Tad didn't deserve his first extension any more than HCMM deserves this one.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
MacIntyre extension
- Thread starter Shldr2Shldr
- Start date
cubuffs85
Active Member
What? His first season he led the Buffs to the semis of the NIT after getting screwed of out of the Tourney. He was much more deserving, not even close IMO.
HCMM barely won 4 games last year.
The AD obviously hasn't learned its lesson about extensions. I don't care if this is "protocol". He really hasn't earned it yet. One more year doesn't show much more commitment than the 4 that CU has already committed to. It just shows more fiscal irresponsibility. Any raise/extension/commitment from a multi-million dollar business should be result driven.
The AD obviously hasn't learned its lesson about extensions. I don't care if this is "protocol". He really hasn't earned it yet. One more year doesn't show much more commitment than the 4 that CU has already committed to. It just shows more fiscal irresponsibility. Any raise/extension/commitment from a multi-million dollar business should be result driven.
Last edited:
For the 56th time, this is not the AD's move, it has nothing to do with the AD, RG was not involved, MikeMac has not gotten a new deal from his boss and this is not some "signal" about AD priorities.
VERY SLOWLY AND LOUDLY NOW: THIS WAS A REGENT (NOT AD) INITIATED PROCEDURAL RENEWAL OF MAC2'S 5 YEAR DEAL. This is part of the School's process for dealing with long term contracts under tabor. That is all.
Honestly for such a bunch of know-it-all's when it comes to CU football and college football in general i am pretty surprised so few of you have taken the time to understand how the school operates in relation to the very long-term contracts we are always crying about.
Yeah, this is a mistake to me. The regents have not learned from the Hawkins mistake. McIntyre is all warm and fuzzy, but hasn't done anything and just turned in a miserable recruiting class.
Also, Tad deserved everything he has gotten and more. He has just about done everything and turns in unprecedented recruiting classes each year.
Honestly there should be a test required to have an opinion on this stuff, I am jsut floored how clueless some people are on the operation of the school.
SD Buff
Club Member
And what would the test ask us? "Do you know how big the bag of dicks is that Abs' is sitting on?"
Seriously man you are avoiding the point and arguing semantics. Whomever made this decision it was too soon.
It's not a "decision". It is university "policy" on the limited long-term contracts that they are maintained at a 5-year duration as per state law under TABOR.
White_Rabbit
Well-Known Member
Ok, yeah, but, isn't it too soon for an extension?
Abs is correct, I believe Tabor has been around since the 80's & subsequently the regents have operated in this way ever since then.
So then Embree received a contract extension after his first year as well then, right?
How soon you forget that part of the rush for upgrades that we are seeing in our facilities is due to HCMM demanding that they be included in his contract and including firm dates of completion or he can walk. The guy won as many games as his predecessor in one season. HCMM has endowed scholarships at the school and shown a commitment to turning things around here. This is far more than the last couple of coaches here did during their entire tenure, so yes, I would love to keep him around and see what he is capable of with a strong commitment from the University.
buffs04
Well-Known Member
I find it difficult to believe that the University, and in particular the athletic department, has no control over extending the head coach of the football team, regardless of whether or not it has been common practice to maintain a minimum-outstanding-contract length of five years for employees who came in with a five year deal. Essentially what is being argued is that if CU brings in an employee on a five year contract, at the time of their departure from the school it will necessarily be the case that they have four outstanding years left? Hmm?
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
So the original contract included buyout language.
If he left CU following the 2013 season, MacIntyre had to pay CU $2.3 mil.
If he left CU following the 2014 season, the buyout was $1.9 mil.
$1.6 mil for 2015.
$1.3 mil for 2016.
$1 mil for 2017.
Did those numbers all just get backed up 1 year with the extension?
i.e. if he leaves following 2014, it is now $2.3 mil instead of $1.9 mil?
If he left CU following the 2013 season, MacIntyre had to pay CU $2.3 mil.
If he left CU following the 2014 season, the buyout was $1.9 mil.
$1.6 mil for 2015.
$1.3 mil for 2016.
$1 mil for 2017.
Did those numbers all just get backed up 1 year with the extension?
i.e. if he leaves following 2014, it is now $2.3 mil instead of $1.9 mil?
I am a bunch more concerned about losing coach, than I am about keeping him. What this guy has done to provoke a lack of confidence at this point is exactly zip. Recruiting was awful you say? Really? Wins? From where we were about a year ago?
Yes the jury is still out, but can we at least give the jury a chance to deliberate before we invoke the sentence? BTW thank goodness he has the smarts to press the facilities matter (as Jeff B did per the rebirth of hoops) from the start because it does matter! You wanna see recruiting really suck, walk recruits through the premier "Flat Irons Club" sometime soon. Looks like a pigeon breeding facility with an obstructed view. Wow.....
Yes the jury is still out, but can we at least give the jury a chance to deliberate before we invoke the sentence? BTW thank goodness he has the smarts to press the facilities matter (as Jeff B did per the rebirth of hoops) from the start because it does matter! You wanna see recruiting really suck, walk recruits through the premier "Flat Irons Club" sometime soon. Looks like a pigeon breeding facility with an obstructed view. Wow.....
No none of that changed the terms of the actual deal dont change, this is just a procedural move under tabor to that to the best of my knowledge every campus in the CU system uses as it relates to the few long-term contracts they issue.
If it were a true extension and reworking of the deal between MM and the AD I'd agree wholeheartedly but that isnt what is occuring here - so its kind of silly for everyone to get into the whole "too soon" "have they learned nothing" "how does this affect the buyout" etc stuff we've seen in the thread.
A.) I can be an asshole, a pretty big asshole.
B.) I am not arguing semantics you made up an "event" in your head and are complaining about it.
c.) As CU fans given how much time we spend talking about Tabor handicapping the school, its' imposed long-term contract limitations and related effects on retention - is it too much to ask for people to actually understand how that system works? Rather than say know nothing about it, make assumptions, and then start complaining?
The AD most certainly has control over the contracts although as with everything CU the regents must approve it. The regents also however have a the ability to essentially renew current contracts and add academic incentives to them. If you look back last year Tad's deal was renewed by the regents, at which time they increased his incentives for APR, grade rate, and GPA. Later in the year they AD reworked Tads entire deal and basically doubled his comp. That was then submitted to the Regents who had to approve it. Later this year Tad's new deal will come up for renewal under Tabor and they rubber-stamp that.
Not sure that anything is being argued about that - it is pretty much what the school does these days, you can debate the validity of it but it is how CU has chosen to address TABOR contract limitation.
Buffenuf
massive tool
Raeding through this thread, the answer to your question is pretty obvious and you are on top of the pile in the bag!
Serious. Stop. You arent helping yourself and are actually railing against something that didn't happen. Nincompoop.
LIFO
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Tabor has been around since 1992. When was this change in policy implemented?
Thanks for the restraint.
Ringo alludes to it being a more recent decision, I cant find a single article on the actual decision; but given election cycles my best guess would be 2010 - again though this would have been a Regent initiated decision not one that AD had any input into. They also have a stipulation that termed contracts auto-expire this is probably the driving force behind the policy.
Chances are they forgot to renew some auto-expiring contracts that were important to the CU system, that those contracts then had to be put out to bid and caused them some work; so like good politicians they "fixed" that.
I can't seem to find the article where Embree received his extension. Do you have a link to it or anything?
I found 2 on Boyle and 1 on Lappe that were regent extensions but nothing on Jon yet. The Boyle ones are 2012 and 2013, Lappe is 2012
Whoa, do you think it could be related to Embree not getting an extension?