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.
