Interesting tweet from PWalsh:
LATechPWalsh Patrick Walsh
Louisiana Tech is working on a contract extension for @SonnyDykes. No details finalized yet. More info to come later. #LATechSports
Good to hear this.
Printable View
Interesting tweet from PWalsh:
LATechPWalsh Patrick Walsh
Louisiana Tech is working on a contract extension for @SonnyDykes. No details finalized yet. More info to come later. #LATechSports
Good to hear this.
That's wonderful news!!! After this year, he is certainly worth the raise!!
AWESOME news! I would hate to lose him after we start to become successful, only to get someone new and start all over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpix
Great job Tech!
When is his current contract up?
Either after the 2012 or 2013 year I think.
I thought he signed a 5 years contract - if so, he still has 3 years left.
I'm pretty sure he got a 5 year contract, so that means it goes to January 2015.Quote:
Originally Posted by latech
They might just be renegotiating the numbers.
Wait...I thought we couldn't give 5 year contracts (we really need a "stir the pot" emoticon).
Don't forget to up the buyout and require a home and home series.
Excellent news!!!
That's the most important part.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Very smart move doing this before the carousel gets up to speed, IMO. This is how you manage talent.
s there anything to negotiate for this? Often times and extension clause will be built into the initial contract and it's just a matter of exercising the option. Is that not the case now?
From FootballScoop:
LA Tech: The University has put it out there that they are working on an extension, along with a raise for Sonny Dykes. Nothing has been finalized yet.
Only if Tech is getting something guaranteed in return like more buyout money AND a home and home with the hiring school (which can also be bought out). If we are just increasing his contract to keep him happy or to fend off big time job offers we are wasting our limited resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
With the coaching carousel happening right now, I am glad to see BVDV doing the smart thing. Sonny D is a great coach and this raise is well deserved. Now lets get him locked up and lets take this talented team to a BCS game.
It's a 5 year contract with an $800k buyout. I think this is a ridiculous waste of money. First, anything offered will never be enough if the right AQ comes calling; and if the right one doesn't call nothing more is needed. Being unable to raise the funds for the SEZ and being unable to take the band and spirit groups to Tech's biggest bowl ever, yet being able to find hundreds of thousands of dollars for a raise that provides ZERO assurance of the sought-after continuity is BVDV's most STUPID move to date - easily out-distancing the lion's share lunacy.
Locked up? Are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW-IronDawg
It always amazes me when a coach wins (as JB3 did) and our fans get all excited and think a raise for a coach who did his job is in order.
Good grief! I want to know what Tech gets out of this renegotiation.
That's what Ole Miss did. They gave Houston Nutt a new contract after 2 years and 2 years later they fire him and he walks away with 6 million.
This year is a little different. With all the movement it's not the "right AQ" that you're worried about...it's the non-AQ with a little better record that may try and swipe your coach because theirs got swiped.
...and the chump change we are able to throw at him won't prevent a non-AQ from taking him either.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
This should be about what Tech gets not what Dykes gets.
If that's what we're throwing at him, you're probably right. Personally, I think programs like USM would have to think long and hard before they rolled out 1.2-1.5 mil to get a new coach.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Bruce is doing and has things I'm not in favor of. Extending SD's contract could be the right thing if it's done right.
I'll say again. It MUST be structured to benefit Tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I'm with you...I really like the home and home stipulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
I'm not sure BVDV or Sonny like big time home and home deals. They nixed the one with BYU.:icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
If Dykes has any AQ aspirations he would be foolish to agree to anything that strengthens Tech's position. Therefore, any "reward" to Dykes will not strengthen Tech's position.
No reward. He did he job.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
I completely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Why is that? You said yourself that the big AQs can pay whatever they wish. An extra 500K for Tech doesn't hurt sonny's ability to move to a big school at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
It's not about the money, it is about doing what is right and showing him respect. If we don't show him respect and appreciation it will encourage his departure the first real opportunity he gets and discourage other coaches regarding our program. I personally think SD is around for a while, he is our type of guy, he seems like the type of guy who takes pride in what he does, not to look good or make more money, but to build something important in players lives, the community and university. The more he wins the more we should offer him, as long as we continue to increase his salary as it is deserved, he will stay. I hope in his new deal we offer him a big percentage of any BCS payday if we make it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
Smart move on our part in my opinion.
2 year extension, bump salary up to $750K, add more incentives (for the entire staff, not to mention raises for them as well), and make it a flat $5M buyout regardless of when he leaves, along with a home and home. If an AQ wants him, they can afford it. Put it in writing that in two years or a BCS bowl berth next year, both parties can revisit the contract issue again.
A worthwhile gamble for us. Next year looks to be a sure-fire 9-10 win season at least, and the year after that the "system" and SD recruited players should be in place for another big year. If we have dreams of big-time football, then the admin has to step up and act like it.
Rediculous!Quote:
Originally Posted by ANODESSEY
That has nothing to do with anything. Completely off base.Quote:
Originally Posted by ANODESSEY
I'm for the raise. It shows we aren't a total cheapskate program that doesnt take care of it's coaches. Yeah we need money for the SEZ and for our BOP but this is a good move and when he hauls tail next season we will have 800k to entice some other young coach. I know some of you don't like him but we are WAC champs and are about to play in the biggest bowl of our entire programs history. That alone is worth it to me and if he wins another next year it will have voided all of your arguments over it.
Contracts don't mean anything. You re-negotiate only if it benefits you.Quote:
Originally Posted by KSDAWG
You folks that want to throw money at Dykes FOR DOING HIS JOB would make excellent union followers.
Doing his job will get him hired elsewhere. He is a gonner within the next two seasons. We just upped the buyout to benefit us. That and he was IMHO, underpaid.
So is it settled? We did up the buyout?Quote:
Originally Posted by KSDAWG
If we did, it's a new development and the first I've heard of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
These. And yes I do like restructuring it right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by KSDAWG
The only benefit of restructuring is continuity. It's worth something, but not a lot.
For
\Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
Could be cheaper to restructure this year than next year.
Are we finally going to give our teacher's a raise, too? This is a "University" after all.
+1000Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
If he does his job again next year he is GONE fo sho.Quote:
Originally Posted by olddog75
Good postQuote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
I suppose we do, but ONLY if they do their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by ANODESSEY
Classic battered fan syndrome.Quote:
Originally Posted by longdawgview
Are you in the US congress?Quote:
Originally Posted by ANODESSEY
Is it so difficult for you 1%-er capitalist pigs to envision someone's job satisfaction arising from something other than just salary?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipDog
Have you read Frederick Herzberg? I'd bet that chipdog has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
I rather that we don't give him a raise and let someone hire him away. So we can save our money and hire Monken.
No, having a deal done within 48 hours of the bowl announcement would have been the time to have it done. It would have beaten a lot of the coaching carousel talk and contacts that are still in process.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
And if he starts Burch next year?Quote:
Originally Posted by dfwdog
It is not all about base salary. It is amount incentives and more importantly years. A one or two year extension makes a lot of sense, not sure three or more years does.
According to Brandon Dunn (@BrandonDunnNBC6), Sports Director at KTAL (Channel 6, Shreveport):
"Louisiana Tech working on contract extension for Sonny Dykes according to sources in Ruston Could be because Ole Miss showing interest."
Texas A&M > Ole Miss. New ball game.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechAlum05
I'm confused after reading all of the comments about "buyouts", "extensions", etc. Why would anybody be o.k. with Sonny leaving after two more years? How could this be a good thing for our University? Why would we not do everything in our power to keep him in Ruston?
Because it's generally accepted that it will happen. It's not a matter of "if", but rather "when", especially if he keeps winning. The silver lining in this belief is that eventually Tech will consistently win enough to hire and hold on to a coach. I'm beginning to see the light in this JFW idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by HUGETechfan
We are not going to be able to outbid a SEC team. I want someone to hire Sonny away because I want Monken.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechAlum05
If an AQ wants him, they will get him anyway. And besides, doing this also helps when we do try to get a Monken. Being willing to renegotiate lets future coaches know that the option is there if they do a good job. And most likely, it raises the next HC starting salary as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfwdog
Yes, it shows future coaches that the LaTech can be controlled by a coach who actually does his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
It's funny that the five year contract only protects the coach. If he does bad he still gets his five years. Mediocre...he gets his five years. Wins...Let's scramble to renegotiate.:icon_roll:
AMEN.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Monken makes 700k. This contract shows that he is not out of reach if Dykes Bolts.
Reading this entire thread, I could only think one thing the entire time: This is a wonderful problem to have.
And just where can Dykes go that is willing to adopt the "System?" There are a limited number of Div. 1 AQ schools that would be willing to adopt the System hook, line and sinker, which is what is required if you hire Dykes. I see his opportunities as limited, his interest in a high pressure job low, and the chance of his leaving even lower. Substantially increasing his salary is stupid; but what else is new with actions associated with the AD and Reneau?
We know you don't like him, but this shows future coaches that we are willing to pay. Simple as that.......Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
I like the guy and am glad that we won the WAC - performed excellent in all but 2 games this year and have a 7 game winning streak. Chalk it up to whatever you want, but the team AND coach get credit in this situation. If we run the table next year, will you have the same thoughts about him? The next? Been a long time since a Tech team consistently won, so I would be interested in your answer.
I don't disagree with anything you said up there, except the bold part.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
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.
IMO-- this trumps EVERYTHING else. The stakes are high right now, and whatever your opinion of Dykes' system, C-USA sees a successful coach who won the WAC that should be paid more than any Sun Belt coach.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
I'm curious why LFR doesn't acknowlede this point?
Oh yeah, and remember back to one of the reasons UTEP got in instead of us? I think the Mike Price raise might have had some sway.
He needs to be paid in the $600k ish range. Higher than any Sun Belt coach (Stockstill makes $589k)... and in the general range of a lot of the C-USA schools.
SOMEBODY please explain the purpose of the five year contract we negotiate when hiring. These are just to lure them in? It damn sure doesn't protect Tech!
If a school is gonna get all giddy about winning and a bowl game then why not put something in the original contract?
This sums up most of the posters on this thread. Good gosh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I don't necessarily buy it 100 percent, but one of the writers at CFN always has a rant each year about this time that you should never re-negotiate a coach's contract. His theory is that no coach is going to walk away on principle, and if they get a better offer they're gone anyway so you're only handicapping your ability to fire him if things go bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
I can think of several problems with this, but I've always thought it's interesting.
If the buyout can be increased dramatically, it can help the school a lot as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
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.
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...
I bet you an Icee that the buyout does not get increased and that LaTech will receive nothing new in return.Quote:
Originally Posted by domangue
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 himQuote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
If they do increase pay with no major increase in buyout, I'll be upset right along with you.
Yeah if we don't get a high buyout then I don't like the idea.
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.
Wow, all this knowledge from our pseudo Athletic Directors and Contract Attorneys on here is mind-blowing. I'm entertained...please continue....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
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.
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Did CSD ask for a re-negotiation?
My understanding is that this was initiated by BVDV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
BVDV: Hey Coach, how would you like some more money?
SD: Nah, we're good. Thanks.
That's the most obvious problem with the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by domangue
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.
I say increase the buyout significantly, bump the base salary a bit, and add more opportunity for significant bonuses that reward the coach when the university sees significant (financial) benefit. Ten win seasons, BCS bowl games, attendance records, consecutive bowls etc.
If you insist on doing something, this is reasonable (completely unnecessary, but reasonable). But I'll be surprised if that is the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcrazy
I don't understand why you guys seem so angry about this.
It's a good thing to pay a more competitive coaching salary. If the money is not coming from donations to Q4E (like raising money to send the band could), this is a good thing. And of course we need to raise the buyout.
We can't stop cussing the adm for being cheap before we start cussing them for spending too much money.
My guess is that SD will get a modest raise with an extension and a modestly raised buy out.
:laugh::laugh:Are you new here?!Quote:
Originally Posted by touchdown123
I hope Sonny stays, and don't have a problem with them renegotiating- although I do agree with your point. But, if we give him more money I expect the buyout to increase substantially too. If not, we just wasted our money. For continuity we are better off with him staying another year or 2- after that if he is here it is because he is losing and that will not be good. If we get a bigger buyout in the contract that will help us attract the next new coach. If TECH wins we will be the training ground until we get ourselves in a better position.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
:laugh::laugh::laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
How about he just keep going under his CONTRACT and what he agreed to....
THISQuote:
Originally Posted by dawgcrazy
I'd agree, but that isn't how it works in college football or sports in general. Schools never, except ulm, let the contract play out. The coach is fired, given an extension, or hired away all prior to the conclusion of the contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooster
I'd be all for letting it play out if coaches generally left to a bigger school after their contract ended, but they don't.
The other reason for this is recruiting. When coaches are pitching their school to a kid, the theory is that it helps to have "proof" that they'll be around for the duration of that kid's playing time. If you tell a recruit, come play for us for the next 4-5 years and he asks how come you're only under contract for one more year I guess it would seem funny to say "well, when I finish this contract, then the school and I will negotiate for a new one."Quote:
Originally Posted by touchdown123