Ames steps up with 10 year Agreement

Donate To GopherHole


Tenure is the ONLY way to go...stop the salary inflation and to insure that the institution has a vested interest in supporting their coach.

STOP the buy outs NOW. Give the football coach tenure and let him have the same salary structure as all the other professors. Some "big names" would balk...but, some reasonable, decent coaches and staff members would LOVE the tenure track.

It's radical...BUT...I also think it would be a better system than the system that we have that pays college coaches four million PLUS a season. IF colleges are paying a coach a multi-million dollar yearly wage the salary structure and the priority structure of that college/university is totally screwed up. Even paying a hoops coach more than twice as much as a football coach is totally flawed.

Start negotiating college prexys. Find yourself a coach who has good experience who loves coaching and wants some security in his/her life and is willing to accept a reasonable yearly wage with a salary schedule included for the secruity a tenured position with that college/university. Then settle in, coach, recruit, teach and honor all the rules of the NCAA, the Conference and the school. Turn out student athletes who WANT to graduate.

Coaches salaries are TOTALLY out of line, out of place and will, of course, eventually have to crumble, tumble and come crashing back down to earth. The bubble in coaching salaries has GOT to pop and when it does...life will still go on...

; 0 )
 

I agree Wren. You make a number of really great points.
 

CyclONE Nation is very happy today. Similar to Kill's 7 year deal, ISU is emphasizing commitment; while offering a competitive salary. It will make him about the 8th highest paid coach in the B12. Hopefully, more schools will follow UM and ISU with an focus on commitment.
 


I believe ISU is very wise. Now they have to make a committment to their coach. They also need to communicate with their coach about what REASONABLE expectations will be during that 10 year committment period.

Still, just as with Minnesota's 7 year deal with Coach Kill...IF 7 years is good, why in't 15 years better? In ISU's case, if 10 years is reasonable...why not TENURE?

Part of the problem with schools such as Minnesota and ISU is the fact that fans have unrealistic expectations. Also, administrations have unrealistic expectations. The Coaches KNOW that the fans and the administrations have unrealistic expectations for their programs and their schools. So, when a coach has an uncharacteristically good year, that coach is VERY tempted to take a higher pay offer from a school such as a Michigan State, LSU, Ohio State University or a USC, et al. Why is the coach more than willing to "listen" to the other offers out there? Most likely because the coach KNOWS that the expectations of the fans and the expectations of the administrators...is totally unrealistic. Unrealistically HIGH expectations on the part of fans and administrations lead to buyouts of contracts and firings. Usually, when a coach is bought out and fired from program with the year in and year out prospects of a U of MN or an ISU, it is the end of that coaches career.

The ONLY way to escape a buy out and termination from a University of Minnesota and/or and Iowa State University is for the coach to accept another job offer from a different school after an unusually BIG WIN or an uncharacteristically successful season in terms of numbers of wins.

This is where the need for TENURE for football coaches at places such as the University of Minnesota and Iowa State University and a number of other places could help solve the "listen to the callers" problem after an especially BIG win and/or an 8...or 9... or 10 win season complete with a bowl win. Having tenure in place would lower the risks after a successful season for the fans and the administrators. Having tenure in place would lower the risks after a "rebuilding---restocking---redeveloping experienced players lost to graduation, injury, etc. for the coaches. TENURE would offer a measure of sanity and stability to the football programs such as Minnesota or ISU.

So, I totally applaud the 7 year deal for Coach Kill and the 10 year deal that ISU has given their coach. BUT, the administrators have NOT gone far enough. IF you are willing to make a commitment for 10 years...why not just make it a tenure situation. Give the Coach the power to retire or resign (with a pre-determined buy out clause in effect IF the coach resigns to take another job coaching college football.

Suddenly, the fans, the administration AND the coaches are on MORE equal footing and I fully believe the crazy coaching "arms-race" could be at least scaled back for all except the Tennessee's, USC, Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, certain SEC schools.

So, I still wonder why if a TEN YEAR extension is a good thing for the ISU footall program, a TENURE program wouldn't be EVEN BETTER?

The answer is really quite simple: the damn administrators have already PLANNED the possibility of buying out the coach they just hired for ten years in case the going gets tough and they have to appease the fan base. With a ten year contract, the damn administrators know that they don't have to make as much of a commitment to helping the coach run a successful program as they would have to do with a tenured football coach. Minnesota's 7 year contract offer shows even LESS commitment to commitment by the damn administrators.

The "ace in the hole" for administrators at places with football programs that typically are in the lower half of the conference is the wild card trick for buying out and firing the football coach. The fans go into a frenzy over the prospects of a buy-out/firing. athletic directors and prexy's LOVE to hold an "ace in the hole" so they can play a wild card in order o "wash their hands..." of the old football coach rather than to have to really make a commitment to having a competetive finish year in and year out. (top-half of the conference most years.)

It takes a confident, commited administrator to go the tenure route. There really are NOT many administrators who are confident AND commited in the year 2011...

It is obvious: IF the administrations make bad hires in either the ranks of the academic professors OR with football and basketball coaches, the administrators NEED to be held accountable. They NEED to take the heat and THEY are the ones who NEED to be bought out and fired...thrown out the door and under the bus. Hang the damn administrators rather than to just let them buy out and fire another football coach...

; 0 )
 

Ten years seems like a bold step, but until you know the buyout terms it doesn't mean much.
 

imthewalrus said:
Tenure is the ONLY way to go...stop the salary inflation and to insure that the institution has a vested interest in supporting their coach.

STOP the buy outs NOW. Give the football coach tenure and let him have the same salary structure as all the other professors. Some "big names" would balk...but, some reasonable, decent coaches and staff members would LOVE the tenure track.

It's radical...BUT...I also think it would be a better system than the system that we have that pays college coaches four million PLUS a season. IF colleges are paying a coach a multi-million dollar yearly wage the salary structure and the priority structure of that college/university is totally screwed up. Even paying a hoops coach more than twice as much as a football coach is totally flawed.

Start negotiating college prexys. Find yourself a coach who has good experience who loves coaching and wants some security in his/her life and is willing to accept a reasonable yearly wage with a salary schedule included for the secruity a tenured position with that college/university. Then settle in, coach, recruit, teach and honor all the rules of the NCAA, the Conference and the school. Turn out student athletes who WANT to graduate.

Coaches salaries are TOTALLY out of line, out of place and will, of course, eventually have to crumble, tumble and come crashing back down to earth. The bubble in coaching salaries has GOT to pop and when it does...life will still go on...

; 0 )
Click to expand...

You could have summed it up by saying this: capitalism, schmapitalism!

At least at that I would laugh a little.
 

I KNEW it would get your attention...I'm laughing AT you oldguy, that's good enough for me...I could care less if you ever laugh...or cry or get down in the dumps...

; 0 )
 



2nd Degree Gopher said:
Ten years seems like a bold step, but until you know the buyout terms it doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...


I am curious about that too. For one reason, I think the 10YR deal means a bigger buyout for a university that might court Rhoads. Instead of having to payoff the remainder of a 5YR deal, worth $10Million; a school would have to come-up with what's left of a 10YR deal, worth $20Million. It works both though, I assume ISU is on the hook if they ever felt change was needed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom