MikeTheTiger71
| Favorite team: | LSU |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 4080 |
| Registered on: | 12/8/2021 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Memo to LSU Search Committee, RE: Eli Drinkwitz
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 11:50 pm to Sofaking2
quote:
We would be paying for a top 5 coach and getting Les Miles 2.0, but likely not as good as Les.
The problem is nobody knows who a Top 5 coach is in the current environment nor do they really know how revenue sharing changes the equation.
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 9:41 pm to Salviati
quote:
Although he was clearly terminated "effective immediately," Kelly was not "provided with written notice of contemplated termination and a statement of the grounds and facts in support thereof" "prior to termination for cause. Therefore, he could not have been terminated for cause.
Isn’t the argument that LSU is making now that the AD did not have the legal authority to issue such a notice, therefore there is currently no legally binding termination and the clock has not yet started? Isn’t that the question Kelly’s lawyers are asking the court to decide? If it were unambiguous that LSU did not terminate for cause, what need would there be for Kelly’s lawyers to file their claim?
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 3:07 pm to IrishDave
quote:
because they are trying not to pay him at all...thats why his lawsuit is about just cause.
He could just wait for LSU to make a “for cause” claim to respond if that were the case. He’s clearly trying to force LSU’s hand to gain leverage for a more favorable negotiated settlement.
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 3:04 pm to IrishDave
quote:
as far as them making him look for employment....all he has do to is demand 25 mil/yr to return to coaching. No one will pay that and LSU cant make him take a smaller salary.
Civil litigation tends to use a reasonable person standard. A reasonable person would conclude that Kelly was not making a good faith effort to find employment by demanding above market compensation. No. LSU cannot force him to accept a smaller salary, but they can find him in breach of contract, nullifying his buyout.
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 2:14 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
What legal technicalities are you referring to that most people accept?
That LSU has only a narrowly defined window to pursue a “for cause” termination.
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 2:12 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
You are just making a ton of assumptions with every point
The entire premise of this thread is based on assumptions.
- If LSU tries to fire Kelly with cause (we don’t know that they will), and
- They weren’t investigating a potential “for cause” termination before letting Kelly go (which we don’t know to be true),
- Don’t have a strong “for cause” case (which we don’t know),
- It ends up looking like a blatantly transparent attempt to get out of living up to their financial obligations (which we don’t know), and
- It has a negative impact on the coaching search (which is unknown),
Then this is an absolutely horrible mistake on LSU’s part.
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 2:03 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
You think there are currently other coaches that are cool with their schools prolonging their termination to dig up dirt so they can fire them with cause?
I have no idea and neither do you. Kelly’s lawyers filed a claim in court based upon legal technicalities that most people don’t seem to have a problem accepting, but they are all up in arms about the possibility that LSU is falling back on similar legal technicalities in the same situation. LSU let Kelly go under duress from an overly emotional fanbase, which no doubt left them in a situation where they didn’t have all their ducks in a row. Firing Woodward before the process even got off the ground certainly didn’t help. It was an open secret that Napier was being fired before it happened. More than likely it was this kind of legal maneuvering that was behind the delay. LSU should have handled this in a more orderly fashion, but that doesn’t mean anything they are doing is out of the ordinary.
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 1:40 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
I have also asked for examples of current coaches that have been fired this year in which the school is prolonging their termination so they can find cause.
What facts have been released in any other case or been subject to the same level of scrutiny? Governor Landry made this a circus, which got worse when his interference led to Woodward being forced out. Not having an experienced AD in the middle of this certainly doesn’t help, but the media circus only brightened the spotlight.
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 12:26 pm to Choupique19
quote:
They already did that. 4 years ago. LSU still owes him $54 million of what they agreed to pay him.
No, that’s the number that is paid out over a 6-year period that comes with an offset for future earnings and requirements to look for another job in good faith paid at market value. Annuities are negotiated to lump sum payments all the time in business, especially if removing the offset for future earnings is part of the equation. It’s in the best interest of both parties to find a negotiated settlement that works for both to close the books on this sad chapter.
quote:
If you didn't have the money to buy him out, you shouldn't have fired him. Economics 101.
LSU’s reported offer doesn’t necessarily save them money. It requires more money upfront and could be more than they would have to pay if Kelly finds another job paying more than $24M. What it gives them is a specific number to budget and spares them the headache of having to fight with Kelly over whether he is really making a good faith effort to find work. In return, Kelly gets the opportunity to make more than $54M and be free of scrutiny by LSU over how he chooses to look for work.
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 11/13/25 at 10:53 am to GrizzlyWintergreen
So far all we have is Kelly’s lawyers claiming LSU is trying to fire him with cause. LSU hasn’t filed any court documents to that effect nor have they stated publicly any intent to do so. Unless they have an air tight case, it would be madness to do so. Not only would it create a PR nightmare that would negatively affect the coaching search, but it would also make Kelly damaged goods. With the offset language in the contract, LSU wants Kelly to get as high a paying job as possible. That’s why I don’t believe LSU has any intention of trying to fire Kelly with cause.
Everyone keeps acting like LSU is trying to force Kelly to accept a settlement for less money than he is owed without any offsetting financial benefit to him. That’s just not the case. The idea is to come up with a number that’s acceptable to both sides that closes the books without the need for ongoing payments, monitoring, legal haggling, etc. Supposedly LSU has offered Kelly $30M in two installments paid out much sooner than the monthly payments through 2031 that he’s currently set to receive. The timing of the payments is a real benefit to Kelly. The bigger benefit is that all the stipulations related to future employment would go away. He doesn’t have to prove he’s making a good faith effort and he doesn’t have to prove he’s accepting a market value offer. More importantly, his buyout is no longer offset by future earnings. That means if he were to sign a deal worth more than $23M, he would come out ahead. So, yes, he risks leaving money on the table if he doesn’t find another high paying position, but he also has the potential to come out ahead. LSU would face the same risks in that scenario (in the opposite direction), but they would gain the clarity of a specific dollar amount they have to pay out. It’s really in the best interests of both sides to agree to a number and make a clean break.
The most likely thing that is going on here is that both sides are wrangling for leverage to get the most favorable negotiated settlement they can. I’m sure LSU is playing coy with the possibility of firing Kelly with cause because it gives them leverage in the negotiations and puts pressure on Kelly’s side to agree to a number to avoid the possibility of going down that route. LSU isn’t going to just give away an option available to them until there is a deal in place. It’s not smart business to show your hand before you have to. Kelly’s filing is nothing more than an attempt to force LSU to show their hand. They are attempting to remove firing with cause as an option to gain an upper hand in the negotiations. It doesn’t mean either side ever thought that was a route LSU intended to pursue.
Everyone keeps acting like LSU is trying to force Kelly to accept a settlement for less money than he is owed without any offsetting financial benefit to him. That’s just not the case. The idea is to come up with a number that’s acceptable to both sides that closes the books without the need for ongoing payments, monitoring, legal haggling, etc. Supposedly LSU has offered Kelly $30M in two installments paid out much sooner than the monthly payments through 2031 that he’s currently set to receive. The timing of the payments is a real benefit to Kelly. The bigger benefit is that all the stipulations related to future employment would go away. He doesn’t have to prove he’s making a good faith effort and he doesn’t have to prove he’s accepting a market value offer. More importantly, his buyout is no longer offset by future earnings. That means if he were to sign a deal worth more than $23M, he would come out ahead. So, yes, he risks leaving money on the table if he doesn’t find another high paying position, but he also has the potential to come out ahead. LSU would face the same risks in that scenario (in the opposite direction), but they would gain the clarity of a specific dollar amount they have to pay out. It’s really in the best interests of both sides to agree to a number and make a clean break.
The most likely thing that is going on here is that both sides are wrangling for leverage to get the most favorable negotiated settlement they can. I’m sure LSU is playing coy with the possibility of firing Kelly with cause because it gives them leverage in the negotiations and puts pressure on Kelly’s side to agree to a number to avoid the possibility of going down that route. LSU isn’t going to just give away an option available to them until there is a deal in place. It’s not smart business to show your hand before you have to. Kelly’s filing is nothing more than an attempt to force LSU to show their hand. They are attempting to remove firing with cause as an option to gain an upper hand in the negotiations. It doesn’t mean either side ever thought that was a route LSU intended to pursue.
re: Is Jay getting enough rev share for baseball?
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/25/25 at 12:00 am to Yeti_Chaser
quote:
I'd bet that you won't find a single school who is regularly top 10 in baseball, WBB, softball, and gymnastics going forward. Do you really want to pay the market rate for each and be a #10-25 program for each? Or would you rather sacrifice some so you can be #1 in others?
I think LSU has the right coaches in place in baseball, WBB, and gymnastics to compete for national titles without having to outspend everyone else. That may allow them to have a competitive budget for softball as well. I love all 4 sports, so I hope one doesn’t have to be sacrificed, but I suspect it would be softball if they are forced to choose.
re: Is Jay getting enough rev share for baseball?
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 11:54 pm to doubleb
quote:
So if we pay the coach top dollar and the staff top dollar, we still need to pay the players top dollar?
I don’t think they can afford to go cheap on the player budget, but they certainly don’t have to outspend everyone either. They just need to be in the ballpark. There’s a good chance that ballpark involved spending more on WBB than baseball regardless of whether that’s “fair”.
re: Don’t know why everyone is so negative
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 11:43 pm to drizztiger
quote:
This is why Blockbuster and others completely misunderstood the changing landscape. My point: You can have the most money and still failing. Failing to understand your failing is the problem. Might as well quadruple down and not have eyes.
In Blockbuster’s case, there was a consistent blind spot and failure to adapt to the changing environment. There was also a clear path forward (Netflix). I don’t see any of those patterns in the current situation for LSU. The issues have been unique to each season with Kelly showing a willingness to adapt every time, maybe not as quickly as fans thought he should have, but he did make changes. On the flip side, there is no clear alternative model to which LSU should turn instead.
2022- Special teams directly cost LSU the FSU game and was a key contributor to the Tennessee and Georgia losses. Despite that, LSU outperformed expectations thanks to Daniels, whom Kelly should be credited for bringing in. After the season, he parted ways with Polian to address the problem.
2023- The defense was a disaster undoing an all-time great offense. Kelly deserves blame for a bad hire in House, but he again addressed the issue by firing him and bringing in a strong replacement in Baker.
2024- LSU was in a strong position to make the SECCG and CFP until Dellinger and Frazier went down with injuries. They couldn’t protect Nussmeier during the 3-game losing streak and he was pressured into mistakes. There was still a talent gap on the defensive side which Kelly addressed by getting more aggressive in the transfer portal. There were signs of concern with the offense, but they played well enough outside the 3-game slide.
2025- Nussmeier’s injury has plagued the offense most of the season, exposing potential issues at OL coach and OC. We’ll see how the remainder of the season plays out, but despite the grumbling that Kelly is too arrogant or set in his ways, I would expect him to address the issue just as he did with Polian and House. Despite all that, had Nussmeier been healthy, they likely would have beaten Ole Miss. He finally got closer to 100% in the last couple of games, then Gooden and Weeks went down. The offense did well enough to win against Vandy, but the defense let them down. With Gooden and Weeks, LSU more than likely wins. I don’t see a program going backwards. I see a team that could very easily be 7-0 right now at 100%. I don’t think you can necessarily blame a coach for depth issues in the current environment.
It’s been a game of Whack-a-Mole so far in Kelly’s tenure. He’s had some hiccups with the coaching staff, but also some goods hires. He’s shown a willingness to shake things up when necessary. Injuries really have derailed progress the last two seasons or else there’s a good chance they would have been in the CFP last year and in the driver’s seat this year. At some point if all the pieces don’t come together, it’s time to move on. I just don’t see that now. It’s been bad luck as much as anything more recently.
re: Kelly's home record at LSU
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 11:03 pm to Brlaf77
quote:
We can agree to disagree but personally I wouldn’t recommend putting money on the Tigers - even with 2.5 points ! We will know in 24 hrs and I truly hope I’m wrong !
I was only commenting on the others hyperbole in saying A&M was steamrolling people, not commenting on whether LSU would win or not. Whit Weeks still out is going to be tough for this team to overcome. LSU hasn’t been 100% yet this season and, unfortunately, won’t be again tomorrow. With the defense they have had the majority of the season, a repeat of the offensive performance against Vandy would put LSU in good shape. Unfortunately I don’t see the defense playing at that level without Weeks.
re: Don’t know why everyone is so negative
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 9:48 pm to drizztiger
quote:
So what's your explanation again?
My explanation is that I am humble enough to admit I don’t know what’s going on in college football right now. Traditional ways of thinking about what leads to successful programs don’t appear to be holding true in this environment. It’s chaotic and uncharted. Everyone’s feeling around in the dark trying to figure it out. Kelly hasn’t figured it out, but apparently very few, if any other coaches have either. The transfer portal has impacted depth for everyone, so it’s not unreasonable to suspect that key injuries are going to have a greater impact on teams than it has historically.
Fire Kelly, then what? What coach do you feel truly confident has the new world order figured out? Who really knows what the keys to success are or how to determine which coaches do?
re: Kelly's home record at LSU
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 9:40 pm to Brlaf77
quote:
They beat Fla 34-17; we beat Fla 20-10 with 5 pics including a pic 6 ; so our offense put up 13 pts against Florida !
LSU took a knee at the end or they could have matched the margin of victory. Regardless, no suggested LSU steam rolled Florida. It’s hyperbole to suggest A&M did.
re: Take notes Blake Baker
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 9:38 pm to p226
quote:
That aged well.
Yes. 271 yards rushing allowed is clearly a great defensive game plan.
re: Don’t know why everyone is so negative
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 9:15 pm to drizztiger
quote:
In context, of course it's relevant.
So, by context, you mean if it agrees with your perspective? Vandy beating Bama last year tells us nothing about the improvement in the strength of their program since the last 35 years because that would go against the extreme negativity at this year’s result, but what happened between LSU and Vandy over the last 35 years is relevant because it does support that negativity. Got it.
quote:
So if you spend the most money on coaches and players and lose, it's because parity
In other words, you have no explanation for the same unexpected results happening across the country. Maybe, just maybe the transfer portal is doing more to level the playing field than NIL is helping the power schools. Maybe nobody has continuity or depth anymore, so injuries are harder to overcome and consistency in performance is harder to achieve.
re: Don’t know why everyone is so negative
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 8:37 pm to drizztiger
quote:
Why is Vandy beating Bama last year relevant?
So you are agreeing that what LSU did against Vandy over the last 35 years isn’t relevant to this year?
quote:
Explain to me how these other programs have a new advantage over LSU. If the landscape has changed, shouldn't LSU be on the forefront?
Why did Oregon lose by 10 to Indiana AT HOME? Why did Penn St lose 4 straight including UCLA and Northwestern AT HOME? Why did Michigan go 8-5 last year and have the same record as LSU this year? Why are Clemson and Florida 3-4? Why did Miami miss the playoffs last year and lose this year to Louisville AT HOME? Why did Alabama lose 4 games last year for the first time since 2007 including a loss to Vandy? Why did Georgia lose 3 games for the first time since 2018? Why do ND, Texas, and Tennessee have 2 losses already? Why did Oklahoma go 6-7 last year?
Why are Indiana, Georgia Tech, and Vanderbilt in the Top 10? Why are the Top 5 in the ACC standings: Georgia Tech, Virginia, SMU, Pitt, and Duke? Why are BYU and Cincinnati at the top of the Big 12? Why is Indiana first in the Big 10 and Northwestern, Minnesota, and UCLA tied for 3rd?
This is far from an LSU specific phenomenon. Whatever you think you know about who should be thriving in the current environment, it doesn’t match the reality of what is actually happening on the field.
re: Don’t know why everyone is so negative
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 10/24/25 at 7:47 pm to drizztiger
quote:
LSU just lost to Vandy for the first time in 35 years
A Vanderbilt team that beat Alabama last season and is ranked in the Top 10 for the first time since 1947. The deep meaning LSU fans are assigning to a label is an hysterical overreaction. This Vandy team bears no resemblance to the Vandy teams of the last 75 years. Indiana is #2. This is a brand new world. All the old rules no longer apply. LSU lost to a tough opponent on the road playing without the heart of their front 7. No one should be happy about that, but all the catastrophizing is over the top.
Popular
0












