Best coach for the money

[6-4-3 Jackrabbit]

Re: Best coach for the money

[QUOTE=joeboo22;220621]I don't think 1 year contracts matter when retaining a coach.

I totally disagree with the opening statement. To flip the page a little bit and move the conversation to the womens basketball. Pam Borton at the U of M would be history with a one year contract. Do you think the contract listed below would look appealing to a coach at a mid-major university that offers one year contracts?

Here is an excerpt from a Star and Trib article that ran in March 2011 and is attached at the end of this post.
Borton's patchwork resulted in a contract extension that runs through 2014. The contract paid her more than $547,000 last year and includes a buyout deduced by multiplying base pay times the years remaining on the contract; the buyout currently is more than $1 million.

Coaches don't get into coaching for the money, but when it's offered they're idiots if they don't take it. One year contracts w/out buyouts don't help SDSU retain and hire new coaches.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/go...3.html?refer=y

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: Best coach for the money

I totally disagree with the opening statement. To flip the page a little bit and move the conversation to the womens basketball. Pam Borton at the U of M would be history with a one year contract. Do you think the contract listed below would look appealing to a coach at a mid-major university that offers one year contracts?

Here is an excerpt from a Star and Trib article that ran in March 2011 and is attached at the end of this post.
Borton's patchwork resulted in a contract extension that runs through 2014. The contract paid her more than $547,000 last year and includes a buyout deduced by multiplying base pay times the years remaining on the contract; the buyout currently is more than $1 million.

Coaches don't get into coaching for the money, but when it's offered they're idiots if they don't take it. One year contracts w/out buyouts don't help SDSU retain and hire new coaches.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/go...3.html?refer=y

While I agree the multi-year contracts would be nice, the one thing we have that works in our advantage is our history of being loyal.

I can only remember two coaches being "fired" (not sure they were both actually fired), Shane Bauman (softball) and Jason Liles (wrestling). You can't convince me that those two didn't have it coming. The wrestling team was struggling MIGHTILY and I can't ever remember the softball team really being competitive.

After what Nagy went through during the transition (and didn't lose his job), I would guess the one-year contracts don't bother him too much. The administration was pretty generous with him during that period.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Best coach for the money

I have no expertise in these matters, however to my layman's mind:

Any contract is in place to protect interests for both parties in best and worst case scenarios - in this case, the coach and the institution. The longer the contract, the longer both parties are protected. Long term contracts seem to balance risk/reward over time creating less of a gamble. I'm not sure how long term contracts wouldn't be looked as a positive by both coaches and administration.

Situation A - Team does terrible. The coach is protected knowing that they will have a job or a buyout.

Situation B - Team does very well. The institution is protected knowing the coach will be there or they will receive a buyout.

To put it another way (I know, not a perfect analogy): A person goes to get married, putting half their belongings on the line in case of divorce. Would they rather have the promise of a lifetime or a 1 year? Hey babe, I love you and plan on loving you for the foreseeable future, but let's see where things stand in a year, at which point you might have to give me your stuff. But don't worry about that, so far things have worked out great.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: Best coach for the money

I have no expertise in these matters, however to my layman's mind:

Any contract is in place to protect interests for both parties in best and worst case scenarios - in this case, the coach and the institution. The longer the contract, the longer both parties are protected. Long term contracts seem to balance risk/reward over time creating less of a gamble. I'm not sure how long term contracts wouldn't be looked as a positive by both coaches and administration.

Situation A - Team does terrible. The coach is protected knowing that they will have a job or a buyout.

Situation B - Team does very well. The institution is protected knowing the coach will be there or they will receive a buyout.

To put it another way (I know, not a perfect analogy): A person goes to get married, putting half their belongings on the line in case of divorce. Would they rather have the promise of a lifetime or a 1 year? Hey babe, I love you and plan on loving you for the foreseeable future, but let's see where things stand in a year, at which point you might have to give me your stuff. But don't worry about that, so far things have worked out great.

Does the coach really give money to the University if he leaves before his contract is up? I can't ever remember hearing of something like that. Maybe the institution the coach is moving too pays this.....

I really think the multi-year contracts are for the benefit of the coach. They can't fire him without paying a buyout (hear about that all the time), but I think they can leave for greener pastures anytime they wish (also see that all the time).

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Best coach for the money

Does the coach really give money to the University if he leaves before his contract is up? I can't ever remember hearing of something like that. Maybe the institution the coach is moving too pays this.....

I really think the multi-year contracts are for the benefit of the coach. They can't fire him without paying a buyout (hear about that all the time), but I think they can leave for greener pastures anytime they wish (also see that all the time).

As I said before, I'm no expert. However, within the last year, Nebraska paid CSU to buyout Tim Miles. Rich Rodriguez may have gotten in a bit of a dust up for non-payment to West Virginia (as I remember) and it went to court. So yes, a coach or new school really does give money, unless generosity, good-will, etc lead the school to waive it.

Having 1 year contracts make Coach Nagy a more attractive candidate for other schools (who won't have to pay any buyout on inflate his salary so he can pay it), and it makes it harder for SDSU to find a new coach (who would prefer some sort of guarantee beyond 1 season). In this regard, a long term contract clearly benefits the institution.

I think the reason you don't hear buyout talk on coaches changing jobs (as opposed to firing) is the fact that they typically move to a larger institution with deeper pockets. It is nothing for Nebraska to pony up $350,000 to buy out Tim Miles, so it isn't part of the story. Or it becomes a footnote in the larger picture.

[SkippyJack]

Re: Best coach for the money

Here's a recent example from a similar sized mid-major school. Duquesne fired Head Coach Ron Everhart after 6 seasons. Everhart had a winning record but there were rumors of a rift with the AD. Duquesne have to pay out Everhart the remainder of his 2 year contract at his base salary of $257,000 a year. In the meantime Everhart has found a new home as Huggins' assistant at West Virginia and is presumed to be the heir apparent to that job as rumors of Huggins retirement are fairly rife.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-bas...h-ron-everhart

I'm not suggesting that Nagy and Everhart have anything in common other than they are in similar jobs. I believe that a one year contract is something of an insult after such a long time in the job. Would it kill SDSU to offer say a 3 year contract - even if they only offered a minimal payout figure if the coach is let go. (30% of base salary?) Maybe after a qualifying period of say 3-5 years they could offer a better contract. I would also like to see AJ offered something similar. surely after his success in the last 5 years there have to be some attractive offers coming his way. He has a young family and a responsibility to do his best by them....

[TK22867]

Re: Best coach for the money

As I said before, I'm no expert. However, within the last year, Nebraska paid CSU to buyout Tim Miles. Rich Rodriguez may have gotten in a bit of a dust up for non-payment to West Virginia (as I remember) and it went to court. .

Your assessment is spot on. The rumor is that the reason Bill O'Brien stayed at PSU was that his buyout was around $10 M and no NFL team wanted to touch it. I believe buyouts work both ways in that the school can buy the coach out as well for an early contract termination, such as what happened with Charlie Weis and ND (which ND is STILL paying).

[jackmd]

Re: Best coach for the money

I'm not suggesting that Nagy and Everhart have anything in common other than they are in similar jobs. I believe that a one year contract is something of an insult after such a long time in the job. Would it kill SDSU to offer say a 3 year contract - even if they only offered a minimal payout figure if the coach is let go. (30% of base salary?) Maybe after a qualifying period of say 3-5 years they could offer a better contract. I would also like to see AJ offered something similar. surely after his success in the last 5 years there have to be some attractive offers coming his way. He has a young family and a responsibility to do his best by them....[/I]

SDSU can't offer him anymore than a 1 year contract. SD state law doesn't allow state university employees to have more than 1 year contracts. Its a legislative issue not an university issue. SDSU and the SDSU Foundation have done some very creative things to add incentives to the contracts that are limited by state law.

[OldHare]

Re: Best coach for the money

SDSU can't offer him anymore than a 1 year contract. SD state law doesn't allow state university employees to have more than 1 year contracts. Its a legislative issue not an university issue. SDSU and the SDSU Foundation have done some very creative things to add incentives to the contracts that are limited by state law.

How are tenured faculty treated in the state university system?

[jackmd]

Re: Best coach for the money

How are tenured faculty treated in the state university system?

I am almost certain that they are 1 year contracts. I am an academic professor on the promotional track at USD but not eligible for tenure. I have an annual evaluation and a 1 year contract.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Best coach for the money

How are tenured faculty treated in the state university system?

Tenured faculty in South Dakota have one-year agreements. Academic tenure applies primarily to academic freedom. Since I am tenured, I can't be fired because somebody doesn't like the way I teach or the research I do. That doesn't mean I can't be fired, nor does it mean I have a job for life. Do I have a job next year? Probably, assuming the program I work for isn't terminated. But as for a "contract," what I actually have is the presumption that unless I really screw something up or the university closes down my unit, I'll get another letter in the spring inviting me back next year. Untenured faculty get the same kind of one-year-at-a-time offer, but there are simply more circumstances under which they can be non-renewed.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: Best coach for the money

Tenured faculty in South Dakota have one-year agreements. Academic tenure applies primarily to academic freedom. Since I am tenured, I can't be fired because somebody doesn't like the way I teach or the research I do. That doesn't mean I can't be fired, nor does it mean I have a job for life. Do I have a job next year? Probably, assuming the program I work for isn't terminated. But as for a "contract," what I actually have is the presumption that unless I really screw something up or the university closes down my unit, I'll get another letter in the spring inviting me back next year. Untenured faculty get the same kind of one-year-at-a-time offer, but there are simply more circumstances under which they can be non-renewed.

Good info.

I think the coaches probably realize unless they really screw up or have a long period of sub-par performance, they will be getting another year. Kinda seems like the good ol' boy attitude that South Dakota people seem to use.

Also good info on the buyouts. I had never heard of a coach having to pay one. Normally don't pay attention that closely when a coach leaves some other program.

Still not convinced it's a huge deal as the precedence has been that the vast majority of coaches get a new contract year after year. If it was a huge problem, I think you would see more coaches leaving on their own.

[joeboo22]

Re: Best coach for the money

I guess I need to clarify my comments. Yes multi-year contracts do help in some cases, I just don't see a situation where they would help SDSU retain or attract a coach. At $150K a year, if a low-mid-major wants Nagy, and Nagy wants to leave, SDSU won't have the money to match them. Central Michigan pays their coach $300K. Most are $250+. So say Nagy leaves after this year, who are the candidates for the job? My guess is Hanson gets the job, but who will apply? You will see many D-I assistants (who work on 1 year deals), lower division or low D-I coaches ($150K is a pay raise), or coaches who have taken time off (taking best job out their). To the mass majority that fit those 3 categories they don't really care about the 1 year deal, they either want a pay raise, want a head job or just want a job.

Maybe on the women's side it matters a little more, because SDSU is closer to the middle in pay, compared to the men's team who is closer to the bottom.

So overall what I'm getting at is, get pay over 200K a year, and then we can talk about multi year deals.