Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LATechBanjo
I don't disagree with anything you said up there, except the bold part.
I can think of a few reasons it makes good sense.
1. We are showing CUSA or any other conference that we value our athletic programs and want to reward success. Putting our money where our mouth is, and quickly.
2. This will keep him from being poached by a school with worse prospects, but more money (IE Tulane.)
3. Raising a coach's salary is also an automatic hedge in case he does leave. Future candidates that may have been off our radar before may become more receptive to a school that is willing to pay for success.
4. He did one hell of a job this year, and where I'm from, you reward those that do well, especially when they exceed expectations.
5. Retention of high talent employees is just plain good business. Whether successful or not, TRYING to retain Dykes by any means possible is better than just giving up and letting AQ schools come and take him.
1. CUSA already wants Tech for reasons far removed from the salary of our HC. Further, the salary of the HC is not a criterion used to evaluate conference candidacy worthiness. Overall athletic budget is evaluated, but not specifics. Money would be far more wisely spent improving facilities than increasing a salary.
2. Raising the salary at this time does not raise the interest level of future potential candidates. Only what is being offered at the time that the job becomes available is all that matters.
3. All HC's want money and prestige. But they know that if they don't win they'll get neither. Dykes would be foolish to, and won't, leave for money alone if it means going to a Tulane or similar situation where it will be difficult to win. That's of no concern so remove that argument.
4. Increase his salary because he had a good year? Because he did what he was hired to do? Because he did his job? Well then, let's have that street run both ways. Let's deduct from his salary for underperforming last year, or deduct from his salary if he should unexpectedly stumble next year. His reward should be a discussion with the AD and being informed that at the end of the contract term, IF he continues to perform well, that he can THEN expect a very generous new contract.
Re: From the negotiating room
I have always been opposed to re-doing contracts...whats the point of a contract...I'll tell you, for 2 sides to hold their end of the bargain...Tech- to pay Dykes...Dykes-to stay here 5 years....I am no hater, but my gosh, he he 1 winning season and we are scrambling to re-do his contract...I think it is stupid, at least see if he can put 2 winnng season together back to back....Instead of giving him more $, lets take that $ and fund available scholarships in other sports that are not funded...
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
domangue
If the buyout can be increased dramatically, it can help the school a lot as well
I bet you an Icee that the buyout does not get increased and that LaTech will receive nothing new in return.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LookingForResults
1. CUSA already wants Tech for reasons far removed from the salary of our HC.
2. Raising the salary at this time does not raise the interest level of future potential candidates. Only what is being offered at the time that the job becomes
available is all that matters.
3. All HC's want money and prestige. But they know that if they don't win they'll get neither. Dykes would be foolish to, and won't, leave for money alone if it means
going to a Tulane or similar situation where it will be difficult to win. That's of no concern so remove that argument.
4. Increase his salary because he had a good year? Because he did what he was hired to do? Because he did his job? Well then, let's have that street run both
ways. Let's deduct from his salary for underperforming last year, or deduct from his salary if he should unexpectedly stumble next year. His reward should be a
discussion with the AD and being informed that at the end of the contract term, IF he continues to perform well, that he can THEN expect a very generous new
contract.
Possibly the best post ever on BBB...like I said, I am no Dykes hater :) or huge fan...I think he had a good year...that is what we paid him to do...he agreed to it under his current contract..In fact, he had such a good year, he will be receiving several bonuses...Lets see if he can string together 2-3 winning seasons in a row before we sell the farm for him
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LookingForResults
1. CUSA already wants Tech for reasons far removed from the salary of our HC. Good to hear. Substitute Big East/BigXII for CUSA then.
2. Raising the salary at this time does not raise the interest level of future potential candidates. Only what is being offered at the time that the job becomes available is all that matters. I don't see your logic there. Boise has a reputation for paying to retain talent. Even if Peterson does leave, that coaching position is now more valuable in general because the school values the position. If a company pays the same entry level wage for the same entry level job, it means that they don't want people there long. I.E. Turnover is desirable. In the case of a head coach, turnover is neither desirable nor inexpensive, even with buyouts attached.
3. All HC's want money and prestige. But they know that if they don't win they'll get neither. Dykes would be foolish to, and won't, leave for money alone if it means going to a Tulane or similar situation where it will be difficult to win. That's of no concern so remove that argument. If he was foolish enough to do it, we'd still be left coach-less in the middle of recruiting season.
4. Increase his salary because he had a good year? Because he did what he was hired to do? Because he did his job? Well then, let's have that street run both ways. Let's deduct from his salary for underperforming last year, or deduct from his salary if he should unexpectedly stumble next year. His reward should be a discussion with the AD and being informed that at the end of the contract term, IF he continues to perform well, that he can THEN expect a very generous new contract. He didn't have a good year, he had a phenomenal year with all things considered. And both yourself and maddawg are viewing contracts as what they should be, not as what they are. In the professional sports world, they are mostly meaningless from the standpoint of the "coach holding his end of the bargain." He will jump at the best school AQ that can pay the buyout, unless we sweeten the deal. In today's fast-moving college sports world, Dykes is under essentially a one-season contract.
I'm following your logic. If I'm understanding you correctly, your saying there is no reason to give him more money, because he cannot go anywhere else right now. You're correct that we probably don't NEED to pay him more. But I really believe that it's good business and a PROACTIVE approach to both pay him more, with the only caveat being that his buyout is substantially raised.
If they do increase pay with no major increase in buyout, I'll be upset right along with you.
Re: From the negotiating room
Yeah if we don't get a high buyout then I don't like the idea.
Re: From the negotiating room
1. No coach cares what you are paying NOW; they care only about what you will pay him at that time. If you initiate a new coaching search with a stated salary range sufficient to attract the best candidates, the best candidates will apply, regardless of the previous payment history.
2. If he is so foolish to leave for a bad job (he's not) just for more money, then the additional money we are about to offer is money being offered to a fool, which makes it a doubly foolish offer.
3. He will jump at the "right" AQ offer regardless of any salary increase by Tech, which further dramatizes the stupidity of contract renegotiation.
Re: From the negotiating room
Wow, all this knowledge from our pseudo Athletic Directors and Contract Attorneys on here is mind-blowing. I'm entertained...please continue....
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
maddawg
I bet you an Icee that the buyout does not get increased and that LaTech will receive nothing new in return.
If this is true then it is a horrible idea. The only reason you renegotiate this contract IMO is to increase the buyout. You pay Dykes more to increase the buyout.
He is set up for success next year and the coaching carousel is not slowing down. If we are going to give him an extra 250k next year, we need to make sure that anyone that wants to hire him has to give us an extra 750k if they come to grab him. If we can't do that, there is no reason to renegotiate.
Re: From the negotiating room
And I also agree , up the pay but up the buyout considerably. Doing this without upping the buyout makes us look stupid and we of course certainly do not want to look stupid!
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TECH88
Wow, all this knowledge from our pseudo Athletic Directors and Contract Attorneys on here is mind-blowing. I'm entertained...please continue....
Neither side of this debate has to be an attorney to have a business philosophy. BUT...there are many athletic directors who couldn't negotiate their way out of a footbal game with a SWAC school. That should be cause for concern.
Re: From the negotiating room
Did CSD ask for a re-negotiation?
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cool Hand Clyde
Did CSD ask for a re-negotiation?
My understanding is that this was initiated by BVDV.
Re: From the negotiating room
BVDV: Hey Coach, how would you like some more money?
SD: Nah, we're good. Thanks.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
domangue
If the buyout can be increased dramatically, it can help the school a lot as well
That's the most obvious problem with the theory.
I'm all for raising the buyout. I actually think that's a win-win. He can have a little more money, but we'll want more if he leaves.
