Bo Contract Extension

[walksalone]

Give up 70 points in a conference title game? Enjoy your extension you've clearly earned!

 

[suigeneris]

TOs 6 th year is when the fans got so bad he almost went to CU. perhaps he knew something about how important it was to have some security since there would be a new AD and Bo wouldn't have the same type of assurances that he himself had under Bob Devaney.

I could see TO viewing his job as the AD from his perspective as a former coach. I have a harder time seeing him make an important decision like this in order to be petty and "give Harvey the finger," as you said above.

There's a difference between non-binding assurances and a contract. Kirk Ferentz hasn't exactly flowered into the coach that Hawkeye fans once thought he would become. You seem certain that Bo is going to break through here whereas I'm less sure of what the future holds. I don't want Bo fired Friday night but I also don't think we needed to extend him to 5 years, especially under a laughable "performance" pretense.

 

[admo]

Not sure what to believe what get's thrown out there anymore. 5 year extension sounds excessive. 3 years would be fair and understandable. IMO

 

[da skers]

Not sure what to believe what get's thrown out there anymore. 5 year extension sounds excessive. 3 years would be fair and understandable. IMO

It was a 2 yr extension. It's pretty standard for coaches to have 5 yrs on a contract as a rule. I believe, It also has a mitigation clause in it so if he's fired we owe him the pay minus any pay he gets from a new job. So the almost 8 million is reduced. TO also protected the athletic department.
It really doesn't change anything other than add another 1.5 million to the buyout if HP decides to fire him. And as I stated before, with B10 money that isn't a very big deal anymore. It doesn't mean Bo is safe today where he wasn't yesterday.

 

[admo]

Not sure what to believe what get's thrown out there anymore. 5 year extension sounds excessive. 3 years would be fair and understandable. IMO

It was a 2 yr extension. It's pretty standard for coaches to have 5 yrs on a contract as a rule. I believe, It also has a mitigation clause in it so if he's fired we owe him the pay minus any pay he gets from a new job. So the almost 8 million is reduced. TO also protected the athletic department.
It really doesn't change anything other than add another 1.5 million to the buyout if HP decides to fire him. And as I stated before, with B10 money that isn't a very big deal anymore. It doesn't mean Bo is safe today where he wasn't yesterday.

Thank you for the clarification. +1 for that. It makes clear sense.

 

[tmfr15]

I think the devil lies in the contract details. TO was in favor of constructing contracts that provided raises to coaches and more years while also providing cover for the university. Bet the buy out would not be all that costly. Just my guess.

 

[Minnesota_husker]

The upper right says Dec 2012.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Goodness guys. We've been over this. If I had time to find my post way back whenever, i would. College football coaches need to be kept on a contract status of over 2 years on a constant basis. What kind of ammo would that give opposing recruiters and what kind of perception would there be among recruits if we refused to extend his contract. Colorado is in the position they are now talent wise cuz they couldnt afford to buy out Hawkins, hence his recruiting totally went to the shitter cuz everyone knew he was headed out. But here at Nebraska, money for a buyout is not an issue. The money was raised to buy out Pedersen and Callahan from private funds in a matter of hours. But as far as perception goes in trying to paint that ever so important picture of continuity, you cant let your coach's contract go below 3 years, 2 at minimum.

 

[Paul in WI]

I will say it if nobody else will. If the document turns out to be authentic, I think the question needs to be asked as to why a coach that just got his a$$ handed to him in the CCG is deserving of a contract extension to 5 years from 4 years. If it truly was due to internal politics as some have suggested, that would be pretty petty on Osborne's part. The decision looks questionable at best. All of this hinges on the document's authenticity of course.

 

[kchusker_chris]

And if I'm not mistaken this contract is longer than HPs current one and past an expected retirement date that is looking more and more like it will be enforced rather than extended by the BOR. It would be nice to know 100% that this is a real document. I have my doubts still.

Your hatred for harvey is nearing Hedley's hatred for Bo. What gives?

 

[StPaulHusker]

Considering Osborne fired 3 very high profile coaches during his time as AD, I would say for him to extend Bo's contract showed just how much he believed in what Bo is doing. Dr. tom may be a lot of things but if anyone thinks he signed Bo to an extension just to screw over Pearlman, you are a few bricks shy of a load. He was going to do what was in the best interest of the program.

 

[da skers]

And if I'm not mistaken this contract is longer than HPs current one and past an expected retirement date that is looking more and more like it will be enforced rather than extended by the BOR. It would be nice to know 100% that this is a real document. I have my doubts still.

Your hatred for harvey is nearing Hedley's hatred for Bo. What gives?

I don't care for people who say one thing to your face and then do another when you leave the room.

 

[da skers]

I think the devil lies in the contract details. TO was in favor of constructing contracts that provided raises to coaches and more years while also providing cover for the university. Bet the buy out would not be all that costly. Just my guess.

Probably between 3 and 4 million after he gets a new job.

 

[Husker Sheriff]

I will say it if nobody else will. If the document turns out to be authentic, I think the question needs to be asked as to why a coach that just got his a$$ handed to him in the CCG is deserving of a contract extension to 5 years from 4 years. If it truly was due to internal politics as some have suggested, that would be pretty petty on Osborne's part. The decision looks questionable at best. All of this hinges on the document's authenticity of course.

+ 1

 

[AFhusker]

Considering Osborne fired 3 very high profile coaches during his time as AD, I would say for him to extend Bo's contract showed just how much he believed in what Bo is doing. Dr. tom may be a lot of things but if anyone thinks he signed Bo to an extension just to screw over Pearlman, you are a few bricks shy of a load. He was going to do what was in the best interest of the program.

He will to an extent, he wants stuff done his way and his way only. That is why he forced Frank on the program when he wasn't (still isn't) ready to be a HC at a major program and only truly interviewed Bo for the job after he fired Bill.