our coaching situation and $

[HuskerJosh]

Almost every coach these days has an agent. If they don't, the first thing they do when contacted by a team they're interested in is go to the family lawyer and either he becomes his agent or he refers him to one. There is absolutely NO regulation of agents, except regarding pro athletes. It's a relatively new phenomenon, but it's one that is extremely widespread nowadays. You can bet anyone we contact will have one. Even Turner. Contracts are very technical and it's easier on the coaches' conscience if they have someone trained in reading them do it.

 

[Hunter94]

Well somewhere I read that Ozz has a base in mind with incentives (spelling ain't my strong suit) I could live with that rather than paying a bunch of money on a bust. Other thing is I hope that we write a better clause in a buy out or should I say - if the coach is fired we are smarter on how their compensation is handled.

The final salary and incentives are negotiated and may not have much to do with smarts. The university has their financial and legal people to work out these things but it's tough to be stingy when you're trying to lure someone. In my business negotiation begins only after the applicant accepts. If the candidate isn't satisfied it may be easier for them to walk than it is for the company to let them get away. It could be embarrassing for the university to loose a candidate during negotiations and could affect the interest of other candidates.

most negotiations (accepting a job) are based on agreed levels of responsibilities and compensation, BEFORE the applicant agrees to accept the job. it usually doesn't come after, that would be putting the horse behind the cart, makes no sense to agree to the job and then disagree with the compensation package afterwards. it's all negotiated up front.

 

[Hunter94]

Almost every coach these days has an agent. If they don't, the first thing they do when contacted by a team they're interested in is go to the family lawyer and either he becomes his agent or he refers him to one. There is absolutely NO regulation of agents, except regarding pro athletes. It's a relatively new phenomenon, but it's one that is extremely widespread nowadays. You can bet anyone we contact will have one. Even Turner. Contracts are very technical and it's easier on the coaches' conscience if they have someone trained in reading them do it.

exactly...........

 

[Shansen]

Thanks Hunter - I did mean my post to in the contract prior to signing - not after. Thanks

 

[Hunter94]

Ithink the buy out will be the problem on most good coaches.

I agree we should be able to keep him under the 1.5 area. Depending on his manager. He has a proven record replacing a coach with out a proven record that was making 1.78 I think.

Do college coaches, or most anyway, really have managers? I would think that a coach who is responsible for the running of a football team would be more than capable of handling their own contract. I can understand them having an attorney look over the contract to make sure there isn't anything in there that will cause problems down the road, but why do they need a manager? Why would they want to give anyone 5 or 10 percent or whatever it is to do something they're more than capable of handling themselves?

simple, because they don't have personal knowledge of what types of contracts are bring offered other coaches. why accept less or agree to something you haven't discussed with a knowledgeable source, who knows what is standard at specific levels of coaching offers/incentives? it would be foolish.....

 

[Hunter94]

Thanks Hunter - I did mean my post to in the contract prior to signing - not after. Thanks

sorry, did not mean to offend you. thanks.

 

[Bleeding Husker Red]

i think the word on the street is Os doesn't believe in paying big salaries?? i guess the defintion of "big" is the key.

He's always said he never believed he should get a salary larger than the top guy at the university. However, one of the factors in NU's consistancy over the years was the fact that TO paid his assistants enough to be able to keep them. He'll pay an appropriate amount for the guy he hires.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

I guess to better ask my original question, why would a coach who has a contract who isn't looking for a job need an agent? After the ink has dried on a contract like lets say Grobe who has a 10 year extension, do they really need an agent if they aren't looking to skip to the next job? I guess I would just find it extremely odd if Grobe, Kelly, Gill, or Pelini had agents. There again, I don't know all the in's and out's of coaching contracts.

Almost all D-1 head coaches - and those assistants looking to be head coaches - have agents or represenatives. The reason is that no matter how well the coach is doing, sooner or later he wants or needs his name "out there". While you can be hired based on networking, more and more schools are moving to search firms. Those firms continually stay in contact with agents to know who might be a viable candidate when jobs come open.

A friend of mine has a son coaching at a D-1AA school. Obviously, he can't afford a full-time agent. For a time, I acted as his representative in some negotiations. That, also, is not uncommon for assistants in lower division schools - they know a lawyer or someone with a background in the field that they turn to. In their case, its more for legal advice than representation. But the head coaches often do have some kind of representative - it's the best chance they have to become known to D-1 ADs looking to make a change.

Also - and just as an aside - a lot of ADs keep notes and a "short list" of potential coaches. When an opening is anticipated, they contact the search firm. The search firm takes that short list and makes initial contact with the reps for the coaches on the list to see if there is any interest. In addition, the firm makes suggestions to the AD of coaches that it already knows are looking to move.

My involvement has been VERY limited - and I don't want to do it again. But man - the back room dealings are something else.

 

[GHOST]

I dont think its a money problem i think its more finding a good coach that can fixx what callahan f'd up

 

[melscott62]

I guess to better ask my original question, why would a coach who has a contract who isn't looking for a job need an agent? After the ink has dried on a contract like lets say Grobe who has a 10 year extension, do they really need an agent if they aren't looking to skip to the next job? I guess I would just find it extremely odd if Grobe, Kelly, Gill, or Pelini had agents. There again, I don't know all the in's and out's of coaching contracts.

Almost all D-1 head coaches - and those assistants looking to be head coaches - have agents or represenatives. The reason is that no matter how well the coach is doing, sooner or later he wants or needs his name "out there". While you can be hired based on networking, more and more schools are moving to search firms. Those firms continually stay in contact with agents to know who might be a viable candidate when jobs come open.

A friend of mine has a son coaching at a D-1AA school. Obviously, he can't afford a full-time agent. For a time, I acted as his representative in some negotiations. That, also, is not uncommon for assistants in lower division schools - they know a lawyer or someone with a background in the field that they turn to. In their case, its more for legal advice than representation. But the head coaches often do have some kind of representative - it's the best chance they have to become known to D-1 ADs looking to make a change.

Also - and just as an aside - a lot of ADs keep notes and a "short list" of potential coaches. When an opening is anticipated, they contact the search firm. The search firm takes that short list and makes initial contact with the reps for the coaches on the list to see if there is any interest. In addition, the firm makes suggestions to the AD of coaches that it already knows are looking to move.

My involvement has been VERY limited - and I don't want to do it again. But man - the back room dealings are something else.

interesting..... could you elaborate on this if you have the time?

 

[AR Husker Fan]

I guess to better ask my original question, why would a coach who has a contract who isn't looking for a job need an agent? After the ink has dried on a contract like lets say Grobe who has a 10 year extension, do they really need an agent if they aren't looking to skip to the next job? I guess I would just find it extremely odd if Grobe, Kelly, Gill, or Pelini had agents. There again, I don't know all the in's and out's of coaching contracts.

***SNIP***

My involvement has been VERY limited - and I don't want to do it again. But man - the back room dealings are something else.

interesting..... could you elaborate on this if you have the time?

I'm assuming that you mean the back room dealings - although, who wouldn't want AR Husker Fan's bio? AR Husker Fan is da bomb! That's why AR Husker Fan speaks of AR Husker Fan in the third person!

Anywho - what I meant about the back room dealings involve the way these search processes work. Let's take Nutt going to Ole Miss - and no, I wasn't involved in that in any shape or form. The kind of contracts coaches sign have innumerable details that have to be worked out - fringe, outside employment/earnings, lenght of initial contract, option or roll-over years, the list goes on and on. You can't negotiate that in a day or two - it takes weeks.

What happens (and I'll bet it happened with Sherman at A&M) is that Nutt let his agent, Jimmy Sexton, know that he would entertain offers. Sexton either puts out the feelers through contacts he has with ADs or he let's some search firms know. Either way, word got to Ole Miss. They conduct negotiations with Nutt and work out the terms. However, you can bet that Nutt didn't sign or even fully commit - he no doubt listed some contingencies. Just as an example, he might have made it clear to Ole Miss that if he were to receive a specific financial package from Arkansas, he would take that. He then uses that as leverage against Arkansas.

That didn't happen in this case - Arkansas really did want him gone. But Arkansas got suckered by the way Nutt did the back room negotiating with Ole Miss, and not knowing of it, essentially gave him a far richer package than necessary, thinking that by doing so they would attract better candidates (who wouldn't consider a school that treats coaches that want to get rid of that way?).

Again, I wasn't involved in this, so I'm not saying that happened. But I was involved in a hire and it DID happen in a similar manner. And while sort of representing my friend's son, I saw similar on the D-1AA level, even.

Not sure that's what you're looking for.

 

[REDSTEEL]

Have to remember that T.O. came from the era where coaches like him were making 150k base and he thought that was to much. Solich and Callahan each probably made more money in the years they coached then Osborne did in the 25 years altogether.

He mentioned something about how much money is now being paid the other day. My feeling is that he will use this as an consideration.

 

[knapplc]

It is absolutely disgusting to me that we will end up paying Callahan more money for his four years than we paid Tom Osborne for his 25, but that's as much a product of the different eras they coached in than anything else.

One thing this should tell us is that we really should get a "Husker guy" and lock him up for a long contract before we end up paying a coach three or four million a year. That's where this trend is going, and I don't see it stopping any time soon.

 

[skersfan]

The trend is there now.

Saben is at 4 million, Stoops will there soon as he has a stipulation he is the highest paid in his contract, ( I think it is him). Miles has a stip to be the third highest.

Locking up Pelini now might be cheap, but if he or anyone wins, they will be demanding the big bucks that the others are already getting.

Locking up some one for a long term contract, is not a good idea either, I don't think. The harder and more expensive it becomes to get rid of them if they don't work out. See Calahan and esp Weis.

We are going to have to pay the going rate if we want to win. Whether we pay it now or later. Gill might be the only exception. But I doubt it.

 

[junior4949]

The trend is there now.

Saben is at 4 million, Stoops will there soon as he has a stipulation he is the highest paid in his contract, ( I think it is him). Miles has a stip to be the third highest.

Locking up Pelini now might be cheap, but if he or anyone wins, they will be demanding the big bucks that the others are already getting.

Locking up some one for a long term contract, is not a good idea either, I don't think. The harder and more expensive it becomes to get rid of them if they don't work out. See Calahan and esp Weis.

We are going to have to pay the going rate if we want to win. Whether we pay it now or later. Gill might be the only exception. But I doubt it.

Maybe I'm just a bit naive, but don't you think if we hire Kelly; Gill; or Pelini that we won't be in an actual bidding war? Kelly makes in the 800 thousands. I think he'd jump at 1 to 1.2 million. This kind of money would also be a big raise to Gill. Pelini is a coordinator, and I highly doubt he makes anywhere close to a million bucks. I can see each of the 3 wanting an incentive package if they win the Big 12 or a NC, but I think an incentive package should be included as just that an incentive rather than part of their base salary. I guess what I'm saying is that I think the 1 to 1.2 base would get any of these 3.