Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PawDawg
Give an example of a coach that has stressed out over not having a one year contract. None of our coaches have been fired under Holtz. I'm not seeing the positive for these contracts.
I was thinking the same. Assistant coaches don't need contracts. They need mobility, so they can move on to the next gig at a bigger school and better salary. Besides, a 1-year contract really isn't really a contract anyway.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
I think if an assistant is under contract from July 1-June 30, it makes it HARDER for them to jump to the next job in January if they had to wait until July 1 to move to the new job. I'm sure they would have some buyout type language that would pay Tech in the event the coach left.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gooddawg
I am very glad to see the assistants get contracts, this has been a big deal for assistant coaches for years and rightfully so. I agree, it is doubtful any of them who have left recently would have stayed but you can now get a buyout from their new schools as well. This should help in recruiting replacements as well. For the assistants it has been about security and guaranteed $$ and given the business they are in, I don't blame them.
A buyout at the end of a 1-year contract? Please explain. If you hire a coach after NSD and he gets hired away after our bowl game, it might get us a 1-month prorated buyout? Are these coaches fearful that Skip will fire them 2 games into the season or something crazy like that? Skip's never fired anyone in his four+ years at Tech, much less midseason. I still don't get it.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HogDawg
I was thinking the same. Assistant coaches don't need contracts. They need mobility, so they can move on to the next gig at a bigger school and better salary. Besides, a 1-year contract really isn't really a contract anyway.
Exactly. I think it's much ado about nothing.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sportdawg
I think if an assistant is under contract from July 1-June 30, it makes it HARDER for them to jump to the next job in January if they had to wait until July 1 to move to the new job. I'm sure they would have some buyout type language that would pay Tech in the event the coach left.
Why on earth would a football assistant's contract terms be from July 1 to June 30 if they are hired Dec.-Feb.? I can't imagine an assistant wanting to sign to those terms because it would inhibit their upward mobility.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Been a Holtz fan from day one-- even cut him slack from day one-- remember losing to NSU and posting Sokol threw pick, Trent fumbled punt, Dixon fumbled ( I think) and we missed a fg-- all in 4th quarter. My memory not perfect but that's the way I remember-- key players all made big mistakes -- hard to blame all that on the coach. That out of way, I am comfortable that we have contract but how did that work out with past coaches that moved on ?? If coach continues to win he will stay because he has found his "happy place" not because of contract. For last 3 years he has been in top tier of lowest cost for win --he will continue to be , at best, middle tier of CUSA coach salaries .... do not get my wrong here-- I think this is huge bargain and I am happy we can put this behind us and focus on football and keep assistant coaches around....
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
There will be NO buy-outs on the one year assistant contracts -
Muchado about nothing really
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dawg06
Why on earth would a football assistant's contract terms be from July 1 to June 30 if they are hired Dec.-Feb.? I can't imagine an assistant wanting to sign to those terms because it would inhibit their upward mobility.
Based on State Fiscal Calendar
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GermDawg
Based on State Fiscal Calendar
So what?
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PawDawg
Give an example of a coach that has stressed out over not having a one year contract. None of our coaches have been fired under Holtz. I'm not seeing the positive for these contracts.
I know of three it has come into play with. None of them are here any longer. Two of those were under Dykes. There is a reason Holtz wants contracts for his assistant coaches and that reason is the assistants want them.
Also, multi-year contracts are becoming a thing for coordinators so maybe he wants that for some of his guys.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gooddawg
I know of three it has come into play with. None of them are here any longer. Two of those were under Dykes. There is a reason Holtz wants contracts for his assistant coaches and that reason is the assistants want them.
Also, multi-year contracts are becoming a thing for coordinators so maybe he wants that for some of his guys.
Personally, I don't think there's anything to gain from giving ASSISTANT coaches a 1-yr contract. It's just dumb. The Assistant coaches on our staff are almost all low paid commodities. Most of the Asst. coaches we hire are unproven, and are not in high demand. With very few exceptions (e.g., Tim Rattay), almost all of our Asst coaches are looking for the next career step up by the time they first arrive here. For the most part, they are easily interchangeable with the next person who will ultimately take their place.
Most of America works without an employment "contract". Contracts are for high paid people in HIGH DEMAND (e.g., HEAD coaches). Contracts are not for low paid commodities that are easily replaceable and where there's very little difference in the outcome produced.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gooddawg
I know of three it has come into play with. None of them are here any longer. Two of those were under Dykes. There is a reason Holtz wants contracts for his assistant coaches and that reason is the assistants want them.
Also, multi-year contracts are becoming a thing for coordinators so maybe he wants that for some of his guys.
Again....it's about DEMAND. If you are hiring a high paid coordinator who is in high demand, you may need a contract. But I would find that difficult to justify at the CUSA level.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Wouldn't you want Tim Rattay on contract? What if some FCS offered him a job as OC? Hopefully he will eventually get that job at Tech and then maybe HC.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Houston Techsan
Wouldn't you want Tim Rattay on contract? What if some FCS offered him a job as OC? Hopefully he will eventually get that job at Tech and then maybe HC.
Go back and reread post #26. I said there might be a few exceptions, and I specifically named Tim Rattay as one. Again...it's about DEMAND. If a coach is in high demand you may consider putting them under contract.
Frankly, I don't know why ANY low paid assistant coach would want to sign a contract (say for 100K). Why would they limit themselves like that? Theoretically, by putting them under contract you limit their mobility. You might prevent them from taking that 200K job offer. Of course, it they move anyway, it only proves that the contract was worthless all along.
Re: Holtz's New Contract Done
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gooddawg
I know of three it has come into play with. None of them are here any longer. Two of those were under Dykes. There is a reason Holtz wants contracts for his assistant coaches and that reason is the assistants want them.
So we lost them because they didn't have one year contracts? My original question to you was how do the one year contracts help? Seriously...explain. You don't have to use a name, just give an example of how it might help us keep a coach.