re: "What was Joe Alleva thinking when he offered this contract?"- footballscoop.com

quote:

---

No he is not. If he loses every SEC game this year he will be gone

---

yeah, okay, Orgeron is going to potentially lose every SEC game next season. that's not nonsensical at all

quote:

---

Thoughts?

---

LSU's athletic department is being run by a guy that never should have gotten the job in the first place. Here's an article on Joe and his time at Duke:

quote:

---

Enough apologizing and enough martyrdom. It was a known fact on the Duke campus for years that the lacrosse team overdid it when it came to partying. There was a written report in 2004 that said just that and Tallman Trask, the university vice president allegedly overseeing the athletic department, and Joe Alleva, allegedly the athletic director, did absolutely nothing about it. Alleva fired Mike Pressler, the lacrosse coach, because a scapegoat was needed in the immediate aftermath of the incident and Pressler took the hit.

Here's what's wrong with all this: No one at Duke is ever wrong. Duke's last president, Nan Keohane, made a terrible choice when she selected Alleva as athletic director in 1998. Everyone at Duke knew that Alleva was a pleasant man whose next original idea would be his first, someone whose main asset when applying for the job was the fact that his racquetball partner was Mike Krzyzewski.

Five years later, Alleva had lived down to everything expected of him: taking a bad football program and making it worse, hiring a crony as baseball coach who HAD to be fired because the team was awful and former players came forward to say he had encouraged them to use steroids, and looking foolish almost everyone time he opened his mouth in public (which he rarely did, usually hiding behind press releases). Alleva did what everyone else at Duke has done for years and rode the coattails of Krzyzewski's successful basketball team. Keohane looked at this record and gave Alleva a new contract.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Monumentally stupid contract, especially, given complete lack of competition for his HC services. It's additionally embarrassing that the president and the board would allow this to be the contract. The stupidity didn't simply begin and end with Alleva.

---

He's still one of the lowest paid HC in the SEC. it's really not that much money considering we were paying Miles 5 million for the same results.

Damn, what a mess the LSU A.D. appears to be yet again. I will say this...Alabama had a similar situation with Stallings in 1990 when he was hired. Like Orgeron, Stallings did not have impressive W/L at previous college HC job, but was a known and steller defensive coach, had Alabama roots as a top assistant for Bryant, wanted the HC job at Bama. So while I laugh at Orgeron as HC at LSU, he may end up being the second coming of Bebes.

quote:

---

Are you telling me that you guys fired the most successful football coach in your history?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

And then replaced him with his DL coach who nobody else would have hired as head coach?

---

No, his replacement died in a plane crash, then we hired his QB to replace him. No, not his QB coach, his quarterback.

Then we hired him back as interim AD to fire his QB from the HC position.

THEN we hired another coach that was better than Saban.

You don't know shite about the SEC, do you?

quote:

---

but summer is usually a solid poster

---

I was just curious about LSU reaction to the article. I don't think the buyout is terrible, but the price seems steep and even though it drops it's still not a bargain after 3 years. I get overpaying a bit to stay with the market and to show good faith to O, but LSU certainly had all the power there.

Not a huge deal given how much money LSU makes and the fact that it's not that big a buyout after year 3, though.

quote:

---

I've always wondered what the line is between for cause/without cause. Are the applicable 'causes' spelled out in the contract?

---

Pretty cut and dry "with cause" reasons would be NCAA penalties (show cause, program penalties) directly attributable to the coach, individual legal problems, etc.

"With Cause" claims that would be challenged in court would probably be personal matters that are embarrassments to the University (Petrino), accusations of wrongdoing that are not confirmed by a court of law (no convictions), NCAA penalties being appealed or that were not directly laid at the coaches feet, etc.

"With cause" would never be for performance related failures. "With cause" is basically stating that the individual violated written or unwritten but understood rules and regulations pertaining to his job. Because of that, the contract is voided and the buyout is irrelevant because the coach's actions voided the contract, including the buyout.

This is why "with cause" firings are almost always taken to court unless it is just a sure fire slam dunk reason, and why a lot of schools pay buyouts or portions of buyouts even when coaches violate or appear to violate regulations. They'd rather pay 25% of the buyout then deal with the coach in court (including the public humiliation of it) for years to come.

quote:

---

Could we all at LEAST let the man coach one full year and see how he does ???

---

The article made it clear it had nothing to do with O's ability as a coach or the hire itself (they even said they liked the hire). It was strictly about the contract/value.

You are one of the best posters on this site sir....