Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blindcheck

Contract Extensions

Recommended Posts

My take on this thread is to really talk about the insanity of the contract extensions in general...Not Just the one given to Tim Miles, when he already has   2 years left.

 

The Athletic Departments have allowed coaches and Agents to gain the upper hand in contract negotiations...because recruiting might be tougher, I need security in hiring assistants, ETC.

 

Now, we had to give Miles an extension otherwise he would have been a lame duck with 2 years left.


To me that is insanity that the Athletic Departments don't realize that they should have more power in these negotiations...in Miles case, Moos should have said, you want 5 years...great, but the buyout will decrease by 66% Over those three years, because I am only comfortable with a 1 year extension.

 

My guess is a conversation may have taken place similar to that and Miles believes next year will be good and he is willing to parlay next year into a longer extension without a reduced buyout.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2018 at 7:21 PM, Donkey said:

 

Robin Washut has reported of at least one recruit who was set to sign with Nebraska but backed off when it was pointed out that Miles contract, at the time, expired in 2020. Washut has not identified the the kid but has stated the recruit signed with a BIG school. Speculation is that the recruit was Eric Hunter who went to Purdue. Opine all you want, but I trust Robin Washut’s reporting. Coaching stability matters to kids. The easiest way to overcome it is by having coaches signed for 5 year periods. 

Probably true....but recruit harder...

 

In sales, and that is what this is, you have to overcome objections.....Explain to the kid that contract length is meaningless, and sell yourself and program on other attributes.

 

My guess if contract length is listed as a reason why he didn't come here, we never had a chance with him anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Blindcheck said:

Probably true....but recruit harder...

 

In sales, and that is what this is, you have to overcome objections.....Explain to the kid that contract length is meaningless, and sell yourself and program on other attributes.

 

My guess if contract length is listed as a reason why he didn't come here, we never had a chance with him anyway.

 

Conteact length is not meaningless however.  As much as you are fighting for it to be meaningless, it isn’t.  And it is giving other schools a recruiting advantage over us.  Is it right that this is the way the game works?  That is debatable.  However, to say you simply need to “recruit harder” is kind of a cop out I think.

 

As much as you may or may not like it, obviously contract length is part of the game.  Everyone wants us to play with the big boys.  Well we need to step up our game in this area.  Money shouldn’t be the reason here.  We have plenty.  Extend him, and you can still fire him if things go south next year.  However, all you are doing in this situation is hindering the program in the next few years after next year no matter who the coach is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying...he has three years, if that is not enough....tough...I say figure it out.

 

I understand where you are coming from....but Miles hasn't earned that level of gurantee, he has earned 3 years on his contract....that is what it is.

 

Now, he has to overcome and find kids others have missed or sell the school and program to those that might worry about the length of his contract.

 

As stated above, you can recruit without a long term contract, you just have to overcome objections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I get that.  But why not give us the best opportunity to succeed?  It’s like making one basketball team shoot on a 18 foot hoop while the other does 12.  One football team has to go 140 yards instead of 100.  One baseball team has to run 5 bases to score instead of 3.  When you could very easily even the playing field and give your team the best chance to succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hskr4life said:

And I get that.  But why not give us the best opportunity to succeed?  It’s like making one basketball team shoot on a 18 foot hoop while the other does 12.  One football team has to go 140 yards instead of 100.  One baseball team has to run 5 bases to score instead of 3.  When you could very easily even the playing field and give your team the best chance to succeed.

One could argue that hamstringing a program with a 5 to 7 year contracts makes it harder to compete in the long run.

 

Everyone assumes the money in college athletics is going to continue to grow...but as an example the Big ten network just lost a large chunk of homes when a cable system dropped them and as more people choose to buy ala carte services, the money dynamics could change and change swiftly....so having an AD that makes sure he is looking out for the long term interests of the University should be applauded...

 

The 7 year contract could then become the 18 foot hoop....AD's need to balance everything and in my opinion Moos did so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hskr4life said:

And I get that.  But why not give us the best opportunity to succeed?  It’s like making one basketball team shoot on a 18 foot hoop while the other does 12.  One football team has to go 140 yards instead of 100.  One baseball team has to run 5 bases to score instead of 3.  When you could very easily even the playing field and give your team the best chance to succeed.

I don’t think the disadvantage is that great. I really don’t. I think coaches believe it’s a big deal, and that belief affects things, but I’ve covered football recruiting for a long time. Coach’s contract lengths haven’t come up. Kids don’t think like coaches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, swmckewon said:

I don’t think the disadvantage is that great. I really don’t. I think coaches believe it’s a big deal, and that belief affects things, but I’ve covered football recruiting for a long time. Coach’s contract lengths haven’t come up. Kids don’t think like coaches. 

I agree with this completely. A kid is going to be much more affected by NU's lack of success. Miles' best recruiting class followed the 2013-14 season (Watson, Morrow, etc.) and still was getting rated guys the year after that (Roby, Jordy, Horne). The results since then have been underwhelming, aside from Thomas. Coaches like to promote the idea that extensions are necessary for recruiting because it benefits them.

 

The transfers are another matter. Consider that Cope and Palmer came in after losing seasons, maybe because could see that they could easily start here. As for hiring an assistant, isn't their own contract the most important to them? I understand the arguments against the one-year extension, I just don't buy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swmckewon said:

I don’t think the disadvantage is that great. I really don’t. I think coaches believe it’s a big deal, and that belief affects things, but I’ve covered football recruiting for a long time. Coach’s contract lengths haven’t come up. Kids don’t think like coaches. 

 

So you think there was no reason to extend Riley last year?   Do you disagree that Eichorst did it, and that they publicly played the recruiting card in doing so?    As the guy on the football beat, did you question the need for it at that time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Blindcheck said:

My take on this thread is to really talk about the insanity of the contract extensions in general...Not Just the one given to Tim Miles, when he already has   2 years left.

 

The Athletic Departments have allowed coaches and Agents to gain the upper hand in contract negotiations...because recruiting might be tougher, I need security in hiring assistants, ETC.

 

Now, we had to give Miles an extension otherwise he would have been a lame duck with 2 years left.


To me that is insanity that the Athletic Departments don't realize that they should have more power in these negotiations...in Miles case, Moos should have said, you want 5 years...great, but the buyout will decrease by 66% Over those three years, because I am only comfortable with a 1 year extension.

 

My guess is a conversation may have taken place similar to that and Miles believes next year will be good and he is willing to parlay next year into a longer extension without a reduced buyout.

 

 

So you disagree with Moos, who said that he wants his revenue sports coaches extended out 4 years?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Handy Johnson said:

2-3 year extension made sense, 1 year doesn't, it's that simple.

 

And IF you're going with 1, get it done and announced quickly, with all the nice comments about our '17-18 season and the job coach is doing.  And hope for the best.  But you don't wait weeks to do it, and undercut it with  a  public statement at the time that you like your revenue sport coaches to be extended out 4 years.   As in "have you noticed I consciously chose to not have this guy extended out that far?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t think the disadvantage is that great. I really don’t. I think coaches believe it’s a big deal, and that belief affects things, but I’ve covered football recruiting for a long time. Coach’s contract lengths haven’t come up. Kids don’t think like coaches. 
Not to stir the pot, but it's referenced upthread here that at least one recruit has committed elsewhere precisely because of the contract extension situation. If one kid actually said it, my guess would be that he's not completely on an island in his line of thinking. I honestly don't follow football recruiting so I would defer to your expertise on that, but I wonder if maybe basketball kids and football kids also think differently? Since (allegedly) it actually HAS cost us a recruit... Maybe it's somewhere in the middle, not as important as the coaches' narrative but still plays a factor...and in that case, I think we're up against enough obstacles in recruiting (especially if we play by the rules -- remember, the FBI stuff is still looming) that it seems unnecessary to decide not to clear one you can actually control.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, swmckewon said:

I don’t think the disadvantage is that great. I really don’t. I think coaches believe it’s a big deal, and that belief affects things, but I’ve covered football recruiting for a long time. Coach’s contract lengths haven’t come up. Kids don’t think like coaches. 

I think Agents have used this line of thinking to get contracts as far out as they can....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ladyhusker said:

Not to stir the pot, but it's referenced upthread here that at least one recruit has committed elsewhere precisely because of the contract extension situation. If one kid actually said it, my guess would be that he's not completely on an island in his line of thinking. I honestly don't follow football recruiting so I would defer to your expertise on that, but I wonder if maybe basketball kids and football kids also think differently? Since (allegedly) it actually HAS cost us a recruit... Maybe it's somewhere in the middle, not as important as the coaches' narrative but still plays a factor...and in that case, I think we're up against enough obstacles in recruiting (especially if we play by the rules -- remember, the FBI stuff is still looming) that it seems unnecessary to decide not to clear one you can actually control.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

 

This is a really good point.  We've found it to be tough enough to recruit to this program for hoops.  Some are saying the lack of a full extension of the coach's contract is just an obstacle to overcome and tell the coach to go out and overcome it.  But, that's an obstacle we control, right?  We can't make the population of Lincoln and surrounding communities explode so that there's a larger pool of talent in the area.  We can't bring a larger city closer to us geographically.  We can't give ourselves mountains or beaches or what have you.

 

So, why make it any harder?  Just another obstacle?  Would you appreciate your boss putting "just another obstacle" in your way of getting your job done and then complain when you fall short?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Norm Peterson I agree.  Whether or not the need to have contracts extend 4 years out is a ploy by "agents" to take advantage of the poor $125 million athletics empire and put them into near bankruptcy because a hoops coach will maybe make an extra $2 million when he's given the axe, and whether or not these poor money-strapped AD's should band together and make a stand against the dirty money grubbing "agents" is an argument in and of itself.  However...why should the NU AD be the one to go out on their own and make a stand against this needless money wasting, essentially tying their coaches' hands behind his back while the rest of the colleges seemingly have no problem with removing as many obstacles as possible to the running of an efficient and professional organization?

 

I say, screw that.  Let someone else take a stand for their principles, I want to win.  If that means I need to extend my coach to 4 years, then do it.  If it takes gold plated toilets in the practice facility, then gold plate those MF'ers!!!

 

But don't try to tell me that taking away advantages, or better yet, building in extra disadvantages is beneficial or productive in anything.  That I just need to do better.  That's pure and utter BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 49r said:

@Norm Peterson I agree.  Whether or not the need to have contracts extend 4 years out is a ploy by "agents" to take advantage of the poor $125 million athletics empire and put them into near bankruptcy because a hoops coach will maybe make an extra $2 million when he's given the axe, and whether or not these poor money-strapped AD's should band together and make a stand against the dirty money grubbing "agents" is an argument in and of itself.  However...why should the NU AD be the one to go out on their own and make a stand against this needless money wasting, essentially tying their coaches' hands behind his back while the rest of the colleges seemingly have no problem with removing as many obstacles as possible to the running of an efficient and professional organization?

 

I say, screw that.  Let someone else take a stand for their principles, I want to win.  If that means I need to extend my coach to 4 years, then do it.  If it takes gold plated toilets in the practice facility, then gold plate those MF'ers!!!

 

But don't try to tell me that taking away advantages, or better yet, building in extra disadvantages is beneficial or productive in anything.  That I just need to do better.  That's pure and utter BS.

 

As only @49r could say it.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

So, why make it any harder?  Just another obstacle?  Would you appreciate your boss putting "just another obstacle" in your way of getting your job done and then complain when you fall short?

 

This is also a technique some ADs may use to say "Look, you didn't get it done. So now we have to move on." Knowing full and well they're likely to fail next season, especially given the extra barriers you enabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ladyhusker said:

Not to stir the pot, but it's referenced upthread here that at least one recruit has committed elsewhere precisely because of the contract extension situation. If one kid actually said it, my guess would be that he's not completely on an island in his line of thinking. I honestly don't follow football recruiting so I would defer to your expertise on that, but I wonder if maybe basketball kids and football kids also think differently? Since (allegedly) it actually HAS cost us a recruit... Maybe it's somewhere in the middle, not as important as the coaches' narrative but still plays a factor...and in that case, I think we're up against enough obstacles in recruiting (especially if we play by the rules -- remember, the FBI stuff is still looming) that it seems unnecessary to decide not to clear one you can actually control.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

Yeah, I don't know if a name has ever been attached to that theory. The name I've heard volleyed about - which may not be the actual guy - would have been at a time when Miles had 4 years on his contract, back in 2016. 

 

I dunno that it was a reason the kid gave or his handlers or the Nebraska coaches. I dunno. 

 

It's a little different in hoops, I suppose, yeah. More handlers in basketball. More adults thinking like adults I suppose. 

 

That kid from Robert Morris seems OK with things. He can't even play next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:09 PM, swmckewon said:

I don’t think the disadvantage is that great. I really don’t. I think coaches believe it’s a big deal, and that belief affects things, but I’ve covered football recruiting for a long time. Coach’s contract lengths haven’t come up. Kids don’t think like coaches. 

 

I know that you have talked to far more recruits than I have, but I have talked to a number of football recruits/parents over the years on the eastern slope of Colorado. And I'm pretty sure all of them have said that coaching stability would be a factor in their decision and contract length/extension is a readily observable signpost regarding that factor (my words summarizing theirs). I talked to a RB recruit's mom in the late spring of 2017 whose main concern was whether Riley would be there for the long term, as she really like him.  

 

I haven't spoken to any basketball recruits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 3:09 PM, swmckewon said:

I don’t think the disadvantage is that great. I really don’t. I think coaches believe it’s a big deal, and that belief affects things, but I’ve covered football recruiting for a long time. Coach’s contract lengths haven’t come up. Kids don’t think like coaches. 

 

I would have guessed you would think this way Petaluma. Why we are making things harder on ourselves for no good reason is baffling. Even if it makes things only slightly harder (I believe it is more than that) it seems stupid. It hurts the program as much or more than Miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×