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 contract
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.