|
Post by Coach Huey on Jan 2, 2008 16:21:47 GMT -6
groff ... coaches have consequences for "breaking" their contract. it is written into it when they sign it. buyouts happen. boo-hoo if the other school's booster's pay for it.
really, what are we trying to solve? what do you want to accomplish? do you think this is that simple of an issue as "fair".... tit-for-tat? surely, not
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 2, 2008 16:33:57 GMT -6
Don't worry, those same boosters paying the buyout will be the same ones running the coach out if the team does not perform. Seems pretty fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 2, 2008 17:12:53 GMT -6
What are the absolutes in football?
|
|
|
Post by coachveer on Jan 2, 2008 18:39:59 GMT -6
Hey Huey, You right in so many ways the system is about as fair as it can be. However, there at times moments where I think it can and should be tweaked.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 3, 2008 5:51:50 GMT -6
What kind of system forces kids to stay at a certain school while the Coach that recruited them are allowed to lie their way to the top? this keeps the have-nots a little bit closer to the haves... because, all those kids that just weren't quite the caliber to play at UT, USC, OSU, end up at Troy, C. Mich, etc. well, 2 years later they got turn out to be superstar at troy ... so, UT swoops in with their big budget, big recruiting force, and somehow influences the kid to come win a championship, get on tv all the time and blam ... kid leaves troy to UT ... then, some 3rd team kid at UT - who was likely to have his scholly paid all 4 years is "cut" to make room. that is just one, small aspect of what would / could happen if it were "free agent" for everyone. this is not a simple issue so i do get saddened when media treat it as such and then it filters on down and, the contract coaches sign has some type of buyout or "consequences" to breaking said contract. but, if the coach can make do with that buyout after he resigns, he's moving on. players, too, can move on out of their "contract". their "buyout" is to sit out for a year The announcers dont think that one through as much as they probably should. Just imagine if a coach leaves Missouri to go to Iowa State and the players are allowed to leave. Many of the top guys leave Missouri for Iowa State the others left become easy pickings for other schools. The coach leaving has even more power if the kids are allowed to leave and an NFL type free agent/best deal best facilities thing comes into play. The havenots would really suffer and the huge coaching salaries people are whining about would get even bigger. Feel bad for the kids when a coach leaves, but the alternative isnt very pretty. If a kid is really fed up he can play right away at another level and some go that route.
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Jan 4, 2008 19:08:32 GMT -6
I don't see a problem with coaches changing jobs. You want the opportunity to coach at one of the top schools in the country.
To me its the equivalent of a the average Joe that works in the corporate world. If you have a opportunity to move up in your career and work for top pay at one of the top companies in the country, why not take advantage of that opportunity? You have a greater chance to succeed, better resources, more to offer potential clients, and a chance to prove yourself at the highest level with the best product to offer.
Besides who is getting mad at these kids for leaving early to enter the draft? Should they be punished for not staying in school all 4 years? Should they have to buy out their scholarships? After all didn't they accept and agree to a 4 year scholarship?
This may be over siplification but....... my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jan 4, 2008 19:10:49 GMT -6
thank you for agreeing with me dave
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Jan 4, 2008 19:32:31 GMT -6
Also if you are a coach at Florida International you're just not going to be able to compete with FSU, UF, or Miami for recruits. So if you are able to have some success with players no one wanted, JUCO transfers or with players that lost the opportunity to play at one of the other schools for one reason or another, and the opprotunity to coach one of the major schools comes your way because of that success. Why shouldn't you be able to capitalize on that success and take advantage of the opportunity to coach the top level talent that these school s offer.
You are still going to have to recruit but the school's name alone gets into the home of kids that you would have never been able to talk to at a lower level school.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 6, 2008 15:05:14 GMT -6
Should they have to buy out their scholarships? After all didn't they accept and agree to a 4 year scholarship? Actually no. All athletic grant in aids are 1 year renewable offerings.
|
|
|
Post by biggroff on Jan 6, 2008 17:22:43 GMT -6
Here is what I would like to see.....
1) I would like the NCAA to admit to what football has become...a business. Forget all the crap about student athletes at the division 1 level. Forget all the crap about the armature athlete. Let the kids do what they want. If they want to transfer because the coach leaves...let them. If a school swoops down and takes 3 or 4 kids off a roster because they have freedom to transfer tough....It is a business....that is what the schools want and the NCAA wants....show me the $$$$...it is all about winning and loosing. Quit with the song and dance.
or....
2) College football is really where academics and learning is important. Where the interest of the student is important. In the 4 years I was involved at the college level I saw way too much dependence on the coaching staff as the main source of contact with players. de-emphasize football or help establish the importance of this relationship with reasonable rules to support the coach-student relationship. Stand up and say that it is more that just the $$$ and the wins and losses.
|
|
|
Post by k on Jan 6, 2008 17:29:36 GMT -6
Well since there is only one GOD, I would ask how can I serve you without all the dumb people saying you can't talk about god in school I guess my one question would be why people who want to use the classroom and field as a pulpit would teach at a secular school bound by the first Amendment and not at a religious school where they could preach all they wanted.
|
|