|
|
Post by coachjd on Jan 4, 2009 22:00:27 GMT -6
ESPN is reporting that if Coach Jaz take the interview with the Jets on Monday he will be fired.
WOW, harsh demands.
What are you thoughts on this towards the coaching profession.
|
|
|
|
Post by oguru on Jan 4, 2009 22:05:45 GMT -6
JD:
I think it's extremely harsh. Preventing someone from furthering his career. Thats just scary. Think of the publicity it would give BC. Their HC went to the pros.
I wonder if their are clauses in his contract which prevent him from doing this, or maybe the JETS did not ask permission to talk to him,and he is doing it on his own.
|
|
|
|
Post by dacoachmo on Jan 4, 2009 22:06:00 GMT -6
a crock of s#$%^
|
|
|
|
Post by baldingmullett on Jan 4, 2009 22:13:00 GMT -6
Is that in a contract he signed that he can't interview with anyone else or just the jets?
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jan 4, 2009 23:11:07 GMT -6
He signed a 5-year contract in 2006. BC thought they had a coach until at least 2010. Now he wants to coach somewhere else even though he owes BC a couple more years.
While I agree that BC has the "right" to do this, it probably isn't in their best interests. I mean, it sounds like they have their replacement already on staff? So, why make an issue out of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 4, 2009 23:39:37 GMT -6
JD: I think it's extremely harsh. Preventing someone from furthering his career. Thats just scary. Think of the publicity it would give BC. Their HC went to the pros. I wonder if their are clauses in his contract which prevent him from doing this, or maybe the JETS did not ask permission to talk to him,and he is doing it on his own. I'm not a fan of this, but it doesn't seem like great pub to have your former coach now a HC in the pros. Wasn't Tom Coughlin HC of BC? I don't think that gets them any kind of instant cred or anything. |
|
|
|
Post by utchuckd on Jan 4, 2009 23:51:02 GMT -6
I'm sure they'd have no problem buying him out early if he didn't produce like they wanted. Low rent.
|
|
|
|
Post by dacoordinator on Jan 5, 2009 6:50:50 GMT -6
i dont think that would be a great for them to deal with... beacause nobody will be trying to coach there if they do go through with this.
|
|
sbv
Sophomore Member
Posts: 171
|
Post by sbv on Jan 5, 2009 7:58:01 GMT -6
I can't believe this. Why can't they just make him pay a few million to buy out his contract like everyone else. If it was me, I would probably call their bluff just because I'd feel challenged and they would still have to buy out my contract. Now, if he stays, people will wonder if he is staying because he wants to or because he didn't think he'd get the Jets job and didn't want to be fired. It doesn't seem like he can win either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Jan 5, 2009 8:24:00 GMT -6
His interviewing shows the organization a lack of committment. How do you get kids to committ to your program if the head coach is actively looking for work?
I dunno, don't have a dog in the fight. My opinion, Jagodzinski will be just fine. Hell of a coach. If he doesn't get the Jets job, he'll land on his feet. I bet he gets the Jets job.
Jets just have to do their due diligence with interviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Jan 5, 2009 11:10:45 GMT -6
If it was another college maybe they'd have a gripe but the thing is, its the NFL. Does a kid going pro after his 3rd year in the program show a lack of commitment? It goes both ways. The players all want to make it to sunday and a lot of the coaches want to be the head man on an NFL team as well. No one said he was actively looking for work. The jets called about an interview. its not like hes got his name out there for any position. Its the NFL and its a head coachign job. I don't think you can fire a guy who is obviously a dang good coach, just for dabbling in the thought of becoming a head guy at the next level.
|
|
gerryb
Probationary Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by gerryb on Jan 5, 2009 19:53:02 GMT -6
Not clear who called who. Jags is a good friend of Favre.
BC believed it had a three year commitment from Jags, then he could look around.
Coughlin stayed three years; passed up offers after year two to complete the job. He's the model.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bruce on Jan 5, 2009 21:16:17 GMT -6
I was told that when he signed his contract that a clause was put into place that he would not interview for an NFL job for at least 3 years. He agreed to it. Looks like BC saw this coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by signalzero on Jan 5, 2009 21:34:05 GMT -6
The last I heard is that he still plans on interviewing. I think it's a bad move for BC. They should have kept it quiet. Bad PR and it will make it harder to recruit a quality coach by telling them they are trapped without a chance to go to the Pros.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 6, 2009 8:08:21 GMT -6
IMO unless BC has someone in mind already it would be tough to hire someone with other aspirations down the line. Would you knowingly take a job where they fired you successful predicessor for interviewing in the NFL?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachweigelt on Jan 6, 2009 8:42:02 GMT -6
If we all know about this, don't you think the jets interview guys will know. Even if he does not get the job with the jets don't you think other colleges teams will love to take him?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 6, 2009 10:05:14 GMT -6
It is a good question. I can completely see BC's point of view. You agreed to this deal. Honor it, or you will be terminated for breach of contract. I don't know how this will impact any possible replacement. There aren't many BCS head coaching jobs. I can easily see another candidate agreeing to the deal, just as Jaz did.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachweigelt on Jan 7, 2009 3:24:31 GMT -6
yea I can understand that but guys what would you do if you lets say for example earn 100.000 USD a year and then somebody comes by and tells you he wants you for 350.000 USD + alot a fame and benifits... Wouldn't you consider? The whole we have an agreement talk is (sorry for the word) "Crap" because in the end it comes down to how the coach wants to make his living and not be at home with no job.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 7, 2009 7:15:24 GMT -6
yea I can understand that but guys what would you do if you lets say for example earn 100.000 USD a year and then somebody comes by and tells you he wants you for 350.000 USD + alot a fame and benifits... Wouldn't you consider? The whole we have an agreement talk is (sorry for the word) "Crap" because in the end it comes down to how the coach wants to make his living and not be at home with no job. You definitely make valid points, I just don't think they are applicable to this situation. Nobody here on the board is what Coach Jaz should or shouldn't do. Nobody is commenting on his intentions or actions. I don't see anyone saying that Coach Jaz is wrong to consider the offer, or that any of us would/or would not consider the offer. This thread isn't really addressing the "morality" (for lack of a better word) of Coach Jaz, because we all agree that looking for different opportunities, from the coach's perspective, is completely appropriate and natural. The comments are about BC's actions, which I also believe to be appropriate. They are basically saying "Hey, if you think some place else is better, than we don't want you to lead our program." What is wrong with that? What is wrong with a BCS program feeling that their leader should want to be there. So, I believe Jaz is completely right in exploring his options, but his employer is equally in their rights for saying "If you are considering elsewhere, why don't we make the choice easier for you" |
|
|
|
Post by southfork on Jan 7, 2009 7:21:06 GMT -6
Spurrier use to have a 72 hour window at Florida where he could look for another job. After that - NO. That would be a good clause in a contract. Recruiting is hurt by kids not knowing. I think that is BC's problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 7, 2009 7:32:32 GMT -6
In business we always felt a bit betrayed by those left. We felt with many of them we took a chance on them and invested in them etc and of course paid them more in many cases much more than they were in their previous jobs. Most of the time they got the new gig based on the added responsibilities they new skills they learned from us.
But we also realized that because we had done such a good job of hiring and training, that our guys would be sought after.It also made us look at what we could do better to keep guys around, it made us a better company.
In the end, if it was a good fit for the guy and he was getting more responsibilty and significantly more money than we could offer him and it was a good company we grinned outwardly and were pleasant and wished them the best. Kept them on our Christmas card list etc that was probably 75% of the deals. I often sent a letter of recommendation, thank you letter after they had been gone for a week or so. For some of the guys it was a great opportunnity, they couldnt get from us etc
When it wasnt a good fit or they were leaving to an inferior firm, we calmly and logically laid out our case. If they still decided to leave we did the same grin, best of luck think etc. Even when we felt we were wronged, there was no benefit in burning bridges or being seen as a "bad" employer, Even in a 700,000 person Metro area, word gets around, just like in coaching circles.
Heck we even got a few of them back and a handful even ended up moving up and being customers for us LOL.
Different deal but I know Bo Pelini heavily promotes his assistants and supported all of those that interviewed for head gigs this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunder17 on Jan 7, 2009 14:59:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 7, 2009 15:08:29 GMT -6
The equation may have changed if coach signed an aggreement to NOT interview with a pro team for 3 years. If coach broke that aggreement then he is in breach of contract. My guess is that clause was in there because BC was concerend he would bolt to the pros and leave them after a short time period. If coach said, no Im not interested in the NFL this isnt a "layover job", in fact I will aggree in writing not to even interview for an NFL gig for 3 years and then did interview, that's an entirely different deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jan 7, 2009 17:02:25 GMT -6
It sounded like Jagodzinski had been sniffing around for an NFL job for a while. I agree that it is pretty extreme on BC's part, but it seemed that the AD wanted a coach who planned on being at BC for a while.
Good for Steve Logan, I guess. Wasn't he at East Carolina?
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 7, 2009 18:04:24 GMT -6
The way I understand it... The coach was warned that his interviewing would be akin to his resignation... He resigned... Don't see the controversy on this one. If he really wanted to be at BC... he wouldn't have interviewed.  |
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 7, 2009 18:47:01 GMT -6
come this is all about brett farve. because every thing is always about brett farve. if you are a green bay packers fan you know this. brett is about brett and not about the team.
the jets owners know they need a yes man to be the head coach so brett can do what ever he wants. brett wants to throw deep every time even though the deep ball is not his best passl.
Mike McCarthy got tired of Brett's little games played and he sent him packing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 19:05:56 GMT -6
If it was another college maybe they'd have a gripe but the thing is, its the NFL. Does a kid going pro after his 3rd year in the program show a lack of commitment? It goes both ways. The players all want to make it to sunday and a lot of the coaches want to be the head man on an NFL team as well. No one said he was actively looking for work. The jets called about an interview. its not like hes got his name out there for any position. Its the NFL and its a head coachign job. I don't think you can fire a guy who is obviously a dang good coach, just for dabbling in the thought of becoming a head guy at the next level. I agree completely, I'm sure they wouldn't have any problem firing him before 2010 if he didn't produce. It's a business and honestly I dont even see a problem with leaving to go to another unversity, for whatever reason especially if it's an issue of more money. |
|
|
|
Post by coachpoe on Jan 7, 2009 19:18:33 GMT -6
My problem with this is...how can BC attract a quality coach from now on. I don't know what clauses were in his contract, but if I am a quality coach looking at BC this would seriously diminsh my interest. Knowing that just to consider a change, that many would view as a positive move for his career, can get you fired would be troubling. Coaches usually don't want to take jobs where they will be prevented from moving up the ladder. A coach may say this is my dream job, and you would never leave, but it only takes one offer/situation for that to possibly change.
Also Jags went 20-8 in 2 seasons at BC, with 2 division titles. When he is successful the administration expects him to be so committed to the job that he cannot even interview for another position (one I think everyone agrees is a quality job). However, if he was 8-20 I doubt the administration would show him the same committment. I doubt they would care if he was interviewing for another job then, if he still even had a job at BC. So he is expected to be committed when he wins, but I doubt they would match his commitment if he had lost. Would they be more or less upset if their coach left after 2 losing seasons...would they let him interview then? But since he was so successful, you would think they would be less inclined to fired him, which they obviously did. So it's kind of a catch 22.
Finally, what if he was the head coach at a D II school and had won 2 national titles in two years. What if he wanted to leave for a NFL job then (and he was hypothetically interviewed)? Would it be more or less acceptable because he coached at a smaller school, or had a job that is considered to be less prestigious? On the other side of the coin, what if he was the head coach at USC or OU? If he was the coach at one of the top 3 or 4 college programs and wanted to leave to go to the NFL after 2 years, would we react the same to the firing? Would the administrators be more justified in this decision if they represented a truly top notch college program?
These are interesting questions to consider when analyzing the situation. As I said I know very little about Jags contract/relationship with the administration, but I am very shocked BC would let someone so successful go because they interviewed for a higher profile job.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachpoe on Jan 7, 2009 19:20:26 GMT -6
just my $0.02
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 7, 2009 20:27:07 GMT -6
Coachpoe...
Good points... but again... no one stopped Jags from interviewing... they just let him know what it means to interview. He would truly have to want to leave, if he wanted to interview.
He interviewed... because he wanted to leave... he gone...
Wheres the problem?
|
|
