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

Giving an extension after the worst season in 108 years is going to be a tough sell (the epitome of an understatement).

On the other hand, the HC usually "needs" to have a contract to keep bringing in Top 30 classes (if that means anything -- color me skeptical about class rankings).

So how about a compromise? Extension sans any buyout clauses for the extension years.
 
FreddyBrown said:
It's not uncommon to extend a coach on a "rolling" (year to year) basis to enable him to tell recruits (in this case the classes of 2011 and beyond) that he's signed through their projected graduation date. If Barta gives Lick that kind of extension with neither a raise nor an extension of the buyout, that would make sense.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this.
 
I'm all for giving Lick and extension IF we completely remove any buy-out clause in his contract..period. If Lick thinks he can get it done at Iowa then he should be willing to do this, if not, then no new contract.
 
HeneryHawk said:
It makes me sick to my stomach to see this program as it is and the cold fish that is running it. His excuses are way beyond stale and worthless. At the same time as this, Lisa Bluder is doing a wonderful job under much much more difficult circumstances ( numerous injuries, playing true freshmen, etc ), and we hear no excuses, no dogging the new players for not knowing the "system", no "more time is needed" or a practice facility is needed, we see toughness and determination and competitive basketball. If Lickliter wants an extension, then give up the buyout clause, and Barta would be nuts to do anything with Lickliter unless it was extremely favourable to the U of I, and even then, how long can he have horrid attendance(unless you give away tix), no wins, and a fanbase disconnected from its team.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause the men aren't without their second-leading scorer (Tucker). And Bluder is in a worse spot because she's got to play true freshman? We START two true freshman, and have another who gets considerable playing time. Plus a redshirt frosh (Lickliter) who has been forced into action because of dumbf*ck Tucker. And it's not like the men haven't been competitive.

There has been a grand total of SIX games where the guys just got blown out (blow out being by more than 12). SIX!!! For as young as we are, that's enough of a sign of progress for me to have a fair amount of hope for the future. And of those six games, two were against teams ranked in the top 5 at the time (and both are still top 10). And we played MSU much tougher on their own floor the second time around. This team has been competitive all year long. Competitive and winning are not synonomous. But the winning isn't that far off.
 
There is such a thing as a "soft extension". This means that they give and extension, with no buy out. Soooooo, if in year 5 they decide to can him, there is no penalty. But, it gives the impression that the coach has long term stability with the program for recruiting purposes.
 
He cannot give an extension without some sort of bottom line that has to be reached. In year 4 big lick has to reach this stage; in year 5 this stage-- he had no problem doing that with Alford and christ it will be 5 years, there has to be some strict accountability for big lick.

I would not be surprised at all to see Barta give him an extensioin just because big lick is his first hire. I think he is a small college AD playing in a big pond and he is not about to admit that he was wrong and that he is just as far in over his head as big lick.

If he gives big lick an extension without a strict bottom line, the best thing that could happen would be that Iowa fans revolt, just simply revolt and demand both of their resignations. This comedy show has gone on long enough.
 
tm3308 said:
Yeah, cause the men aren't without their second-leading scorer (Tucker). And Bluder is in a worse spot because she's got to play true freshman? We START two true freshman, and have another who gets considerable playing time. Plus a redshirt frosh (Lickliter) who has been forced into action because of dumbf*ck Tucker. And it's not like the men haven't been competitive.

There has been a grand total of SIX games where the guys just got blown out (blow out being by more than 12). SIX!!! For as young as we are, that's enough of a sign of progress for me to have a fair amount of hope for the future. And of those six games, two were against teams ranked in the top 5 at the time (and both are still top 10). And we played MSU much tougher on their own floor the second time around. This team has been competitive all year long. Competitive and winning are not synonomous. But the winning isn't that far off.
Click to expand...


Don't forget Iowa is 6-0 in "moral victories" column
 
HawkeyeRyno said:
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...
Click to expand...
If he gives a guy an extension after 3 years of the worst record in Iowa history. Barta should be fired...I mean even if Lick turns the corner somehow, you can't give the guy and extension. Try asking donors for a buyout after you give him an extension. Those donors will say....I will let the next AD know my plans for my money.
 
I would expect a reaction like some of the posters here have stated. However, Freddy nailed it. If you give an extension without increasing the buyout than it is no harm to the school. You give the coach the piece of paper that says to a recruit that I am signed through 2015 so I will be here for all four years (this is for the class of 2011). Now if things continue like they have been than you fire him and it doesn't cost you any more money.

The one thing from the OPs post, is that it doesn't seem Barta is giving any consideration to pulling the plug after this year. What scares me is that if there are more transfers would he still hold that opinion?
 
Lick is signed thru the 2013-14 season. So the incoming frosh class next year would in theory play all four years for him. Now, we have a single scholly for 2011...so do you give him one more year so he can tell that recruit he would be here thru 2015?

Frankly, I think recruits are more informed than to think that a one year add-on charade constitutes anything more than a paper ploy.
If he adds a year, with no additinal buy-out...I guess no harm financially, but it makes it a bit tougher to let him go next year after an extension...makes the AD just look even dumber. I say it would be a mistake for Barta to do anything this year,other than privately issue the same ultimatum he gave SA before he took off for NM....make a tourny next year or else.
 
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.
 
I'd be OK with an extension after year four if we turn the corner and the buy out isn't an arm and a leg. I've been VERY critical of Lick and still am there. The new recruits and depth should help a lot. It sounds as if the recruits are actually "blowing up" from where they were last summer. Brust & Marble are both getting a lot of interest and seem to really be developing. I've posted before that Jake Sullivan predicted McCabe could be all big ten before he is through. That's changed my thinking a little.

If things come together, next year could show the amount of improvement Lick needs to keep his job. If it all comes to pass I could see an extension. It takes a little to say that because I've trashed his system and program. I'm still not enthused about it but winning cures all evils!
 
I think those that are criticizing Lick need to rethink your position on the soft extension. If Barta can extend the contract witout a raise and take out the buyout clause, doesn't that support your cause? That means if Iowa tanks next year, Barta could let Lick go without any penalty. Then, they could go out and find a new coach without worrying about paying the buyout. It seems logical to me. Almost seems like a way out for Barta. If I am understanding the situation correctly, it seems like a no brainer and I can't see any reason why any Hawkeye fan would disagree no matter what side you are on.
 
JonDMiller said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the terms of the extension. If a per-year buyout doesn't apply, in other words, we still only owe Lickliter a buyout through 2014, then I guess whatever. We wouldn't be any deeper in Lickliter's debt in that case, so the extension doesn't hurt anything and it wouldn't cost us any more to buy out the contract after the extension than it does today.

But if the buyout DOES include ALL years remaining, including the extension, then that is the most moronic move I have ever heard of, and makes sense on NO level, given Lickliter is on pace to be the losingest coach (by winning %) in school history by the end of this year. I will be absolutely steamed if something like that happens.

How many fricking years does a coach have to have left on his contract to "be able to recruit?" 7 more years? Gimme a break. Tom Davis landed a top-25 recruiting class the year before his lame duck year. He didn't need a 4-year guarantee to get some commitments from good players.

In today's landscape, how many people out there really think a recruit is naive enough not to realize that a coach's contract can be bought out, or a coach may leave for another job? Just because a coach has 4+ years left on his contract is NOT a guarantee he will be there all four years.

All of this is just mind boggling to me, but we'll see where it all goes I guess.
 
hawkdoctor said:
I'd be OK with an extension after year four if we turn the corner and the buy out isn't an arm and a leg. I've been VERY critical of Lick and still am there. The new recruits and depth should help a lot. It sounds as if the recruits are actually "blowing up" from where they were last summer. Brust & Marble are both getting a lot of interest and seem to really be developing. I've posted before that Jake Sullivan predicted McCabe could be all big ten before he is through. That's changed my thinking a little.

If things come together, next year could show the amount of improvement Lick needs to keep his job. If it all comes to pass I could see an extension. It takes a little to say that because I've trashed his system and program. I'm still not enthused about it but winning cures all evils!
Click to expand...

Good for you Hawkdoc......Let's hope it happens!
 
ForeverHawk said:
I think those that are criticizing Lick need to rethink your position on the soft extension. If Barta can extend the contract witout a raise and take out the buyout clause, doesn't that support your cause? That means if Iowa tanks next year, Barta could let Lick go without any penalty. Then, they could go out and find a new coach without worrying about paying the buyout. It seems logical to me. Almost seems like a way out for Barta. If I am understanding the situation correctly, it seems like a no brainer and I can't see any reason why any Hawkeye fan would disagree no matter what side you are on.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top