Believe what you will, Lick could be getting extension...

You actually think that lick would forego as much as 1.8 million(buyout after next year) just to add a year to his deal?
I give that about 1% chance of happening.
If lick agreed to that....I agree, sign it quick, Barta.
Lick knows that the buyout is probably the only thing that would keep him employed beyond even this spring. Honestly, if we could let him go with no buyout this year, do you think Barta sticks with him? Next years recruits are legally bound to Iowa...season ticket sales will be down again next year,and actual attendance is already at less than 5000/game...no AD in his right mind would not consider moving on to someone that can re-energize the fan base ....the buyout is coach's insurance, without it...he gone.

Unless I am misunderstanding this, I believe people are saying that the extension would not necessarily add to the current buyout, meaning that the current buyout would stay as it is. $1.8 million after next year, etc. But we wouldn't owe Lickliter anything in a buyout past the 2013-14 season.

If I'm wrong, and the contract could be rewritten to not have a buyout clause at all, then ya, I'd be signing that quickly if I was Barta.
 
Just a small and somewhat interesting tidbit to add to this, Iowa is contractually obligated to discuss an extension with TL after this season.

That being said, i don't have a problem with a rolling one year extension as long as the buyout does not get extended.
 
A contract can be extended without the original buyout terms applying to that piece. If that happens then it's solely a recruiting extension and if you do not intend to make a move after this year, and I don't see that happening, then it's the smart thing to do for the best interest of the program if you are behind your coach.
If both parties agreed to this, i don't see what comfort it would give a recruit. Sure, Licks name is on an extension but without a buyout, he could be fired at anytime.
 
I was just responding to Forever's post,where he wondered why any Iowa fan would not favor dropping the buyout altogether to gain an extension...my response...no Iowa fan would have a problem with that...but Lick would have a big problem with that, most likely, with 1.8 million reasons to not go that route. It will never happen.
 
If both parties agreed to this, i don't see what comfort it would give a recruit. Sure, Licks name is on an extension but without a buyout, he could be fired at anytime.

Good point. As I mentioned earlier, I have to believe most recruits are smart enough to realize that just because a coach's contract runs 4-5 more years, buyout or no buyout, that still does not guarantee the coach will be there to coach every one of those remaining years. Contracts get bought out. Coaches leave for other jobs. It happens.

Without a buyout, that makes it far easier to make a coaching change.

Stay tuned.. I'll be interested to see where this goes, provided it's more than just rumor, of course.
 
If both parties agreed to this, i don't see what comfort it would give a recruit. Sure, Licks name is on an extension but without a buyout, he could be fired at anytime.

Technically, isn't that true regardless of the contract? I would think a recruit wants to play for a coach that he/she knows is going to be there the entire four years. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way.
 
I was just responding to Forever's post,where he wondered why any Iowa fan would not favor dropping the buyout altogether to gain an extension...my response...no Iowa fan would have a problem with that...but Lick would have a big problem with that, most likely, with 1.8 million reasons to not go that route. It will never happen.

I would be tend to agree with you.. Lickliter wouldn't likely be willing to give up the security of a large buyout. I know that I wouldn't if I was struggling this badly as a coach.
 
Technically, isn't that true regardless of the contract? I would think a recruit wants to play for a coach that he/she knows is going to be there the entire four years. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way.

I think he meant that a coach could be fired at any time without penalty. No buyout makes it much easier for an AD to pull the trigger, although yes, you can fire a coach at any time as long as you're willing to pay the buyout.

Like you said, there are no guarantees to any given recruit. Just because Lickliter has 4-5 years left on his contract doesn't mean he won't be bought out with 2-3 years remaining..
 
Technically, isn't that true regardless of the contract? I would think a recruit wants to play for a coach that he/she knows is going to be there the entire four years. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way.
My point was, with a buyout in place, it's obviously a lot tougher to fire him before the end of the contract. Without one there is no penalty to the University, therefore easier. If i were a recruit that was concerned about this, i wouldn't take much comfort in that contract, which is basically a one year pact.
 
I think he meant that a coach could be fired at any time without penalty. No buyout makes it much easier for an AD to pull the trigger, although yes, you can fire a coach at any time as long as you're willing to pay the buyout.

Like you said, there are no guarantees to any given recruit. Just because Lickliter has 4-5 years left on his contract doesn't mean he won't be bought out with 2-3 years remaining..

Right, but wouldn't Iowa have to pay the buyout if they fire him? It seems to me that we're talking about Barta extending the contract one year while leaving the buyout as it is.

Is there a scenario where Iowa could fire Lickliter and not pay it, a Texas Tech type situation? To me, there is always a penalty when a coach is fired. You have the buyout, the search for a new coach, potential transfers, etc...
 
My point was, with a buyout in place, it's obviously a lot tougher to fire him before the end of the contract. Without one there is no penalty to the University, therefore easier. If i were a recruit that was concerned about this, i wouldn't take much comfort in that contract, which is basically a one year pact.

That's true, but you rarely ever see a contract without a buyout in it anymore.

Even then, you still have to deal with finding a new coach, potential transfers, etc...
 
Right, but wouldn't Iowa have to pay the buyout if they fire him? It seems to me that we're talking about Barta extending the contract one year while leaving the buyout as it is.

Is there a scenario where Iowa could fire Lickliter and not pay it, a Texas Tech type situation? To me, there is always a penalty when a coach is fired. You have the buyout, the search for a new coach, potential transfers, etc...

I would think Iowa would still have to pay the buyout, because I agree - I can't imagine Lickliter accepting any deal where the buyout is dropped completely. If there is an extension, hopefully it's a case where the current buyout clause is not extended to cover the additional years on the contract (like you just said).
 
Well that's better than nothing. And it should give us reason to think that we're going to be getting more real victories next year.

Um, dude, in case you have forgotten, Iowa lost all six of the games in question.

And 16 on the season.

And, in Lickliter's three seasons at the helm, we have lost more games (percentage) than any coach in the HISTORY of the program.

AND, we have also set the record for most losses in a season.

AND that record is about to be broken, just one year after it was set.

Pretty darn impressive for a coach who was the National Coach of the Year, and, evidently, who is #1 on the career "Moral Victories" list.
 
Um, dude, in case you have forgotten, Iowa lost all six of the games in question.

And 16 on the season.

And, in Lickliter's three seasons at the helm, we have lost more games (percentage) than any coach in the HISTORY of the program.

AND, we have also set the record for most losses in a season.

AND that record is about to be broken, just one year after it was set.

Pretty darn impressive for a coach who was the National Coach of the Year, and, evidently, who is #1 on the career "Moral Victories" list.



 
IMO, even if you think Lick is going to get it done, an extension at this point is absurd. It would be a pr nightmare for Barta. Also, right now we only have one scholarship open for 2011, so trying to say it's needed for recruiting is a non-starter. IF there is marked improvement next year, it would be easier to take. That's a big if tho...
 
IMO, even if you think Lick is going to get it done, an extension at this point is absurd. It would be a pr nightmare for Barta. Also, right now we only have one scholarship open for 2011, so trying to say it's needed for recruiting is a non-starter. IF there is marked improvement next year, it would be easier to take. That's a big if tho...

Personally, I think any extension talk would be best saved for when that bridge gets crossed. Some people may think Barta to be naive or that he has his head in the sand, but I'd be willing to bet that knows what time it is, and what the reaction would be if he were to sign Lickliter to an extension, buyout extended or not.

Iowa basketball has enough problems right now, and Lickliter is going to be here next year.
 
I only post this because after talking to a former player this weekend and it does make some sense as crazy as it sounds.

I'm not mentioning his name but he played under Davis' era and he is a friend of mine so I trust his word. We were talking about several things Iowa and brought up basketball of course. I asked what he thought and obviously he is really disappointed with the current state of the program but told me no matter how bad it has been the last three years (Lick owns the 1st, 2nd and 3rd worst seasons in Iowa history) Barta won't be making a change ANYTIME soon and said - this blew me out of my seat - Barta is in discussions of giving Lickliter an extension BUT NO raise!!!

It sounds crazy but after he explained it makes some sense. Barta is really behind Lick (as he stated he is "100% behind Todd") not only because it was his first major hire but Barta views next season as Lick's first given what he has had to endure with all the departures. Barta wants to give Lick a fresh start next season with his best recruiting class and no player departures.

The extension is to give Lick's recruits a sense of stability so Lick can build a competitive team and not have concerns about recruits wondering if the staff will still be at Iowa while they are there. Also would give Lick the opportunity to use the upcoming practice facility fully and use as a recruiting pitch. The way it sounds, is it would be a 3 year extension but wouldn't include a raise. I assume there is no raise because of the lack of success and I would imagine that a raise would only add to the skepticism.

Just thought this was interesting and I believe my friend's word but I also believe that this may have been something Lick came to Barta with and Barta gave in. I guess we shall see...

I absolutely agree 100% with Barta treating next season as Lick's first. While an extension seems out of line, a payout is really the only "worse" thing that has yet to happen for the Iowa program.
 
My point was, with a buyout in place, it's obviously a lot tougher to fire him before the end of the contract. Without one there is no penalty to the University, therefore easier.

That's not quite accurate. In the absence of a buyout clause, if a coach is terminated without cause the University would still be exposed to a claim for damages in the form of lost income for the balance of the contract, less whatever the coach might actually earn in other employment. So, if Lick were fired while making $1.3 million, and he found another job that would pay him $500,000 per year, then the University's liability should be $800,000 per remaining year of the contract.

The purpose of the buyout clause is to guarantee the coach a certain portion of his compensation in the event of a termination without cause, and to quantify and limit the University's exposure. The difference is the case of the buyout clause is that (at least with the one used by Iowa), nothing the coach might make somewhere else would serve to offset the buyout payment. So, if Lick got the ax from Iowa and somehow found himself a job paying the same or more than Iowa paid him, he would still get to keep all of the buyout.

Lick's buyout is $600K per year. Frankly, if our current level of performance continues and we eventually have to part ways with him, he's going to be much less marketable than he was while at Butler. He might not get anything beyond a low- to mid-major job again. So frankly, after rethinking this, I'm not sure we'd be any worse off to have a buyout in any extension with him, because our liability in the absence of the buyout could actually be larger than with one in Lick's case.

That doesn't change the fact that extending the contract, one way or another, increases the cost of parting ways with Lick if it comes to that. That idea is repugnant to me at this point. However, if you see an extension being given, more than likely it will include an extension of the buyout as well.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top