Colorado Schools Limited to 6 Multiyear Deals Each?

[Joe Theismann's Leg]

http://www.denverpost.com/cu/ci_23531621/colorado-defensive-coordinator-kent-baer-signs-three-year

I saw this interesting piece in a recent Post article:

Colorado state law limits the number of multiyear employment contracts each school can offer to six, and in recent years all of those deals at CU have been dedicated to coaches or administrators in the athletic department. The inability to offer assistant coaches more than at-will employment has long been a frustration for CU head coaches who often compete for assistant coaches with programs who can offer long-term deals and more security.

What's the purpose of such a law? Does this have something to do with TABOR? Has this law ever been challenged? It seems like something that is really holding the program back. How can we be expected to compete for the best coaches and admins when we can only have 6 multi year deals for 15 varsity sports? It just seems like a really bad law.

 

[Darth Snow]

welcome to the wonderful life of a buff fan!

 

[tante]

One thing to note is that it is per school, CU chooses to give them all to the AD.

 

[sackman]

I think it used to be four, so six is an improvement. However, that rule is moronic and should be scrapped completely.

 

[SECOBuffsFan]

The regents need to lobby to get this changed

 

[tante]

The regents need to lobby to get this changed

Lobby who? The state? The only way to fix it is with bog donors. If the oil man was a bad ass donor, he would put all the assistant coaches on some kind of management consulting contract in his company and they can make table scraps from the school.

 

[Deleted member 807]

One thing to note is that it is per school, CU chooses to give them all to the AD.

There is a business school
A law school
An engineering school
A school of arts and parties
A music school
A school of architecture, and
A school of education.

That's like a big loophole.

 

[tante]

There is a business school
A law school
An engineering school
A school of arts and parties
A music school
A school of architecture, and
A school of education.

That's like a big loophole.

Ahhhh, I was assuming by school they meant CU-boulder.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

The regents need to lobby to get this changed

Who will they lobby? Isn't it part of the Bruce amendment?

 

[pcbuff]

Imagine the buy out costs of the last two staffs if this had not existed. This has helped more than it has hurt in recent years. When we have a staff that is winning and we start seeing other schools stealing our staff with the lure of a long term contracts I'll start lobbying for a change. Right now it has helped mediate bad choices.

 

[Fight CU]

Imagine the buy out costs of the last two staffs if this had not existed. This has helped more than it has hurt in recent years. When we have a staff that is winning and we start seeing other schools stealing our staff with the lure of a long term contracts I'll start lobbying for a change. Right now it has helped mediate bad choices.

IMO we settled for the last 2 staffs in part BECAUSE this exists.

 

[SuperD]

Lobby who? The state? The only way to fix it is with bog donors. If the oil man was a bad ass donor, he would put all the assistant coaches on some kind of management consulting contract in his company and they can make table scraps from the school.

It's worse than that, because of Colorado's dumbass legislative process that makes it relatively easy to put major initiatives before the voters, this is now part of the State constitution right? The only way to get it changed is work it into the language of some other ballot initiative. The school admin missed the perfect opportunity to lobby to get repeal language added to the TABOR cleanup amendment that passed last year. The problem is I think they secretly like the law the because it limits their financial liability. But you don't get top talent by being cheap.

 

[cubuffs85]

One thing I don't get is why we count the volleyball coach among these? Why not another coordinator for football or a top-notch assistant coach in basketball? I believe Hank Brown was initially including in this, I don't think Benson has ever gotten it. I don't think it's much of a concern, any other school want him and he doesn't need the $ -- this is a guy after all who hasn't even asked to get reimbursed for business trips.

 

[DBT]

http://www.denverpost.com/cu/ci_23531621/colorado-defensive-coordinator-kent-baer-signs-three-year

I saw this interesting piece in a recent Post article:



What's the purpose of such a law? Does this have something to do with TABOR? Has this law ever been challenged? It seems like something that is really holding the program back. How can we be expected to compete for the best coaches and admins when we can only have 6 multi year deals for 15 varsity sports? It just seems like a really bad law.

It is due to TABOR. You can thank "Daddy" Bruce. At least they now give 2 to football. The way to counter is to pay competitive salaries.

 

[Joe Theismann's Leg]

It is due to TABOR. You can thank "Daddy" Bruce. At least they now give 2 to football. The way to counter is to pay competitive salaries.

Well, why don't we organize an information campaign. There's what? Over 800 members on this board? Most of whom live in Colorado. Let's write e-mails and use twitter and facebook to contact our state reps asking them to draft new legislation. It would only take a few minutes each.

 

[L Buff]

The relevant statute is CRS 24-19-104.


The applicable provision:

24-19-104. Terms of employment contracts - public inspection

(1.5) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, each system of higher education and each campus of each state institution of higher education may have in effect employment contracts or employment contract extensions having a duration not more than five years with not more than six government-supported officials or employees if:

(I) The governing board of the institution determines that the contract or extension is necessary for the hiring or retaining of the employee in light of prevailing market conditions and competitive employment practices in other states;

(II) The contract contains a clause that the institution remains free to terminate the contract or extension without penalty if sufficient funds are not appropriated.

(b) Nothing in this subsection (1.5) shall be construed to exempt any governmental unit or government-financed entity from the requirements of section 24-19-103.

As I recall, this was passed in response to public outrage after Gordon Gee awarded what was considered to be excessive bonuses on his way out the door to some of his immediate subordinates ... but it was before my time in Colorado, so I may be mistaken.

 

[cubuffs85]

The relevant statute is CRS 24-19-104.


The applicable provision:




As I recall, this was passed in response to public outrage after Gordon Gee awarded what was considered to be excessive bonuses on his way out the door to some of his immediate subordinates ... but it was before my time in Colorado, so I may be mistaken.

Coach Mac got an unheard of 10 or 15 year contract in the early 1990s

 

[BuffNut99]

I used to think that this hurt us until recently. But no coach has ever said "No" to CU based on this. Assistants are moving around more than ever, and generally want flexibility. Plus, it lowers the cost of cut-bait buyouts like Embree & Co.

 

[Duff Man]

I used to think that this hurt us until recently. But no coach has ever said "No" to CU based on this. Assistants are moving around more than ever, and generally want flexibility. Plus, it lowers the cost of cut-bait buyouts like Embree & Co.

Mostly agree, although it would be nice to have at least both coordinators with multi-year contracts. For the other positions, just need to be willing to pay.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I didn't realize the limit only applied to contracts at least 5 years in length - I always thought it was for contracts of any length. So we can offer unlimited contracts as long as they are 4 years or less?? Or am I reading that wrong? If I'm reading it right, this seems like way less of a deal than I thought.

 

[L Buff]

I didn't realize the limit only applied to contracts at least 5 years in length - I always thought it was for contracts of any length. So we can offer unlimited contracts as long as they are 4 years or less?? Or am I reading that wrong? If I'm reading it right, this seems like way less of a deal than I thought.

Yes ... you are reading it wrong. The MAXIMUM employment contract term is five years ... but regardless of the actual term of the contract the rest of the conditions apply ... maximum of 6 (per campus in the CU system).

All other employees are "at will" ... meaning they can be discharged at any time as long as the reason for such discharge is not illegal, e.g., racial, ethnic, gender discrimination. The exception to this are those protected under the State Personnel system, i.e., Colorado's version of the "civil service", and who tend to be on the lower rungs of the administrative or facilities support ladder ... and tenured faculty, who exist under an entirely different universe of rules, procedures, etc.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Yes ... you are reading it wrong. The MAXIMUM employment contract term is five years ... but regardless of the actual term of the contract the rest of the conditions apply ... maximum of 6 (per campus in the CU system).

All other employees are "at will" ... meaning they can be discharged at any time as long as the reason for such discharge is not illegal, e.g., racial, ethnic, gender discrimination. The exception to this are those protected under the State Personnel system, i.e., Colorado's version of the "civil service", and who tend to be on the lower rungs of the administrative or facilities support ladder ... and tenured faculty, who exist under an entirely different universe of rules, procedures, etc.

Ok, then yeah that sucks. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[TDbuff]

I used to think that this hurt us until recently. But no coach has ever said "No" to CU based on this. Assistants are moving around more than ever, and generally want flexibility. Plus, it lowers the cost of cut-bait buyouts like Embree & Co.

The guys we've hired either needed a job, promotion, or big pay raise. We've also been sh*tty for over 10 years, so it's hard to say the ability to fire guys on the cheap is a real positive, because we're still having to fire people who weren't performing.

The lack of contracts will be a real liability if we ever get good again, when we get a good staff that we'll want to hold onto.