The contract renewal for Cal coach Sonny Dykes promises him that the contract will renew each year the team (a) wins seven games; and (b) has Rutgers' APR (980) or better. Hard-core Cal fans are highly displeased, saying the school is accepting mediocrity. I wonder if eventually there will be a conference or a subdivision for schools like this (and Rutgers) that want football but don't care if the team is only slightly better than average and don't want to spend the big bucks.
Cal wants to be a slightly more successful Rutgers
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
This is really really interesting.
1. I like it because I am a true believer in (successful) stability. Stability builds a brand. Builds a base alumni can relate to (come back, donate). Builds a recruiting base (I know the coach will be there when I graduate).
or
2. "accepting mediocrity" if that is what it really it.
hmmmm. Which do you choose. I like the sound of #1
1. I like it because I am a true believer in (successful) stability. Stability builds a brand. Builds a base alumni can relate to (come back, donate). Builds a recruiting base (I know the coach will be there when I graduate).
or
2. "accepting mediocrity" if that is what it really it.
hmmmm. Which do you choose. I like the sound of #1
I don't think the fans understand the contract. Unless I am missing something, that clause is incredibly favorable to the school, not the coach. It means that if he fails to have a winning record, the school would be able to elect not to renew his contract, and apparently he would be gone without a termination and buy-out. The coach is essentially getting a one year contract every year.
That has nothing to do with mediocrity. Nothing about an auto-renewal for 7 wins says anything about the school's ability to fire the coach with a winning record. Presumably in that instance, there would just be a "termination without cause" and a buy-out. Most schools pay a buy-out to get rid of a coach regardless of record.
Just think how great it would have been for Rutgers if they didn't have to fire Flood and pay him $1.4m this year, because his contract simply expired for next year as a result of the team's 4-8 record.
That has nothing to do with mediocrity. Nothing about an auto-renewal for 7 wins says anything about the school's ability to fire the coach with a winning record. Presumably in that instance, there would just be a "termination without cause" and a buy-out. Most schools pay a buy-out to get rid of a coach regardless of record.
Just think how great it would have been for Rutgers if they didn't have to fire Flood and pay him $1.4m this year, because his contract simply expired for next year as a result of the team's 4-8 record.
This is the way it should be done. Too many mediocre coaches getting paid and extensions for mediocre records and performance.
Agreed. Imagine how much better a position Rutgers would be in if its head coach contracts either renewed or expired on a one year benchmark!
This does not prevent him from being fired - if he had a couple of unpleasant 7-5 seasons and the recruiting looked abysmal - they could still show him the door - just cut the check.
All it really does is set a performance floor - and if he remains above the floor, his severance package remains level (does not fluctuate based on of years remaining on contract) - He started with a five year contract - he just finished year 3 ... so about time to do something... or start looking for a new coach.
All it really does is set a performance floor - and if he remains above the floor, his severance package remains level (does not fluctuate based on of years remaining on contract) - He started with a five year contract - he just finished year 3 ... so about time to do something... or start looking for a new coach.
Maybe there should be a 7 win clause in the basketball coach's contract. But maybe that's setting the bar too high.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that this is how it goes:
They just added two years to his current contract - which had 2 years to go ... so now, at this moment, he has a 4 year deal - good thru 2019 ... plus it includes a one-year "rollover clause" for each year he wins seven regular-season games and the team achieves an annual Academic Progress Rate (APR) of 980 or higher.
- so as long as they want to keep him & as long as he is 7-5 or better & has the APR - he is sitting on a constant 4-year deal.
... but I expect that all of this is just fancy language - he will leave or be fired before it gets down to having to dig through the nitty gritty of how this would ultimately be carried out
