Is 10 years the max time a HC should be at the same school?

C

Cory

Well-Known Member
I thought I read an article where another head coach said that 10 years was the longest a school should keep a HC no matter the success based on the program becoming stale.

Thoughts?
 
And George Halas wasn't making an obscene amount of money for putting a profane product on the field.
 
I tend to agree. And, I really think 16 years at one school is a long time. It's a long time at one place in any profession. When you spend that much time in one position you can become complacent while the world around you changes. I am not pushing Kirk out the door, I just think he has become complacent and what worked 10 years ago is no longer working. Instead of being on the level of MSU and Wisky, we are now about even with Minnesota and Northwestern ... And that is unfortunate ...
 
Cory said:
I thought I read an article where another head coach said that 10 years was the longest a school should keep a HC no matter the success based on the program becoming stale.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

We are not going to attract a big name coach to come here after KF unless its a former player/coach with Iowa ties. I think it would be best to get the next up and coming coach from the MAC ranks who is energetic, enthusiastic and loves to recruit who demands the same of his staff. If he moves on so be it. Hire the next coach who fits that profile. But don't let them turn into the smug fat cat that KF has become who is cashing in his fat checks. You could get an excellent coach for 2 mil/season with our facilities and support. If they don't work out, a buy out is much easier.

You got to ask yourself are we getting the kind of return on our investment that UNI is getting. Much smaller budget to work with,but they have always played well against us on our field and nearlly beat us.
 
Nah, but the NCAA should pass a rule that once a coach has been at a school for 10 years and earned compensation in excess of $20 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in the aggregate, the coach's contract has to become terminable at will by either party without any buyout. Maybe even reduce those numbers somewhat.

Coach compensation has gotten out of hand and it will take a collective action by the NCAA to reign it in. Ultimately, what winds up happening is guys get the school over a barrel and essentially can't be fired. Take Iowa - I don't want Ferentz fired, but even if we wanted to, doing so would create a substantial hardship for the school, in particular the other athletic programs within the school. I personally don't think it's unfair for both sides to be able to part ways after 10 years and $20 million has changed hands and the recruiting world is now such that if a guy is down to two or three years left on a contract it is held against him in recruiting and has a real impact, which only serves to further entrench marginal coaches. Heck, now that I type it out, maybe 5 years and $10 million are more reasonable numbers where this kicks in.

The problem is that the people running the NCAA are buttkissers who answer to these coaches and no one is watching out for the inanimate member institutions and the student-athletes who the NCAA putatively is supposed to be protecting.
 
BILLBUCKNER said:
We are not going to attract a big name coach to come here after KF unless its a former player/coach with Iowa ties. I think it would be best to get the next up and coming coach from the MAC ranks who is energetic, enthusiastic and loves to recruit who demands the same of his staff. If he moves on so be it. Hire the next coach who fits that profile. But don't let them turn into the smug fat cat that KF has become who is cashing in his fat checks. You could get an excellent coach for 2 mil/season with our facilities and support. If they don't work out, a buy out is much easier.

You got to ask yourself are we getting the kind of return on our investment that UNI is getting. Much smaller budget to work with,but they have always played well against us on our field and nearlly beat us.
Click to expand...

Hey, let's hire Beckman. He seems like an up and comer. Or maybe Mike Locksley.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Nah, but the NCAA should pass a rule that once a coach has been at a school for 10 years and earned compensation in excess of $20 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in the aggregate, the coach's contract has to become terminable at will by either party without any buyout. Maybe even reduce those numbers somewhat.

Coach compensation has gotten out of hand and it will take a collective action by the NCAA to reign it in. Ultimately, what winds up happening is guys get the school over a barrel and essentially can't be fired. Take Iowa - I don't want Ferentz fired, but even if we wanted to, doing so would create a substantial hardship for the school, in particular the other athletic programs within the school. I personally don't think it's unfair for both sides to be able to part ways after 10 years and $20 million has changed hands and the recruiting world is now such that if a guy is down to two or three years left on a contract it is held against him in recruiting and has a real impact, which only serves to further entrench marginal coaches. Heck, now that I type it out, maybe 5 years and $10 million are more reasonable numbers where this kicks in.

The problem is that the people running the NCAA are buttkissers who answer to these coaches and no one is watching out for the inanimate member institutions and the student-athletes who the NCAA putatively is supposed to be protecting.
Click to expand...

It is Iowa's fault for making it so hard to fire Kirk. It isn't Kirk's fault.
 
MiniMoeHawk said:
It is Iowa's fault for making it so hard to fire Kirk. It isn't Kirk's fault.
Click to expand...
From a recruiting standpoint you never want a dead man walking ..aka Tom Davis..that devastated that years BB recruiting. Bowlsby was an idiot for laying his cards down for everyone to see. You almost always have to give an extension before a contract expires and eat the buyout in the case of having to fire the coach. 10 years sounds like a good deal for both parties.Besides ,coaches can always leave.The only party bound is the institution.
 
I think the most should be 8 really. Any coach should get 4 (unless its a complete dumpster fire or its clear he is ruining the program) to prove he can make his system work with his recruits. After that I think 4 year chunks are what a coach should be given.
 
BILLBUCKNER said:
From a recruiting standpoint you never want a dead man walking ..aka Tom Davis..that devastated that years BB recruiting. Bowlsby was an idiot for laying his cards down for everyone to see. You almost always have to give an extension before a contract expires and eat the buyout in the case of having to fire the coach. 10 years sounds like a good deal for both parties.Besides ,coaches can always leave.The only party bound is the institution.
Click to expand...

Correct - it is a collective action issue by the schools. Each school wants a competitive advantage against every other school and so they stupidly sign coaches to long-term contracts with absurd one-way buyout provisions under the theory that gives them a recruiting advantage (our coach will be here when you graduate). Every school with a high division football program does this and I think it is fine on the front end of an initial contract, but when the three individuals taking the biggest paychecks from the State of Illinois are Tim Beckman, John Groce and Ron Zook (due to his buyout after an extension) it seems a little absurd. I don't have any issue with a $5 million salary if multiple power schools are bidding for a guy's services, but a golden parachute in excess of $20 million from a non-profit, taxpayer backed institution is just completely absurd when it gets triggered by a guy failing to perform his job properly.
 
With 6 seasons left in his contract, what happens if Kirk decides he doesn't want to retire? Does Barta extend his contract again?
 
Sparky said:
With 6 seasons left in his contract, what happens if Kirk decides he doesn't want to retire? Does Barta extend his contract again?
Click to expand...

Nailed it. Kurt has ZERO economic incentive to retire given that he has that enormous goodbye kiss coming. It puts the school in an awful spot because once a coach gets to 2-3 years left on his contract, he is a sitting duck on the recruiting trail. We should be prepared for a very ugly stretch of Iowa football (one that will leave us longing for a 7-5 team) as that contract nears its termination date and in the early years of a new regime.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Nailed it. Kurt has ZERO economic incentive to retire given that he has that enormous goodbye kiss coming. It puts the school in an awful spot because once a coach gets to 2-3 years left on his contract, he is a sitting duck on the recruiting trail. We should be prepared for a very ugly stretch of Iowa football (one that will leave us longing for a 7-5 team) as that contract nears its termination date and in the early years of a new regime.
Click to expand...

So if things don't improve and we conitinue to spiral down the toilet bowl.We have no choice but to buy him out in with 2-3 years left. Barta better not sign any extension unless the entire contract is renegotiated,it allows us out of it with no buy out and it's performance based.. Yeah ..fat chance of that happening.

I would have alot more respect if KF stepped down on his own and admit that he no longer can keep Iowa up to his standards and wanted what was best for Iowa.
 
Couldn't they just structure the extension to be base pay = $4M, buyout of extended years = 5% of base or something similar where he has "an extension" but there's very little financial risk to the university?
 
A contract extension with an easy buyout clause for the school is not really a vote of confidence. It is about the same as giving no contract extension at all because that gives a recruit no confidence that the coach will be around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top