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.
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
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
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.
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.