Based on.....? And paying him keeps him for how much longer?? And if the raise comes at the expense of further delay on the SEZ? And if there is no increase in the buyout?Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
|
|
|
|
|
Based on.....? And paying him keeps him for how much longer?? And if the raise comes at the expense of further delay on the SEZ? And if there is no increase in the buyout?
... and cut Precious a big check too, since Dykes attributes much of his success to what Precious did before him.
Some info from a sports management site about contracts (bolding mine):
While provisions for renegotiation during the term of an agreement appear unnecessary, they are fairly common in long-term contracts because the coach wants assurance that his or her rate of compensation will keep pace with the marketplace. There are even some high profile coaches who have difficult negotiations with athletics directors or presidents or are so comfortable working with people they like and trust, that the departure of people in these positions can trigger a renegotiation provision which may or may not be limited to certain aspects of the agreement.
Many coaches look for a minimum three-to five- year agreement, recognizing that rebuilding a sport program requires multiple recruiting classes. Longer term agreements are usually limited to coaches of proven value and performance. Shorter term agreements may reflect the willingness of an institution to take a chance on a promising but unproven coach or an institution whose alumni does not tolerate a losing program over more than a three year period. Again, speaking with athletics director colleagues at peer institutions or schools with programs of a quality level to which the institution aspires will give the athletics administrator a good idea of the duration, compensation, benefits and other considerations that represent the marketplace in which the athletics director should be recruiting.
http://www.sportsmanagementresources...tract-elements
Like I said, this is a fairly common practice in sports and is what it is. If Tech does not do it, I believe that it puts us at a disadvantage with regards to other schools. Personally, I would prefer to see all HC at the FBS level get a $50K base salary with incentives worth up to $2-3M. They would be paid according to actual results, but we know that will never happen. The system has evolved to this, we can adapt or maintain the status quo. But any new contract has got to include value to both parties. If we do not get a new and higher buyout or something of equal or greater value, it will be a huge fail on Tech's part.
The only point. That would make for a strange negotitation. I suspect in this situation, that would be a tgwo minute call.
Yep. But coaches tend to be in the driver's seat.Dykes will get the "Lion's Share" of whatever new benefits are negotiated.
So Hook, you don't necessarily agree with doing it, you just think we should do it because others do it? Other than being one of the Jones what are the advantages for a stepping stone school to do it?
Only if their boss allows them to be. Dykes has done nothing to gain leverage.
You and maddog are wrong on this one. (Nothing new about that.)
A week ago I posted that we need to renegotiate Dykes' contract, both in terms of an increased salary and increased incentives. The "incentives" in his current contract are laughable, and we all know his salary isn't competitive with most of the better non-aq's. I also stipulated that his "new" contract should include some incentives for the university, specifically a larger buyout amount (my recommendation was $1.5M) that is only applicable to other schools, and not applicable to LA Tech (in the unlikely event that we have to fire him later).
In essence, Dykes would be trading up for more money --and more security-- in return for a bigger buyout amount that would have to be paid by any school that comes to hire him away. IMO, that gives him even better leverage with any school that wants to hire him away. He will essentially be saying "I'm doing well here....so small time poachers need not apply".
The fact is, what Dykes is doing is working at LA Tech, and Tech is now poised for another big year in 2012. You guys (LFR & maddog) can't be shortsighted about this. Our beloved university has a sizable investment in him, and we need his coaching staff to remain in tact as long as they are winning football games and winning championships. We're already seeing increased attendance at the gate, and our brand continues to improve with CUSA.
Make no mistake, we need to renegotiate Dykes' contract ASAP. Announcing a successful "renegotiation" of his contract during the Poinsettia Bowl would be a great opportunity for us, and a great message to our potential recruits and fans.
HD
Not the only outcome, the only point. We would have to give something to achieve that (i.e. a higher base salary) but our goal in the renegotiation shouldn't be to give Dykes more money. That would be a two minute call.
The man has a contract through Jan. 2015. His contract stipulates that if he leaves prior to 2014 he must pay Tech $800K. He has approximately 40 seniors back next year (the largest Tech senior class I have ever seen since 1978!).
If there is no increased buyout clause amount to AT LEAST $1M then LFR is correct.
Forget Monken. We've already GOT a guy who has proven he can win CHAMPIONSHIPS at LA Tech.
HD
At the end of the year a certain OC from Oklahoma State University has two job offers on the table. They are identical in every respect. The two schools are basically equal in terms of potential, location, prestige, conference affiliation, etc. The only difference between the two schools is that school A has a history of renegotiating a contract and rewarding a coach if they are successful. School B has a history of no renegotiating a contract until it is up. Which school does said OC from Oklahoma State University go with?
Fairly far out example, I know, but it illustrates that it could be an issue in future coaching hires.
But generally, I think it keeps us competive with our peers and conference mates for the most part. If USM, Houston, ECU, etc. reward their coaches after good years, I think it puts us at a competitive disadvantage if we do not. And at some point, our goal should be a destination school, not a stepping stone. Rewarding coaches helps with this in my view. With respect to AQ schools, at this point about the best we can hope for is that we get a nice cash settlement out of it and perhaps a home game. It will not keep the AQs from taking him. While we can not prevent an AQ from knocking on the HC's door, renegotiating may keep the HC from knocking on an AQ door. In other words, a new contract may not keep him from leaving, but may help to keep him from looking. It also tells recruits that we are serious about keeping our coach (to a certain extent). And I think that it shows that the admin is committed to raising the bar and is making a serious commitment to athletics, both to alumni and fans, and to potential conference suitors.
I may be the only one, but these things seem to make sense to me.
By the way Vandy (1st year coach) has agreed to a new contract:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...|text|Sports|p
VA Tech did so before the season began:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...CJ7J_blog.html
I think a 5 million buyout in his contract would be appropriate. That way we could give the next coach a 5 yr, 5 million contract.
The post above is a great example of "amateur hour". Some folks just don't get it.
HD
You are one of the hand full of fans who mentioned this. You have been consistant. I'll give you that.You and maddog are wrong on this one. (Nothing new about that.
A week ago I posted that we need to renegotiate Dykes' contract, both in terms of an increased salary and increased incentives. The "incentives" in his current contract are laughable
Make no mistake, we need to renegotiate Dykes' contract ASAP. Announcing a successful "renegotiation" of his contract during the Poinsettia Bowl would be a great opportunity for us, and a great message to our potential recruits and fans.
HD
I assume you will be okay with a restructruing even if the buyout is not increased? It won't be.
BTW, I do seem to remember that during Dykes acceptance speech that he and BVDV both laughed about the incentive package in his current contract. It is laughable isn't it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote