Basilio this morning...

[PirateVOL]

risk vs reward. That's what the decision comes down to

Correct but in this instance I believe the risk is far higher than any possible reward

[ReVOLver]

I actually think graduates and donors should be concerned about those things.  Of course they don't matter when a coach is successful.  But, administrators should be negotiating and entering into contracts with all possibilities (or an many as can be foreseen) in mind.  The length of the contract and terms of a buyout are there to deal with potential failure, which we know all too well is a real possibility and easily foreseen.   

But that's why those people are paid... to consider those possibilities. As a fan I'm saying I don't care. That doesn't mean I dont' think they should be responsible. I'm just not sure why fans (or alumni) have a losers mentality on the front end and worry about what will happen when the coach fails. That's why the administrators are there.

[Creek Walker]

If we're spending $9m/yr. on our coaching staff, I think it's a given that ticket prices will go up (again). Speaking for myself, I will be unable to afford season tickets if tickets were to go to $100/game (I know we're speaking in theoretics and hyperbole, but still). I don't care a bit to pay $100/game for big games, but I'm sure as heck not going to pay that much for tickets to the patsies that are inevitably going to be on the schedule. Obviously, the only thing that matters to the UTAD is whether they can put 100,000 butts in seats every Saturday. If they can do that, the cost of the ticket doesn't matter. But at what point does it become impossible to do so because the common fan can't afford the price of tickets? We've already discussed (many times) the fact that the golden days of attendance appear to be over with the market saturation of big-screen, high-definition TVs. And we're seeing this exemplified at schools throughout the conference.

I'm willing to throw down some big bucks for a coach. I think the program NEEDS to do that. Apathy has reached an all-time high, high school players don't have a clue who the University of Tennessee is, and I truly believe we're at the brink of no return. But I guess just thinking that there might be a possibility that UT is actually considering a 10-year contract with $50 million guaranteed gives me pause. Gruden is my #1 choice, and he would be a huge splash as far as putting the program back in the national spotlight...I also believe it's almost a given that he would be able to recruit talent here, even though he's never done that. But as much as I want the dude to be the next coach here, there's no way anyone can look at his record and say that it's anything other than a gamble that he'll work out in the long run.

I'm okay with making him the highest-paid coach in college football, and I'm okay with giving him some money to work with so that he can hire a good staff. But let's keep the contract terms reasonable. Let's face it, if we're talking $5 million-$6 million a year, we can get a good coach in Knoxville even if Gruden says no. On the flip side, the problem with the administration letting this Gruden talk go on for so long without putting a damper on it (not that they had a choice if they're seriously pursuing Gruden) is that ANYONE that is hired who isn't named Jon Gruden is going to be a big letdown for this fan base and is probably going to face an uphill task to win the fans over.

[VinnieVOL]

I feel the same as Revolver, I don't care how..  just fix TN football.

Although, I tend to prefer us not shopping at the Dollar Store again.

[VoLynteer]

But that's why those people are paid... to consider those possibilities. As a fan I'm saying I don't care. That doesn't mean I dont' think they should be responsible. I'm just not sure why fans (or alumni) have a losers mentality on the front end and worry about what will happen when the coach fails. That's why the administrators are there.

If you are winning games and putting butts on the seats you can afford a high dollar coach.  Give him what he wants so I can get this taste of losing out of my mouth and once again savor victory.  Stop the nonsense.  Men have to ruin everything...I would spend that money and not blink an eye.

[ReVOLver]

If you are winning games and putting butts on the seats you can afford a high dollar coach.  Give him what he wants so I can get this taste of losing out of my mouth and once again savor victory.  Stop the nonsense.  Men have to ruin everything...I would spend that money and not blink an eye.

I see where people are coming from with their stance, but I see it as a loser's mentality. I don't mean to offend TRO, Pirate, Bandit or anyone else with that judgment, but for fans to worry about fiscal responsibility means they expect failure. The administrators and boosters are there to make that judgment. Hell UT underpaid relative to Saban etc for both Dooley and Kiffin and it still cost them dearly.

I just don't understand the mindset, that's all.

I also think that for big programs, the alum vs. sidewalk alum thing means little. Tennessee football is an entity in and of itself. I know plenty of people who have given more to UT than they have to their own alma mater, including this guy. (I know that's not what TRO meant, it's just something I wanted to say.)

[TheRealOrange]

But that's why those people are paid... to consider those possibilities. As a fan I'm saying I don't care. That doesn't mean I dont' think they should be responsible. I'm just not sure why fans (or alumni) have a losers mentality on the front end and worry about what will happen when the coach fails. That's why the administrators are there.

I just don't see how caring about the fiscal wellbeing of the UTAD and university is the same (even remotely) as having a loser's mentality on the front end.  And, if you think they should be responsible, then where is the disagreement?  Administrators can be responsible but fans who urge that responsibility somehow have a loser's mentality?  Does that not mean, by definition, that the UTAD has a loser's mentality unless they are willing to be irresponsible?  If they don't consider what might happen if a coach fails, then that is by definition irresponsible, IMO.  And, as a donor, I care about them having fiscal responsibility.  Maybe I am just missing the point.  It may not matter anyway, since this may have been my last season attending games.  That is still TBD.   

[ReVOLver]

I just don't see how caring about the fiscal wellbeing of the UTAD and university is the same (even remotely) as having a loser's mentality on the front end.  And, if you think they should be responsible, then where is the disagreement?  Administrators can be responsible but fans who urge that responsibility somehow have a loser's mentality?  Does that not mean, by definition, that the UTAD has a loser's mentality unless they are willing to be irresponsible?  If they don't consider what might happen if a coach fails, then that is by definition irresponsible, IMO.  And, as a donor, I care about them having fiscal responsibility.  Maybe I am just missing the point.  It may not matter anyway, since this may have been my last season attending games.  That is still TBD.   

I guess that I'm really arguing more with Bandit's point than yours. I think it's OK to want them to be responsible. As a fan, I don't want them to do anything stupid. It's the action of nitpicking specific (rumored) salary terms because the fan thinks that they aren't financially responsible is what I'm talking about. The time to nitpick about it and be mad about it is when the coach fails.

[TheRealOrange]

I see where people are coming from with their stance, but I see it as a loser's mentality. I don't mean to offend TRO, Pirate, Bandit or anyone else with that judgment, but for fans to worry about fiscal responsibility means they expect failure. The administrators and boosters are there to make that judgment. Hell UT underpaid relative to Saban etc for both Dooley and Kiffin and it still cost them dearly.

As I just posted, I cannot understand that sentiment in the least.  And, anyone who donates is a booster, so I guess we are allowed to care about fiscal responsibility ("make that jusgment").    I'd be willing to bet that no one on this board wants the Vols to win more than I do.  In fact, I bet I care a lot more than most.  How caring about how the UTAD spends the money of all donors, who are the lifeblood of the department, can be equated to having a loser's mentality totally escapes me.  I have negotiated a lot of contract terms in my day, and I never thought going into the process intending to get the best value for the best cost, while mitigating potential losses, meant I was going in with a loser's mentality.   

[ReVOLver]

As I just posted, I cannot understand that sentiment in the least.  And, anyone who donates is a booster, so I guess we are allowed to care about fiscal responsibility ("make that jusgment").    I'd be willing to bet that no one on this board wants the Vols to win more than I do.  In fact, I bet I care a lot more than most.  How caring about how the UTAD spends the money of all donors, who are the lifeblood of the department, can be equated to having a loser's mentality totally escapes me.  I have negotiated a lot of contract terms in my day, and I never thought going into the process intending to get the best value for the best cost, while mitigating potential losses, meant I was going in with a loser's mentality.   

I'm not sure why I can't make you see that I'm not saying that the negotiators and a decision makers have a losers mentality. They have a responsibility to make the right hire for the right money and right terms, as you did when you negotiated contracts.

Past that, I'm bored with the discussion and realize that this is why I wanted to step away from the board in the first place.

[TheRealOrange]

I guess that I'm really arguing more with Bandit's point than yours. I think it's OK to want them to be responsible. As a fan, I don't want them to do anything stupid. It's the action of nitpicking specific (rumored) salary terms because the fan thinks that they aren't financially responsible is what I'm talking about. The time to nitpick about it and be mad about it is when the coach fails.

Ok.  I don't particularly care about the rumored salary and contract terms, since none speak to buyouts, what portion of the salary is TV/radio, what part would be contingent on success, etc.  Heck, pay the next coach $715,000 per win, per season.  That way going 14-0 would mean being paid $10 million.  It would also likely mean winning the BCS Championship, so....    It looks like a bargain compared to what is being paid for the possibility of 6 wins.   

[TheRealOrange]

I'm not sure why I can't make you see that I'm not saying that the negotiators and a decision makers have a losers mentality. They have a responsibility to make the right hire for the right money and right terms, as you did when you negotiated contracts.

Past that, I'm bored with the discussion and realize that this is why I wanted to step away from the board in the first place.

Nah, we're just off sync with our reponses.  I think we agree more than disagree, which is one reason for my confusion.    I think I get it now.

[BanditVol]

I don't understand the POV of calling it a loser's mentality.  I am just looking at what has just happened to us and thinking we need to be smarter about the contract.

One, we kind of low-balled Dooley (if you can call $2 M a low-ball) but gave him a huge buyout and fairly long term (I have heard 6 years, but am unsure...maybe it's five).

So everyone is saying let's get a big name in and pay for it.  Fine.  No problem.  But if you want to pay near the top salary to get a sexy hire, what's wrong with holding him accountable?   Let me put it this way...I am too lazy to confirm, but I have read that Saban has NO buyout in his contract.  My bammer fan buddies told me this also.  If he is let go, no payola!

So if Saban is the model everyone points to, why would  we  give a big name coach a 10-year contract with a big buyout? (buyout is often, but not always tied to the years remaining on the contract)

That's just bat shizzle crazy.

Two, I have a pretty cushy job, but I do get sick of it every now and then.  If I knew I would get $5 million for being fired, I might not be as motivated!

This just seems obvious to me.  Hire a "name" coach, give him a big salary, let him be a big boy and perform and earn that money or he is gone.  No long terms on the contract, no huge buyouts.

If anything, that IMO makes him more likely to win games, than giving a huge length of time on the contract and/or a big buyout.

Think of it as the "anti-Dooley" contract...that's all.