Gillespie and Buzz

[drbob]

Anyone have any info as to how tight Gillespie and Buzz are at this time ??  Just wondering if Buzz will make any offer to him as in an associate position.  Sure would be nice to get some of his recruiting connections for MU. Maybe even a Daniel Orton if he does not stay at UK. Probably just wishful thinking

[Brewtown Andy]

Really?

[Big Daddy Z]

Wow....must be a slow night..pass the pipe

[Blackhat]

If anything Gillispie would take over the head spot.

[Tugg Speedman]

If anything Gillispie would take over the head spot.

And as someone noted on a similar post.  Billy G is a high D1 coach.  Assume he comes here and brings some studs.  Next year he leaves for another equal or higher profile coaching slot.  He guts our program by taking "his kids" with him.

Best we steer clear of this altogether.

[VegasWarrior77]

Isn't ONE risky coaching gamble on the staff enough?

[wermarquette]

i don't find it too far fetched that if he doesn't get a job or just doesn't have the roster spot he "steers" a recruit out this way

[Tugg Speedman]

i don't find it too far fetched that if he doesn't get a job or just doesn't have the roster spot he "steers" a recruit out this way

Never close an option.  He will steer a recruit to a Juco so he can get him immediately next year when he has a new gig.  In fact, if he "parks" kids at Jucos.  He can use this in a job interview ("I can bring 'X' and 'Y' right now and they will make an immediate impact.")

Did I not describe what Buzz did with Joe Fulce?

[wermarquette]

Never close an option.  He will steer a recruit to a Juco so he can get him immediately next year when he has a new gig.  In fact, if he "parks" kids at Jucos.  He can use this in a job interview ("I can bring 'X' and 'Y' right now and they will make an immediate impact.")

Did I not describe what Buzz did with Joe Fulce?

good point, didn't think of that

[ChicosBailBonds]

BG will be coaching this year at Wazzu or USC (if Floyd leaves) or Georgia or somewhere.  Otherwise, he'll take the year off.  He isn't going to take an assistant position.

[Pakuni]

Why would Gillespie take an assistant's job when the fine folks at the University of Kentucky are going to pay him $6 million not to coach next year?
My guess is he'll do some work for ESPN or CBS to keep his name out there and look to make a comeback aboard the 2010 Coaching Carousel (Iowa? Colorado? Nebraska?).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why would Gillespie take an assistant's job when the fine folks at the University of Kentucky are going to pay him $6 million not to coach next year?
My guess is he'll do some work for ESPN or CBS to keep his name out there and look to make a comeback aboard the 2010 Coaching Carousel (Iowa? Colorado? Nebraska?).

I thought they said they wouldn't honor the contract since he never signed it?  He signed a term sheet but not the contract? 

[bma725]

My guess is he'll do some work for ESPN or CBS to keep his name out there and look to make a comeback aboard the 2010 Coaching Carousel (Iowa? Colorado? Nebraska?).

Until you mentioned them, I'd forgotten how bad Colorado actually was.  9-21 this year with only 1 Big 12 win.  Ouch.  They have to be historically one of the worst programs in major conference basketball.  Not on Northwestern's level, but....wow. 

Normally I'd say Bzdelik would get one more year there, but with Colorado you never know.

[Pakuni]

I thought they said they wouldn't honor the contract since he never signed it?  He signed a term sheet but not the contract? 

A court may ultimately have to decide that, but the fact he never signed the contract does not necessarily nullify it. BG could, and probably will if necessary, argue that the contract is enforceable because the actions of both parties - him coaching for two seasons, them paying him to coach for two seasons, etc. - equate performance consistent with the contract, thereby meaning both parties accepted the terms. And if both parties accepted the terms, and acted in accordance with them, then whether he signed it is essentially irrelevant.

[Blackhat]

I thought they said they wouldn't honor the contract since he never signed it?  He signed a term sheet but not the contract? 

Doesn't matter.  The university signed the contract so it's binding regarless if Gillispie signed it.  He's due mucho dinero.

[VegasWarrior77]

Didn't both parties sign a "memorandum  of understanding" which, along with him coaching for two years and the UK paying him for two years, be enforceable similar to a signed contract????

[swimmer]

I don't know about these high school kids today, but if anyone tried to "steer" or "park" me at a JUCO just to get a few more bucks at the bargaining table, I'd tell him to F OFF faster than he could blink.  I guess I don't understand so many players' loyalty to coaches when the coaches clearly don't have the student's best interest in mind.  

Never close an option.  He will steer a recruit to a Juco so he can get him immediately next year when he has a new gig.  In fact, if he "parks" kids at Jucos.  He can use this in a job interview ("I can bring 'X' and 'Y' right now and they will make an immediate impact.")

Did I not describe what Buzz did with Joe Fulce?

[Tugg Speedman]

I don't know about these high school kids today, but if anyone tried to "steer" or "park" me at a JUCO just to get a few more bucks at the bargaining table, I'd tell him to F OFF faster than he could blink.  I guess I don't understand so many players' loyalty to coaches when the coaches clearly don't have the student's best interest in mind.  

I agree with you but see Joe Fulce and Buzz.  See Nick Williams transferring to IU with Crean even though he never set foot in the state in his life before he signed.

It's the way of the world.  They believe in the coach.  That's why coaching changes now produce so much chaos in the recruiting process, not like it did 20 years ago.

[GGGG]

A court may ultimately have to decide that, but the fact he never signed the contract does not necessarily nullify it. BG could, and probably will if necessary, argue that the contract is enforceable because the actions of both parties - him coaching for two seasons, them paying him to coach for two seasons, etc. - equate performance consistent with the contract, thereby meaning both parties accepted the terms. And if both parties accepted the terms, and acted in accordance with them, then whether he signed it is essentially irrelevant.

That is 100% correct.  As far as I understand employment law, the *actions* are more important than the *words.*  For instance, if your contract states that you get no comp time for working more than 40 hours a week, but they pay you some comp time occasionally, a court is going to give you the benefit of the doubt if you claim comp time later.