Started By
Message

re: I'll give Sumlin this, he's changed up his recruiting strategy

Posted on 12/2/16 at 11:11 pm to
Posted by CGSC Lobotomy
Member since Sep 2011
79987 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 11:11 pm to
Arizona State has a similar shitty contract with their coach.
Posted by SafetySam
Gettysburg, PA
Member since Oct 2013
7175 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 11:20 pm to
Refresh my memory: when was this contract inked? Thanks.
Posted by CGSC Lobotomy
Member since Sep 2011
79987 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 11:32 pm to
2013
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 11:33 pm to
quote:

This seems to be implying that there are no bad contracts in college sports, if

On the contrary. I'm actually implying that there are way too many bad contracts, but that's due to the nature of the business. Giving out these ridiculous contracts is inevitable since not doing so would create instability within a program (see Cougar High losing Briles, Sumlin, & Herman).

Which is why complaining is stupid. Every big school does it out of necessity. If we didn't do it, we'd be searching for a coach anytime we would have success. We would have lost Fran after 2006, Sherman after 2010, and Sumlin after 2012.
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 11:45 pm to
quote:

After the Texas Bowl this year, Sumlin can walk away from A&M (with 3 years left on his contract) and not pay A&M a dime. A&M would owe Sumlin $15 million if we want to fire him.

That's after being one of the highest paid coaches in the nation for the past 3 years, each which he produced disappointing results. And he is owed the money within 60 days (does any other coach in the nation have such a clause). And the buyout has no offset, which is also very rare.

So to recap, the contract we gave him:
-is one of the highest in the nation
-has one of the highest buyouts in the nation
-has no protection for A&M
-has the worst buyout-timeframe clause in the nation
-has the worst buyout-offset clause in the nation

... and when taken as a whole, prevents us from firing him. That seems like the textbook case for a contract worth complaining about

We wanted to ward off USC...and we successfully did.

If you want to complain about the coach not turning out to be the guy we thought he was or whether we should have let him walk, then go for it. But don't cry about the actual contract. Business is business and we paid just enough to outbid USC. It's what the market demanded and we matched it. We wanted him and we paid. If we didn't want him, we would have let him walked.
Posted by CGSC Lobotomy
Member since Sep 2011
79987 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 11:45 pm to
There's no way anyone would have poached our coach in ANY of those years.
Posted by NanosTacoRun
Member since Jun 2015
2983 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 1:14 am to
No one is crying about anything. Just pointing out how terrible the contract is and how stupid we were to give it to him.
quote:

Business is business

And we're absolutely awful at it, if the past 2 decades have taught us anything. Our ROI is terrible and now we are putting in awful clauses that offer us no protection and hamstring our ability to make smart football decisions.
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:16 am to
quote:

No one is crying about anything. Just pointing out how terrible the contract is and how stupid we were to give it to him.

Again, if we didn't give him that contract, this board would have melted into oblivion. We had a coach who had just won a Heisman, had beaten Alabama, and destroyed the living shite out of Oklahoma. The contract we gave him was just enough to counter USC's generous offer and to ward off future inquiries. Our boosters aren't stupid. They didn't blindly give him a huge contract just because they could. What needed to be done was done. The contract may be outrageous in your eyes, but it did its job of keeping Sumlin from leaving somewhere else.

quote:

And we're absolutely awful at it, if the past 2 decades have taught us anything. Our ROI is terrible and now we are putting in awful clauses that offer us no protection and hamstring our ability to make smart football decisions.

Really? Because as an Athletic Department we are very profitable. Ludicrous buyouts (for the last time) are just the nature of business. Every school puts ridiculous buyouts, it's not just us.

Texas Tech would have to pay $9.4 MM to fire Pretty Boy
LSU had to pay $8.9 MM
Texas had to pay $11.15 MM
Oregon had to pay $11.5 MM
Oklahoma would have to pay $24.79 MM
FSU would have to pay $33.125 MM
Michigan would have to pay $25.55 MM
Iowa would have to pay $25.3 MM
Clemson would have to pay $20 MM

See the trend? Only 3 of those coaches have won a national championship (and truth be told they probably won't win one again). So whining about something so trivial is pretty dumb. Everyone does it in order to make their program an attractive destination.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 2:20 am
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:18 am to
quote:

There's no way anyone would have poached our coach in ANY of those years.



Right after the 2012 season (which is when the contract was written up), USC was hot after him as well as a number of NFL teams.
Posted by NanosTacoRun
Member since Jun 2015
2983 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:19 am to
quote:

FWIW, Liucci's info about Stidham is dead arse wrong. I don't know if he's misinformed or lying as a means of hedging so he can say we didn't want him if he goes to Auburn, but the claim we have moved on and aren't interested is 100% false.

Don't know exactly what Liucci said, but Hamm is now saying the staff is not recruiting Stidham.
Posted by NanosTacoRun
Member since Jun 2015
2983 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:27 am to
quote:

Texas Tech would have to pay $9.4 MM to fire Pretty Boy
LSU had to pay $8.9 MM
Texas had to pay $11.15 MM
Oregon had to pay $11.5 MM

So everyone that paid, had to pay a hell of a lot less than we would have to. And I'm betting most, if not all, have offset clauses. And none were due within 60 days

quote:

Oklahoma would have to pay $24.79 MM
FSU would have to pay $33.125 MM
Michigan would have to pay $25.55 MM
Iowa would have to pay $25.3 MM
Clemson would have to pay $20 MM

Ferentz's contract is awful, without a doubt. The other 4 coaches have accomplished so much more compared to Sumlin, it'll make your head spin. Even if those guys were to be fired at some point, which none will, they have actual track records that justify large guaranteed money.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 2:36 am
Posted by NanosTacoRun
Member since Jun 2015
2983 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:34 am to
quote:

Our boosters aren't stupid.

Yes they are. We wouldn't have one of the most underachieving CFB programs in CFB history if we were led by people that knew what they were doing. I'm not saying every single person is dumb, but as a collective, damm
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:49 am to
quote:

So everyone that paid, had to pay a hell of a lot less than we would have to. And I'm betting most, if not all, have offset clauses. And none were due within 60 days

You're betting very wrong. A lot of contracts have different clauses, but for the most part coaches' agents make sure their clients have an out and get paid if terminated.

Also, the amount you pay is also based on the number of years left in the contract. If Texas fired Strong last year, they would have paid over 17 million (and they considered it too).
quote:

Ferentz's contract is awful, without a doubt. The other 4 coaches have accomplished so much more compared to Sumlin, it'll make your head spin. They have actual track records that justify large guaranteed money.


What track records are those? Bob Stoops hasn't won jackshit since his first national championship. He's blown more opportunities than I can remember.

Jimbo is one game better than us in a way weaker conference this year. Dude's 9-3 and is probably not going back to the playoff anytime soon.

Dabo struggled against Troy, Auburn, NC State, FSU, and lost to Pitt. We actually had a more impressive victory against Auburn than he did (can't argue that it was when they were down because that's when Dabo played them too). We all know he's about to fall on his face against Alabama again. He's a product of an easy ACC schedule. His only hump was Louisville.

And what exactly has Harbaugh done to deserve that contract? He hasn't won a P5 conference championship and for all we know he's could fizzle out next season just like Sumlin did once Brady Hoke's talent dries up. If you ask me, Michigan gambled, just like we did.
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:55 am to
quote:

Yes they are. We wouldn't have one of the most underachieving CFB programs in CFB history if we were led by people that knew what they were doing. I'm not saying every single person is dumb, but as a collective, damm


They are dumb because they are offering contracts that are the norm in today's coaching market???




You can criticize who they hire, but don't criticize the contract. If you think Sumlin is a bad coach, that's fine. But even you know they paid what was fair market value at the time. You just like to argue for whatever reason.
Posted by WhiskerBiscuitSlayer
Member since Jan 2013
13840 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:31 am to
quote:

You can criticize who they hire, but don't criticize the contract. If you think Sumlin is a bad coach, that's fine. But even you know they paid what was fair market value at the time. You just like to argue for whatever reason.


1. Top 10 pay out of 128 coaches is not "fair" market value for an unproven coach.

2. Everybody is more mad about them guaranteeing the entire contract than they are about the amount.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 10:59 am
Posted by CGSC Lobotomy
Member since Sep 2011
79987 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:32 am to
And he was going to leave after 1 season?

We are one of two schools who have given guaranteed contracts with no buyout clause to non-championship coaches.
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 11:17 am to
quote:

1. Top 10 pay out of 128 coaches is not "fair" market value for an unproven coach.

Again, you're are thinking about today. This contract was written with what we knew at the end of the 2012 season. USC was offering something along those lines too. It was fair market value at the time because USC was willing to pay him as well.

quote:

2. Everybody is more mad about them guaranteeing the entire contract than they are about the amount

Almost every major program today is guaranteeing money. See the list (and there's a whole lot more).

For the last time, you want to cry about the hire, that's fine. But don't cry about the contract.
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 11:18 am to
quote:

And he was going to leave after 1 season?

Yes. Business is business.
Posted by WhiskerBiscuitSlayer
Member since Jan 2013
13840 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:08 pm to
Calm down Billy.

I'll cry about whatever I please.
Posted by Texas Weazel
Louisiana is a shithole
Member since Oct 2016
8529 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:23 pm to
quote:

Calm down Billy.

I'll cry about whatever I please

I know. Y'all been bitching and crying about Sumlin for the longest (and it's getting old).


If you want to hate the man, that's fine. But hate him for the right reasons, not for something that comes with the territory of playing College Football at the highest ranks. Y'all look like bleeding idiots for complaining about a damn contract.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter