http://www.latechsports.com/sports/m...041017aaa.html
Printable View
I'll be interested to hear about what incentives are included.
You da MAN Skip! Now earn those BIG BUCKS!
bonuses and incentive will be addressed in the employment contractQuote:
Originally Posted by THEarmada
deescalating buyout starting at $400,000 prior to the final game of the 2017 season and deceasing by $100,000 each year until it hits zero following the 2020 season. Holtz's buyout will be reduced by $25,000 if Tommy McClelland is no longer the athletic director and $25,000 if Les Guice is no longer the president. If Holtz is fired, he will receive what's remaining on the contract at that time. several examples of buyouts if Holtz wins eight games in a season. For example, if he wins eight games in 2017, the buyout for 2018 is $400,000. If he wins eight games in 2018, but not 2017, the buyout the following year in 2019 would be $300,000, and if he wins eight games in 2019, but not 2017 or 2018, the buyout in 2020 would be $200,000.
contract will be extended by one year at the end of each season if Tech wins at least eight games. If Holtz wins eight games, the terms of the buyout will be extended by one season. The university will not reassign Holtz to another position with the school or athletic foundation during the term of the employment contract.
This is a very interesting approach that I've never seen before, Skip can keep himself employed indefinitely as long as he gets 8 wins and if he does it also helps the university by not having to negotiate with a coach after an 8 win season, which would put us in a weaker position.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Yes very interesting. The bar is set at 8 with 7 being considered a down year.Quote:
Originally Posted by GermDawg
And if he loses to NSU again he has to refund an entire year's salary. Doesn't matter what else he accomplishes either. We can go 11-2 and finish ranked, but if one of those two losses was to NSU...bam! Give it all back Skip.
Should be in all coaches contracts that you can't lose to an in-state school except LSU.
Agreed, and you should incentivize beating LSU above other OOC games.Quote:
Originally Posted by qng001
So, 12 reg games plus 1 bowl game is a 13 game season. Given that the odds are heavy that Tech schedules and loses two P5 road game and add another loss in the bowl game, just for an example scenario.
To reach an 8 and 5 record, HCSH could afford no more than two conference losses, not including a conference championship game. This would mean a conference record of 6 and 2.
A conference record of 5 and 3 would mean no conference championship game to make up a win. He would then have to win the bowl game.
If he gets to the conference championship game, the odds are that he will already have 8 wins (6 conference and 2 OOC). So, the conference championship game will most likely not play a part in getting him to 8 wins.
So, in any year he has 3 conference losses, he will need to win the bowl game to get his 8 wins.
So, 2 conference losses, he gets 8 wins.
3 conference losses, he has to win the bowl game (cause there will be no extra game, i.e. conference championship game)
4 conference losses, not good.
So glad they got this done!
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I think it's a very fair deal for both sides. I would've preferred better incentives, but 5 years $700K base with a low buyout and automatic 1-year extension with 8 wins is good for both parties.
I don't understand the 1-year assistant coach contracts. None of the assistants who left would've stayed if they were under a 1-year contract, and all of them who left were hired away with promotions. I think funding full COA instead of partial is a much more important issue.
And I think LA Tech also comes out ahead again because any "extension years" added to the back of the contract will still be at the current 700K salary run rate, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by GermDawg
So, if Holtz produces a 10-win season, we get to add another year onto his contract at 700K. That's a very good deal for us.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
Exactly. I think it's much ado about nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportdawg
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....
There will be NO buy-outs on the one year assistant contracts -
Muchado about nothing really
Based on State Fiscal CalendarQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by GermDawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
Gooddawg can't name names because he's making this crap up.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Here's the Dykes era coaching staff...
2010 2011 2012 HC Dykes Dykes Dykes OC Franklin Franklin Franklin DC Spangler Spangler Spangler WR Likens Likens Likens DL Eggen Eggen Eggen RB Ingram Ingram Ingram LB Koonz Koonz Koonz CB Curtis Curtis Curtis OL Perot Perot Perot ST/IR Tommerdahl Tommerdahl Tommerdahl S&C Harrington Harrington Harrington
Same 11 coaches on staff all 3 years with only the HC under contract.
Not a single assistant left under Dykes.
Spangler turned down the DC job at Washington State to stay at Tech without a contract, and I'm sure our other assistants had promotion offers to leave, too.
In retrospect, I wish Spangler would have taken that WashSt. job, I imagine 2012 was a bad blemish on his record, and 2011 was the high point of his career. I still think he was a good DC, but his defense got submitted to the TexasTech treatment all season...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Quote blindness.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Yea he is an example of why coaches should jump at the better offers. You are one year away from the end of your career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
Spangler's career didn't end. He's the head coach at Presby now.Quote:
Originally Posted by touchdown123
http://www.gobluehose.com/ViewArticl...CLID=206564260
Good for him, glad to see him land on his feet :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Gone back to where we got him from.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I never said we lost them because they were not on contract just that it was an issue with them. They wanted contracts, that is all I can say. Maybe they didn't want them to run from June to July, but they wanted contracts and I understand that. It's not too hard to figure out. If you get hired in June and fired in December without a contract you don't get paid in January or until you find another job. I guess I was giving you guys too much credit...
I suppose Manny Diaz would have appreciated one, especially after his mid-year treatment by Texas...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
I am not sure what your point is. I assume Diaz had a contract with Texas and was paid by them whatever he was owed.
Well I assume a contract decreases the chance you will be fired mid-year like Texas did to him. If he was paid for the firing, then I'm sure that had something to do with the contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
We never lost a coach during the years you referenced other than S&C. That must be your sourceQuote:
Originally Posted by Gooddawg
We didn't even lose our S&C coach during those years.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
During the Dykes/Holtz era (last 7+ years)...
- Tech has not fired a single football coach.
- Not a single assistant left for a lateral or lesser job.
- Nobody left during Dykes era.
- Assistants who left under Holtz either moved up in conference or took a promotion to HC or OC at lower conference.
If he had gone to WSU, his defenses would have been subjected to the "Texas Tech treatment" as well. Leach is even more pass happy than Dykes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
I assume his 2011 success while coordinating across from an Air Raid attack is what would have appealed to Leach to begin with.
True, but he probably would have left that program with a bit more cash. But you are correctQuote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
If assistants got guaranteed contracts that would mean something to them. Coinciding with the state's fiscal year, July 1 thru June 30. So, if an assistant is terminated, they will continue to be paid thru June 30. That will allow them time to find another job throughout the spring and not face financial hardship. That could be the case as long as the coach didn't violate some law or code of ethics that caused the termination. If it was strictly job performance related, then they would be paid for the full year. That would also be true if they found employment prior to June 30.
Otherwise we are talking about the totally meaningless state one-year contracts many state employees have now. There is no guarantee. Louisiana is an "at-will" state and outside of civil service (which needs to be changed) any state employee can be terminated without warning and for "no reason." Usually the state agency (a university) will make some allowance, like pay the employee till the end of the month, if terminated in the middle of it, and will continue to pay that employee for some period of time allowing them to use up unused leave (comp time and annual leave). This mitigates the adverse effects of losing their job.
Amen.....DON'T DO IT!!!!! Beat the doggie doo out of NSU!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
As long as there's fireworks after the game, I'm ok with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80