It ticks me off.......

[Sota1]

That coaches can get away with signing $2MM+ contracts and can walk before there committment expires. (Not saying Tubby is leaving, just in general) If they are not performing they simply get fired and get paid the remaining balance of the contract. It seems to be a one sided contract in most cases. I get the idea of leverage some of these coaches have and they are definetly wearing the pants. But, when are professional players going to start demand contracts that give them this type of leverage? Do the AD's in the NCAA have to balls to come together to put a stipulation that requires fullfillment of the contract unless they retire or go to another league? At least put a major poison pill in these contracts that prohibits them from jumping hear and there. All this does is hurt the schools, players, recruits, fans, etc. At least have a "cure" period that binds them, say, for 5 years of a 7 year deal. I would almost rather sign a solid young coach and roll the dice, rather than dealing with this speculation every year. It will also hurt Tubby in future years if he doesn't dispell emphatically these rumors. Minnesota is not the type of school that will attain 5 star recruits without a committed coach.

 

[howeda7]

It certainly does seem to be the perogative of college sports. You don't hear about the Mets coming after Gardy or the Cowboys coming after Childress. Every once in a while there's a Parcells or Gruden situation, but not much.

 

[millions2spare]

if we had a real AD we would not be in this mess..........his leadership stinks

 

[streetfighter]

It is fair because they usually cannot just walk without any sort of financial penalty (to the coach) nor can they be fired without some financial penalty (to the school). This is why the contracts are structured with buyouts.

Comparing the contracts of coaches (especially those in the college ranks) and players is pointless. There are so many different dynamics that play into why the contracts are structured differently. The reason coaches are allowed to pack up and leave while only having to pay the buyout amount of the contract is because they can be fired at any time while only getting paid the buyout amount of the contract. It seems to make sense for both sides.

 

[gopherbadgerman]

Agree - can be frustrating but also can work for both sides. Universities would have to band together and no one could offer contracts with escape clauses for it to be effective, and good luck with that happening.

 

[betterdeadthanred]

I have always thought that sports contracts should have low salaries and be mainly incentive based.

 

[gopherphan]

I have always thought that sports contracts should have low salaries and be mainly incentive based.

it probably wass that way, but you know, the low salaray starts bumping up with each new hire as a new coach wouldnt want to work for less at each new job right? then it slowly inflates to where we are today

 

[maxwellsmart]

Difference between pros and colleges in approach to contracts? What kind of administrator is running the show at a pro franchise and what is the organization's reason for being?

 

[Winnipegopher]

I have always found it odd that a player who transfers has to sit out a year (penalty to prevent players from leaving) but a coach who leaves hits the ground running.

I don't know how you enforce it but I would like to see a redshirt year imposed on coaches who leave while still under contract.

 

[GopherJake]

Supply and demand.

 

[RodentRampage]

Put the clauses in the contract which would prevent a coach from leaving. And then see how many coaches want to sign that contract.