Started By
Message
Not making a change at hc doesn't make sense
Posted on 12/1/19 at 7:35 am
Posted on 12/1/19 at 7:35 am
The thinking in keeping muschamp is that he magically turns it around..nice idea but highly unlikely..saying that..
1. His buyout drops to 14 million by the end of 2020 but they will pay muschamp another years salary of 4.5 million in between..that's still 18.5 million he gets if he fails..
2. Big money will be spent on an oc with guarantees. That's probably another 2 million..that's close to 21 million.
If he does fail after 2020 we pay muschamp 14 million buyout and a new coach another 4 million..plus remaining oc contract. That's 20 million..
If we fire him now we pay 19 million plus 4 million to new coach and don't have to worry about an oc hanging on..
Basically sc is kicking thee can down the road another yr over 4 million..
Am I missing something?
1. His buyout drops to 14 million by the end of 2020 but they will pay muschamp another years salary of 4.5 million in between..that's still 18.5 million he gets if he fails..
2. Big money will be spent on an oc with guarantees. That's probably another 2 million..that's close to 21 million.
If he does fail after 2020 we pay muschamp 14 million buyout and a new coach another 4 million..plus remaining oc contract. That's 20 million..
If we fire him now we pay 19 million plus 4 million to new coach and don't have to worry about an oc hanging on..
Basically sc is kicking thee can down the road another yr over 4 million..
Am I missing something?
5
Posted on 12/1/19 at 7:42 am to bleedsgarnet
Yes you're missing our administration being void of common sense.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 9:25 am to bleedsgarnet
The fact that Ray Tanner still has a job doesn’t bode well for any optimistic outlook of our future in athletics.
Tanner and Muschamp need to be gone yesterday. Who gives a shite if we lose coveted recruits. They’re not going to make a difference as long as those morons are running the show.
If Tanner is still our AD by the end of this next work week, we just need to accept that we’re probably fricked.
Tanner and Muschamp need to be gone yesterday. Who gives a shite if we lose coveted recruits. They’re not going to make a difference as long as those morons are running the show.
If Tanner is still our AD by the end of this next work week, we just need to accept that we’re probably fricked.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 10:06 am to Bluefin
quote:
If Tanner is still our AD by the end of this next work week, we just need to accept that we’re probably fricked.
Dingo. Caslen needs to remove Tanner by the end of December. If it doesn't happen by then, I don't expect it to happen by the end of the academic year.
This place is a mess
Posted on 12/1/19 at 10:10 am to bleedsgarnet
quote:nope.
Am I missing something?
The only thing more asinine I can recall USC adminstration doing than not separating from Muschamp right now was replacing Carlen with Richard Bell.
If Ray didn't ensure a clause in WM's extension 12/2018 outlining being fired with cause for NCAA violations/probation - he should be removed today as well.
As quiet as it was kept for about 6 months ...the fact remains USC football was placed on probation under WM's watch. To hell with a buyout.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 11:26 am to bleedsgarnet
I don’t see a way that you have time to spend good money on an AD now, and still have time to let him hire a good coach in that timeframe. Especially since the market seems pretty bare right now.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 11:41 am to GamecockUltimate
A really good AD would already have connections which would help with the timeframe.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 12:22 pm to SOSFAN
The first step has to be to get rid of Ray Tanner. I'm sorry. Nice guy, but he shouldn't be the AD. I agree with you here, if we hire an established AD, the coaching thing will work itself out; they will have relationships already.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 2:47 pm to Fearless Gamecock
Tanner was the worst hire we’ve had.
A guy with literally no experience to run a top 25 earning athletic department
A guy with literally no experience to run a top 25 earning athletic department
Posted on 12/1/19 at 2:52 pm to I Bleed Garnet
Hiring Tanner was the equivalent of committing athletic suicide.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 3:16 pm to SOSFAN
quote:
Hiring Tanner was the equivalent of committing athletic suicide.
The worst hire in our programs history
This post was edited on 12/1/19 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 12/1/19 at 6:46 pm to bleedsgarnet
Correct me if I am wrong, if you fire a coach with a buyout and he gets a job another school you only pay him the difference of what they pay him and what you owe him.
Example: you fire a coach who has 4 years and 20 million left on his contract. He gets a Coordinator job for 4 years $8 million so you’re only on the hook for $12 million.
I could be wrong, so don’t take this for data.
Example: you fire a coach who has 4 years and 20 million left on his contract. He gets a Coordinator job for 4 years $8 million so you’re only on the hook for $12 million.
I could be wrong, so don’t take this for data.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 7:22 pm to TheeRealCarolina
That is true.
Fire him and pay him his full terms until he gets hired somewhere else then adjust the terms to coincide with his new salary.
Fire him and pay him his full terms until he gets hired somewhere else then adjust the terms to coincide with his new salary.
This post was edited on 12/1/19 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 12/1/19 at 7:46 pm to TheeRealCarolina
Im not sure because I remember reading that ND was still paying Charlie Weis even when he was employed by Kansas
Posted on 12/1/19 at 7:48 pm to bleedsgarnet
That is correct fire his and pray he is picked up for 1.5 million or more quickly.
Posted on 12/1/19 at 8:38 pm to TheeRealCarolina
Correct. Couple years ago Tennessee was still paying Butch Jones because he was an analyst at Bama instead of a coach
Posted on 12/1/19 at 9:43 pm to I Bleed Garnet
What is being implied is that a coach would still get paid by 2 schools..
Just that the amount the school that owed the buyout would pay substantially less. they would only be paying the difference in the buyout vs current salary.
Ex..we fire wm and pay 4.5 million a year..
He then gets a job at Auburn paying 1.5 mill..
Sc would then pay 3 mill and not 4.5..he still gets paid by 2 schools but not full buyout.
Just that the amount the school that owed the buyout would pay substantially less. they would only be paying the difference in the buyout vs current salary.
Ex..we fire wm and pay 4.5 million a year..
He then gets a job at Auburn paying 1.5 mill..
Sc would then pay 3 mill and not 4.5..he still gets paid by 2 schools but not full buyout.
This post was edited on 12/2/19 at 1:07 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News