quote:
Not everybody, man. I do think that Neil Cornrich is an expert at taking future expectations and turning it into present day contractual obligations that are heavily tilted toward his clients. That's his job, whatever, but it doesn't mean that the Razorbacks don't get screwed in the process.

And there's no doubt that the team showed "improvement" in the sense that they didn't get slaughtered, but did that equate to wins? Was there enough on field results, in the form of wins, to justify 15-million for 3-years? If we have a 2-10 season, followed by another mediocre performance, do you honestly not think they'll come up with the 15-million anyway?

No way you can type yes without a holding off a deflective, smirk. And if you can, than we'll just have to disagree and wait and see who's right.

In my view, losing 75% of our conference games isn't worthy of that buyout. Actually, and this a little off topic, I'll be conservative and say we should have easily been 8-4 last year, and you could argue that Rutgers and MSU in 2013 should have been won, but "we just hadn't learned to win, yet". There's a well documented pattern of us losing close games, and his tenure at Wisconsin wasn't much better*.

Bret had 3 years at a (I think) 12-million buyout, and then it dropped to 9.6-million after this year. That's 3 recruiting cycles, three years of discipline, three years to install your system.That was generous, and by the look of it now, it would have been pretty damn convenient to shell out over 5-million less to get rid of this stooge.

Bret Bielema is at best a mediocre coach. He not good and never has been; Long made a bad hire. And in truth, I'm surprised the BOT and the rest of management involved agreed to it.

I'm not defending the contract, and in fact, I said at the time and have repeated on here that I thought the extension was an horrendous decision because you're gambling on the extrapolation of the 2014 and making him essentially inexpendable. It was a bad contract, but still an understandable one, because practically the entire college football world was buying stock in our program coming into this season. Bert looked not only like he was laying a solid foundation for the future (I still believe he is), but that it was starting to pay off on the field. Again, not defending it, just pointing out that it was somewhat understandable. I'd rather Long had waited until after year 3 to see the full fruition of our team's development -- like he did with Petrino -- and then render an extension and buyout.

quote:
If you hire the right person to begin with, you probably won't have that problem. At any rate, see how many of these recruits our faith healer can keep on board when we get blanked (or go 1-7) in the SEC this year. So yeah, you can for sure dynamite a program, but you can also bleed it to death as well.

I'm not defending Bert and I've melted hard the last 3 weeks, but I'm also not sure why it has been accepted on here that he somehow had a bad resume coming into this job. His resume was actually better than Petrino's, in that he'd led his former team to more BCS Bowls (3 to 1) and had coached in a P5 conference way longer (7 years to 2). Half of Petrino's first tenure at Louisville was in Conference USA. Claiming that Bert's resume wasn't good coming into this job is like claiming Rich Rod's resume wasn't good when he left WVU.