.

quote:

---

The one football organization that bucks the market coincidentally wins more than any franchise in history.

---

The one they have now (LaFleur) is underpaid, sure. But he's due for a giant bump within the next year or two.

And before that, 3 of the past 4 permanent HCs were market busters (Holmgren, Sherman, McCarthy). So your example actually invalidates your argument.

... Congrats?!?

What area of La La land are you from?

You would be a crappy agent and a worse AD.
Sorry it stinks sometimes with how it plays out, but this is the modern world we live in.

It's obviously not practical, but I understand the OP's point. There are, at all times, coaches making elite money for mediocre performance. That's screwed up. But the trade off here is that there is absolutely no loyalty from colleges to coaches. You can go from national championship to being fired in less than one year. Before anyone flames and says I'm an apologist for O, please chill. I think letting him go was the right decision. My only point, is that it's completely reasonable for coaches to demand big guaranteed contracts, because everyone knows that they're a season or two away from being fired at all times.