VTTW Board Index

Basilio says that Gruden's agent has told UT that Gruden will take the job if the money is right, and reports the same things Hyams reported yesterday about what Gruden wants ($5 yr/10 yrs and $4 million for assistants).

With Basilio and Hyams reporting it, it must be true.  :biggrin:

I swear, I'll send money to the UTAD tomorrow if they will just do this.  I swear we ought to fire up a grass roots effort.

I don't have a problem with $5 mil a year, but 10 years is ridiculous.  If you're going to give a guy more money, give him a shorter time and a smaller buyout.

This stance drives me nuts. I don't care how they kill they cow, I want a steak on my plate and I want it yesterday.

LOL.  So you're happy that Dooley has a $ 5 million buyout?

As a fan, you can have whatever stance you want.  Hart has to look out for the good of the department.  Dooley's contract is so disadvantageous to us that in spite of the really crappy 3-year run we are on, I think it's still possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that Hart retains him.

So yeah, let's go ahead and give another guy TEN YEARS (unprecedented - also almost certainly BS, but I digress) and a huge buyout so we can get stuck with his dum ass also if he doesn't work out (whether it's Gruden or someone else).

This is key to me...you want a hot coach?  You want the guy to take us to the next level (or several levels, lol)?  And you want to pay him as much as it takes, right?

Well if he's all that, then let him man up and accept some risk.  No big buyout, and 5 years, maybe 4, at the most. 

That's just good business.

I realize that you are speaking as a fan, but to me it's just COMMON sense, let alone business sense.

As in all negotiations and business decisions, there is an offer which will be accepted and a lesser offer which gets rejected. Of course it makes business sense to give shorter contracts if possible when hiring new coaches, but what if contracts with shorter durations will never be accepted by the coach you are trying to hire? Then you either settle for another coach or you offer the longer contract. And that comes down to how badly you want the coach.

It is NOT a no-brainer that you should never offer long deals. It's very risky but for the right coach it might be what you have to do.

Bandit it all depends. Does UT believe Gruden is the answer? If so, the money and time is small potatoes compared to the revenue they will generate if he gets it done.

Otherwise, why bother? You knew he would demand a lot

I don't even know you bandit, but I feel like I want to punch you.

I'm not even going to read all of that, to be honest. To the first line, I don't care about Dooley's buyout... I am pissed that they fizzleed it up and hired the wrong guy. It is not my money. I do not care about the money. I want a winning football team. If they win, they money will not matter. If they don't win, they aren't getting my money.

Not a very civil post.  Bandit is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else.  In fact, I believe that 10 years is far too long for a coaching contract unless it comes with a very small (or no) buyout.  Then again, I am not a Gruden fan, so....  In any event, let's keep the discourse civil please.  :biggrin:

Aobut the 10 years. There is absolutely no reason performance goals and thresholds couldn't be added to mitigate paying the full amount if the performace wasn't there. Should really not be a problem if structured properly.

Ahh, I'm not trying to uncivil. You don't me well so you can't tell I'm being light-hearted about it but be assured that I am.

Well, that is the key (bolded orange text in quote).  The thought of another failed coach getting paid big bucks to get out of town isn't very appealling.  :banghead:  Such things won't matter if the next coach is successful, and they would not have mattered if previous coaches were successful.  That's why structuring for potential failure is important, IMO.  Some risk has to be taken by the coach.  I despise one-sided contracts.

I just think fans shouldn't care about or concern themselves with those details. The complaints all come back to wins and losses. The length of the contract or the buyout is never an issue when the coach is performing well.

I thought that might be the case, but I just don't want things to get out of control.  As far as knowing you, I have been at the VTTW since 1998, so....  :smile:  And, if I don't know you, Bandit also may not, and I wanted to avoid a back-and-forth exchange.  I actually try to step lightly with my moderator shoes in these situations.   :biggrin:

Come sit next to me.  We can be "Punch and Slappy"  :clap:

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.  :banghead: 

I agree with Bandit.  I, like all of you, want UT to win.  Having said that, from a financial standpoint (which is what Hart and the university must consider) it doesn't make good sense to engage in a long-term contract with a huge buyout.  If the coach was a guarantee, the scenario is different - but there are not guarantees.  No coach is assured of winning here - no matter who it is.  There are factors that cannot be controlled that help determine that.

Now if the wording could be structured in the contract so that performance goals are used as contract determinants, then a longer contract and higher buyout might seem to me to make more sense.

To just go out and offer a guy a huge contract, with a huge buyout, to me makes no sense.  It is great if the guy works out, but does further harm to the athletic department if things go sour.  It could turn out to be just one more coach that we'd have to "pay me now, pay me later".

For a minute there I thought you were throwing us sidewalk alumni under the bus :rant:

Then I realized I was a droner, just not a large one ...  :dunno:

Of course we're all arguing over something that may not have an ounce of truth to it, but I would be opposed to a 10-year contract myself. I would rather pay him more salary and have less of a buyout in his contract. I'm okay with paying good money to get a coach to UT but I'm not willing to bankrupt the program doing it.

If the donors agree to put up a good chunk of that buyout in the event that it might be needed, I'm all for it.

Sounds like an 80s cop duo. I'm down.

Coming to a stadium near you: $100 per game tickets :hurl:

Paid without hesitation for a good product.

Yed. A $100 steak sure is pricey but I'm sure as hell not buying the $60 turd sandwich.

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 :inughout:

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 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.

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.

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.)

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.   :biggrin:

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.

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").  :wink:  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.   :crazy:

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.

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....  :biggrin:  It looks like a bargain compared to what is being paid for the possibility of 6 wins.   :eek:

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

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.