mdanyc03 said:I don't know that it would "scare off" coaches, but if somebody else offered a comparable contract without that clause then any coach would with a choice would take the contract without that clause. So to offset you would have to offer more per year. It is all fungible._lefraud_ said:
Right, so maybe schools should add in the contract:
If in any given season, a coach fails to win at least %25 of its conference games, than that could "cause" for termination and a lower buyout of the remaining contract (if any) will be in the amount of $1 million dollars.
That would be going 4-14 or worse. Seems pretty reasonable, and still not scare off any other potential coaches.
People like guaranteed contracts. In a competitive market you have to offer people what they like.
Yea. We had this conversation during the end of Sumlin's tenure too. The cash in the market from the network comtracts is such that SOMEBODY is going to pay. And if it's your rival, you will pay too.
Richard Sherman, the best cornerback of the last 5+ years just signed an incentive laden contract and got ROASTED for it. Why? Guaranteed contracts are out there and are better. Incentive contracts will not be out there any time soon.