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!
My point is that we cannot have a guy who comes in, starts to turn things around then takes a better deal after a year or two. At the same time, we need to give that coach the tools he needs to succeed.
I think CU can negotiate a very high buyout in years one and two, medium after year three, and low thereafter on a five year deal. If CU wants a really high buyout for all five years, then the guaranteed money to the coach will also be high.
Do you read the messages? As Creebuzz mentioned, with Tucker, Colorado had leverage given his age and experience getting passed over for many years prior for HC jobs. Colorado at that time was not the worst P5 program (and one of the worst 2-3 in all of FBS). We just completed a facility upgrade and had commitments to improve the recruiting infrastructure.
Yes. I agree with you there.
Per your last message, Colorado doesn’t have the leverage to make this demand.
**** it. Hire a guy and ask him to stay in his honor. Geez.
I agree that it is far from an ideal situation. I would also add “questions about conference affiliation” to the list of CU headwinds.
I’d argue the Karl Dorrell era was infinitely worse for the program than the Tucker era was. As bad as it was to have Tucker leave after 1 year that wasn’t nearly as damaging as the overreaction, terrible hire, contract, and buyout that followed it with Dorrell.
I agree with you. My contention is that if Colorado wants an excellent, up and coming coach or a coach with other options, we don’t have leverage.
I agree. CU would have absolutely zero leverage targeting a coach like Ryan Day when he was an assistant a few years ago.
Agree, I’m ready for some leaks damnit!
I am on board with Grimes, specifically, because I like what he brings to the table schematically. I think it is a poor idea to eliminate a selected candidate simply because of the stage of their career.
Yep. If our next coach leaves for a bigger job in 3 years I would be 100% ok with that.
I’ve been glad to see president Saliman showing interested in the CU football program. It’s a good sign so far. I agree that CU needs to show the next coach that they’re serious about having a football program.
It is not what I’ve been implying at all. I don’t have any delusions that Colorado with Rick George as AD is anything other than a stepping stone program for coaches and players. The job of the Athletic Director is to create a situation wherein an excellent coach has the resources and support to stay. If a richer program wants to poach Colorado’s HC, they will do so. Stability comes when the Athletic Director is good at raising tons of money and convincing admins to create a hospitable environment for a successful football program.
Nothing we do contractually is going to prevent a wealthy BIG or SEC program from poaching our coach if he shows success. The sooner we accept that and act accordingly, the better. Hire the best coach we can and let the chips fall where they may. If our next coach is successful and gets hired away, we’ll have much more to sell to his replacement.
Build the argument for the person running point on negotiating for CU. What do you attempt to cling to for leverage…assuming conceding that you have none is not an acceptable answer.
Other programs have ADs who create an environment that’s hospitable for successful people. Most of them don’t hire guys who are in their late 50s/early 60s simply because they’ll be undesirable to more successful programs.
By eliminating candidates who would take your job without onerous buyout limits, you’ve already conceded that you have no leverage in negotiations with the best coaching options for your program.
Don’t personally disagree, and don’t really think anybody else is disagreeing. There is tough, a vast middle ground between “onerous” buyout terms and something a little more than what was included in Tuck’s deal. If a guy has success in Boulder and some school wants to poach him, great. He goes on and gets the bag, CU has elevated its performance/perception, and the school gets some coin to help hire the next guy to keep the party going.
100% but what about leaves for a bigger job in 1 year?
Choosing the right HC for your program is an extremely difficult thing to do and the consequence of hiring the wrong guy can be disastrous. Putting criteria like this on a candidate makes that difficult job even harder and increases the risk of failure.
I think you’re overlooking that Colorado was in a far superior leverage position with Tucker in 2019 than they are with a new hire in 2022. It was malpractice for Colorado to enable an easy buyout when we hired Tucker back then. In 2022, during this cycle, Colorado does not have anywhere near the same amount of leverage.
