recruits and Memphis is left at the altar. On another level, the salaries continue to increase at a rapid pace. 5 big ones to coach some kids. The separation of the haves and have nots widens even more.
If the players haven't signed their letter of intent, they can go wherever they want.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on March 31, 2009, 07:05:21 PM
If the players haven't signed their letter of intent, they can go wherever they want.
I realize that. My point is this whole yearly circus is becoming a joke. Contracts are completely worthless and schools are screwing each other.
The prized "signed" Memphis recruits are saying they already have their release letters in hand, they can follow him to Kentucky or wherever.
Quote from: nyg on March 31, 2009, 07:15:00 PM
The prized "signed" Memphis recruits are saying they already have their release letters in hand, they can follow him to Kentucky or wherever.
Good for them for either a) knowing enough to ask for their releases right away or b) thinking far enough ahead to strike a deal with UM to be released if Calipari left.
Is a non-compete clause ever thrown in any of these contracts? and could it be upheld if so?
Quote from: 79Warrior on March 31, 2009, 07:03:25 PM
recruits and Memphis is left at the altar. On another level, the salaries continue to increase at a rapid pace. 5 big ones to coach some kids. The separation of the haves and have nots widens even more.
$5 million to coach college bball. Pretty incredible. The football schools will always have more money which definitely puts the bball schools in a tougher spot. MU will continue to offer large contracts, but $5 milion is just out of hand....so is $2 million quite frankly.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 31, 2009, 07:59:53 PM
$5 million to coach college bball. Pretty incredible. The football schools will always have more money which definitely puts the bball schools in a tougher spot. MU will continue to offer large contracts, but $5 milion is just out of hand....so is $2 million quite frankly.
I disagree. I think JC will more than pay for himself at Kentucky.
I'm curious to see how JC will do in a conference where he has actual competition.
I'm just glad because I hate Memphis.
Quote from: hdog1017 on March 31, 2009, 08:16:14 PM
I'm curious to see how JC will do in a conference where he has actual competition.
Limited competition...more than CUSA but still nothing like BEAST or ACC.
Year in and year out who do you have? TENN, Florida, UK, and occassionally Arkansas or Vandy do well.
Quote from: CAINMUTINY on March 31, 2009, 07:48:34 PM
Is a non-compete clause ever thrown in any of these contracts? and could it be upheld if so?
That's why most contracts have buyout clauses, where the new university gives the old university a big pile of money.
If they get rid of the one year before NBA rule, Cal might struggle. until then they've got a good one.
Quote from: muarmy81 on March 31, 2009, 08:23:21 PM
Limited competition...more than CUSA but still nothing like BEAST or ACC.
Year in and year out who do you have? TENN, Florida, UK, and occassionally Arkansas or Vandy do well.
I was looking into the history of the SEC earlier.
Kentucky has 43 regular season titles, LSU has 10, Tennessee has 9, Alabama has 6, and no one else has more than 4.
Kentucky has 25 SEC tournament titles, Alabama has 6, no one else has more than 4.
The number disparity is because the SEC stopped running the tournament for 20 years or so.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 31, 2009, 08:25:55 PM
If they get rid of the one year before NBA rule, Cal might struggle. until then they've got a good one.
And the NBA will almost assuredly make that rule a 2 year rule when the CBA comes up either this year or next, I forget when.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 31, 2009, 08:09:22 PM
I disagree. I think JC will more than pay for himself at Kentucky.
that is not the point. the astronomical increases in salary will make it very difficult for schools like Marquette.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on March 31, 2009, 08:24:00 PM
That's why most contracts have buyout clauses, where the new university gives the old university a big pile of money.
memphis is getting 200k, is that a big pile of money?
When will the taxpayers revolt in this economy? Calhoun is just the first of it. Plus, Kentucky is still paying the last two coaches. Even in Kentucky, the public interest will question at some point.
Quote from: Pardner on March 31, 2009, 09:26:17 PM
When will the taxpayers revolt in this economy? Calhoun is just the first of it. Plus, Kentucky is still paying the last two coaches. Even in Kentucky, the public interest will question at some point.
That is a good point, because at those schools it is tax dollars. I would imagine that the men's basketball program at UK will still make an overall profit next season and having competitive postseason games would in theory stir the Lexington economy.
There are more important things to spend money on than a basketball coach though, you are right. Especially at a public institution.
Quote from: Pardner on March 31, 2009, 09:26:17 PM
When will the taxpayers revolt in this economy? Calhoun is just the first of it. Plus, Kentucky is still paying the last two coaches. Even in Kentucky, the public interest will question at some point.
If the taxpayers of Kentucky are staring at a tax increase, and they see that Calipari, Billy G and Tubby are possibly the three highest paid state employees, their could be hell to pay. Do not discount it from happening.
And not just Kentucky. It's possible that coaching jobs at state schools become as "toxic" as working at a big bank with lots of bailout money. So, just like all the Wall Streeters want to "buy their freedom" from Citi or Bank of America (who would have thought this would be the way of life on Wall Street 6 months ago?), could we see the day that Calipari wants to buy his freedom and go to a small private university?
How could their be "hell to pay"? The state could, in the extreme, tear up his contract. More likely, they slam him on travel. For example, no private plane for recruiting trips unless he personally pays for it. Try flying commercial from Lexington, and have to connect through Chicago or Cincy for most trips. That will get old really fast!!.
They could also impose a tough expense report (again unless he pays his own expenses). It could make the job very difficult.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on March 31, 2009, 09:38:19 PM
That is a good point, because at those schools it is tax dollars. I would imagine that the men's basketball program at UK will still make an overall profit next season and having competitive postseason games would in theory stir the Lexington economy.
There are more important things to spend money on than a basketball coach though, you are right. Especially at a public institution.
GOOD GRIEF!
It is NOT taxpayer dollars going towards their salaries. It is revenue from the respective Athletic Departments programs (i.e., basketball games and functions) and donations from alumni and other interested parties. I think it's unbelievably outrageous that college basketball coaches are now getting paid $5 million to be basically a marketing instrument for a university, but that money is certainly NOT coming out of the state income tax revenue or any other tax revenue.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 31, 2009, 08:09:22 PM
I disagree. I think JC will more than pay for himself at Kentucky.
Well I guess that depends how you would do an ROI for that. Incrementally how does he do that? Kentucky sold out every game under BG so hiring JC gives you no incremental revenue there. They were already in the top 10 in merchandise. Exposure is tough to put a value on, but certainly with them winning more that will help and could be factored in. If they win, they will earn more money from the NCAA, but it's only a few hundred thousand dollars. But $5 million per year, I'd love to see the ROI on that to justify the incremental revenue. He will provide benefits to them, but I'm not sure that equation makes sense at that level.
Quote from: warrior07 on March 31, 2009, 09:46:20 PM
GOOD GRIEF!
It is NOT taxpayer dollars going towards their salaries. It is revenue from the respective Athletic Departments programs (i.e., basketball games and functions) and donations from alumni and other interested parties. I think it's unbelievably outrageous that college basketball coaches are now getting paid $5 million to be basically a marketing instrument for a university, but that money is certainly NOT coming out of the state income tax revenue or any other tax revenue.
Right and wrong. What happens when the athletic department is not profitable (see IU, according to a WSJ article a few months back), then the taxpayers make up the difference.
See what Vassar announced today. A huge increase in tuition and a cut in staff because their endowment was wrecked by the stock market last year. Lots of big time universities have seen their endowments lose as much as 50% (Harvard has said it lost 35% last year and many rumor it is really more like 50%)
College giving is also way way down, A lot of rich boosters to the athletic department are no longer rich. A disproportionally high number came from the financial services industry (i.e., hedge fund managers) and they were wiped out. Dick Strong is a fraction of himself.
The world has changed, it will catch up to the state universities very soon.
Boosters will pay most of his salary just like at all big time programs.
Quote from: MuMark on March 31, 2009, 10:06:24 PM
Boosters will pay most of his salary just like at all big time programs.
Yup
Quote from: warrior07 on March 31, 2009, 09:46:20 PM
GOOD GRIEF!
It is NOT taxpayer dollars going towards their salaries. It is revenue from the respective Athletic Departments programs (i.e., basketball games and functions) and donations from alumni and other interested parties. I think it's unbelievably outrageous that college basketball coaches are now getting paid $5 million to be basically a marketing instrument for a university, but that money is certainly NOT coming out of the state income tax revenue or any other tax revenue.
See how the Calhoun soap opera plays out if sanctions occur. See how the politicos' patience plays out in the pseudo private-public institutional domains like college sports, the Fed, Illinois Tollway, Major League Baseball. Even in Kentucky, public patience will wear thin in this economy. Add in the academic push back when cuts are made with dropping enrollments.
Quote from: MuMark on March 31, 2009, 10:06:24 PM
Boosters will pay most of his salary just like at all big time programs.
This is most likely the case - like T Boon Pickens was ready to back getting Self.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 31, 2009, 09:54:15 PM
Right and wrong. What happens when the athletic department is not profitable (see IU, according to a WSJ article a few months back), then the taxpayers make up the difference.
See what Vassar announced today. A huge increase in tuition and a cut in staff because their endowment was wrecked by the stock market last year. Lots of big time universities have seen their endowments lose as much as 50% (Harvard has said it lost 35% last year and many rumor it is really more like 50%)
College giving is also way way down, A lot of rich boosters to the athletic department are no longer rich. A disproportionally high number came from the financial services industry (i.e., hedge fund managers) and they were wiped out. Dick Strong is a fraction of himself.
The world has changed, it will catch up to the state universities very soon.
A couple of things - and know this comes from someone who works in a public university in an administrative capacity. First, it is abolutely illegal in most states that I know of to use tax or tuition dollars for anything other than instruction or administrative costs. Now that may mean that a portion of a coaches or athletic directors salary comes from tax revenue and they write it off as "administrative"...maybe...but that's about it. This is an extremely small percentage of a coach's salary. Coaches make their money through boosters, television shows, shoe contracts, etc. This is all funnelled through the university.
Athletic departments make most of their revenue through student fees (non-tuition fees charged to students every year), gifts and general revenue.
I would be extremely surprised if the State of Indiana taxpayer contributed significantly toward the deficit you mentioned. I would shocked if the State of Kentucky taxpayer is contributing anything toward Calipari's salary.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on April 01, 2009, 06:27:27 AM
Coaches make their money through boosters, television shows, shoe contracts, etc. This is all funnelled through the university.
Another board I post on linked to what was supposedly the agreement of contract that Gillispie and UK both signed. In it, the university was paying him $400K to coach, and a local tv station was paying him $1.2 million for a weekly tv show.
Quote from: 79Warrior on March 31, 2009, 07:03:25 PM
recruits and Memphis is left at the altar. On another level, the salaries continue to increase at a rapid pace. 5 big ones to coach some kids. The separation of the haves and have nots widens even more.
At least those particular recruits/players have the option to go somewhere else now. It is infuriating to me that players that are already on scholarship, while they are free to leave, to do so they are forced to sit out a year, while their coaches can bolt for greener pastures any time they want, with literally no consequences. Its ridiculous.
Take either of the Curry kids as an example...they clearly demonstrated they were good enough to play at big time programs, but in order to make a move to Duke or UNC or wherever, they need to sit out a year. Yet, if their coach wanted to make a move to a major conference school, he not only would get big money to do so, but could be working there the next day. It is just an effed up system. I realize there need to be controls in place, but these coaches get rich on the backs of the players, who are simply not afforded anywhere near the same rights.
I know they commit to the university and not the coach, but lets get real...Many commit with the expectation that the coach is gonna be there. If they aren't cofortable that's going to happen, they probably choose to go elsewhere. If not, they truly are commiting to the University and its a non-issue. If any of the current Memphis players wanted to transfer as a result of this change, they should be allowed to do so without having to sit out. Same for the UK players, MU's players last year, etc. It is just inherently unfair.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on April 01, 2009, 08:56:54 AM
Another board I post on linked to what was supposedly the agreement of contract that Gillispie and UK both signed. In it, the university was paying him $400K to coach, and a local tv station was paying him $1.2 million for a weekly tv show.
I guess it depends on the state. I really doubt that the $400k he was making from UK was from tax revenue. I'm sure it was from some of the other sources I named.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on April 01, 2009, 10:57:35 AM
I guess it depends on the state. I really doubt that the $400k he was making from UK was from tax revenue. I'm sure it was from some of the other sources I named.
Surely UK basketball makes $400k in ticket revenue in a season...
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 01, 2009, 09:41:33 AMIf any of the current Memphis players wanted to transfer as a result of this change, they should be allowed to do so without having to sit out. Same for the UK players, MU's players last year, etc.
Better yet, the coaches should have to sit out a year too.
Quote from: TJ on April 01, 2009, 11:25:49 AM
Better yet, the coaches should have to sit out a year too.
A bit too impractical, but generally speaking I believe the NCAA should hold coaches to the same contractual standards that they do the players. I am a free market guy all the way...the problem is that there is a free market for coaches, not really the case for the players. As much as I would hate to see more NCAA intervention of any kind, coaches' contracts should mean something.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 01, 2009, 12:07:07 PM
A bit too impractical, but generally speaking I believe the NCAA should hold coaches to the same contractual standards that they do the players. I am a free market guy all the way...the problem is that there is a free market for coaches, not really the case for the players. As much as I would hate to see more NCAA intervention of any kind, coaches' contracts should mean something.
Completely agree. Obviously there's no way to make coaches sit out a year, but there has to be some way to make coaches contracts worth more than they are.
I do not want to see the flood gates opened any players allowed to transfer at will though. That will just punish the losing school even further.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 01, 2009, 12:07:07 PM
A bit too impractical, but generally speaking I believe the NCAA should hold coaches to the same contractual standards that they do the players. I am a free market guy all the way...the problem is that there is a free market for coaches, not really the case for the players. As much as I would hate to see more NCAA intervention of any kind, coaches' contracts should mean something.
What makes you think that contracts don't mean anything? The buy-outs are written into the contracts. When TC left, his contract was followed to the letter.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 31, 2009, 09:54:15 PM
Right and wrong. What happens when the athletic department is not profitable (see IU, according to a WSJ article a few months back), then the taxpayers make up the difference.
See what Vassar announced today. A huge increase in tuition and a cut in staff because their endowment was wrecked by the stock market last year. Lots of big time universities have seen their endowments lose as much as 50% (Harvard has said it lost 35% last year and many rumor it is really more like 50%)
College giving is also way way down, A lot of rich boosters to the athletic department are no longer rich. A disproportionally high number came from the financial services industry (i.e., hedge fund managers) and they were wiped out. Dick Strong is a fraction of himself.
The world has changed, it will catch up to the state universities very soon.
favorite part of all of this is that when the program makes money, the school keeps it. when the program loses money the taxpayers kick in the difference.
sound familiar? It should.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on April 01, 2009, 02:00:26 PM
What makes you think that contracts don't mean anything? The buy-outs are written into the contracts. When TC left, his contract was followed to the letter.
Of course it was...never said it wasn't. That's great for TC and for Marquette, but, because of those buyout clauses, coaches are free to come and go as they please, while players are not. Either coaches should be subject to some of the same restrictions that the players are under (Again, I oppose that from a practical and philosophical standpoint), or the players should be afforded some of the movement rights that the coaches have -- at least in certain circumstances.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 01, 2009, 04:10:33 PM
Of course it was...never said it wasn't. That's great for TC and for Marquette, but, because of those buyout clauses, coaches are free to come and go as they please, while players are not. Either coaches should be subject to some of the same restrictions that the players are under (Again, I oppose that from a practical and philosophical standpoint), or the players should be afforded some of the movement rights that the coaches have -- at least in certain circumstances.
You stated "coaches contracts should mean something." That makes no sense. They are generally followed to the word so they mean exactly what they are supposed to mean. So do the player's LOIs, which are contracts. If you are suggesting that players should have say a two week window after a coach leaves (or is fired) to get out of the LOI, I don't necessarily disagree with that. But should the institution be given that same option? Should they be able to tell a player that the LOI is not going to be honored from their standpoint?
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on April 01, 2009, 04:44:32 PM
You stated "coaches contracts should mean something." That makes no sense. They are generally followed to the word so they mean exactly what they are supposed to mean. So do the player's LOIs, which are contracts. If you are suggesting that players should have say a two week window after a coach leaves (or is fired) to get out of the LOI, I don't necessarily disagree with that. But should the institution be given that same option? Should they be able to tell a player that the LOI is not going to be honored from their standpoint?
We'll see - it's potentially about to happen at Kentucky.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on April 01, 2009, 04:44:32 PM
You stated "coaches contracts should mean something." That makes no sense. They are generally followed to the word so they mean exactly what they are supposed to mean. So do the player's LOIs, which are contracts. If you are suggesting that players should have say a two week window after a coach leaves (or is fired) to get out of the LOI, I don't necessarily disagree with that. But should the institution be given that same option? Should they be able to tell a player that the LOI is not going to be honored from their standpoint?
No, and that's an entirely different argument. What does one have to do with the other?
Of course contracts are followed to the letter, and they should be. That's not the problem, and I suspect you are intentionally missing the point. The problem is I suppose the contracts themselves that a coach has such an easy time moving on, when a player does not. That's why the contracts should mean something beyond the doallars and cents impact on the coach and the University.
And yes, if a coach leaves or is fired, the players involved should have such a window to leave without having to sit out a year if they choose...that is exactly what I am advocating. If they are not allowed that opportunity, then I do believe it should be more difficult for coaches to make a change. The only way to do that is to make the contracts more difficult to get out of. I do not like that idea much though.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 01, 2009, 05:29:11 PM
No, and that's an entirely different argument. What does one have to do with the other?
Of course contracts are followed to the letter, and they should be. That's not the problem, and I suspect you are intentionally missing the point. The problem is I suppose the contracts themselves that a coach has such an easy time moving on, when a player does not. That's why the contracts should mean something beyond the doallars and cents impact on the coach and the University.
And yes, if a coach leaves or is fired, the players involved should have such a window to leave without having to sit out a year if they choose...that is exactly what I am advocating. If they are not allowed that opportunity, then I do believe it should be more difficult for coaches to make a change. The only way to do that is to make the contracts more difficult to get out of. I do not like that idea much though.
I understand what you are saying. However what I don't understand is your statement "they should mean something." That is an emotional argument and not a legal one. Contracts have buy-outs in them because the university's agree to them. Do you want the NCAA to make buy out clauses illegal?
My question regarding the LOIs is that in 95% of the cases nationwide, they protect the player. Most players don't want to get out of their LOI even with a coaching change. My guess is that if schools are going to agree to provisions in LOIs that let them go in the case of a coaching change, they may want to have the same flexibility for incomming players and coaching changes.