The dynamic between Ferentz and Barta

S

STLhawkeye20

Well-Known Member
I had a dream once that I was an omniscient third party observer to an interaction between Gary Barta and Kirk Ferentz.

The two meet at Finkbine for a round of golf sometime in mid-May of 2015. It's the most boring round of golf ever played. Both of them are consistently hitting their 7 irons from the tee 120 yards into the middle fareway on every single hole.

Barta wants to be risky and indulge in a beer and a cigar but Ferentz won't let him because the smell bothers him. Then Barta asks "Hey Kirk you mind if I check my phone real quick?" and of course Kirk responds by saying "come on Gary we've been over this before. No phones on the golf course."

Barta quickly puts his phone in his pocket and the pair continue to the next hole discussing their upcoming European vacations.

Kirk: "Yeah I'm taking the fam to Rome in June. Gonna be beautiful!"

Gary: "No way! I'm taking my wife on a month long vacation to Venice in June! We should meet up!"

Kirk: "Ok we can try to execute that"

As Barta and Ferentz ride the cart down the fareway at the 18th, they finally broach the touchy subject. Kirk asks Barta, "Hey Gary it would be great if you extended my contract through 2025 with a little pay raise. With the high cost of living in Iowa City it's kind of hard to sustain myself on only 3.5 million dollars per year. Taxes and college expenses and all you know? Could you draw up the papers and send them to my attorney?"

Barta: "Honestly Kirk I would love to. But we need to be careful about this. It would look suspicious to sign such a lucrative deal coming off a bad season and bad bowl loss. Hell, coaches who win national championships don't get these kind of deals. Look at Gene Chizik at Auburn. Look at Les Miles at LSU. I know you like doing things your way, but can you make a few minor adjustments - just for one season I promise then things can go back to normal - and get us to 9 or 10 wins. I'll have the papers drafted and ready to go just hit nine or ten wins, which I think you can do against our favorable schedule, and then the contract won't raise eyebrows - sound good?"

Kirk: "Ok."

Gary: "You're not thinking about leaving us are you?"

Kirk: "No, I haven't been contacted by an NFL team or another college team since 2002."

Gary: "Oh ok just wondering. Sounds good. I'll have our lawyers start drafting the papers"

They both lay up their birdie puts on the 18th green, the golf match ends in a tie, and Kirk and Gary both go home and go to bed.

The end.
 
Last edited:
Kirk: "and make sure it's in my contract that my son Brian becomes the next head coach at Iowa when I step down."

Barta: "yes Master."
 
There's way too much comfort between KF and Barta. Barta is supposed to be Kirk's boss, lol. The country club dynamic those guys have going doesn't work in the real world. Barta ought to be fired just for the massive incompetence shown in the KF contract. KF can do whatever he wants and he's basically guaranteed at least $35 million. There was no reason to give away all leverage like that.
 
Kirk - "Greg Davis is retiring after this season. Can you help me locate the most boring and predictable offensive coordinator that runs the drop back pro-style I formation and play action?"

Barta - "Sure deal. I'm presuming for six figs, correct?".
 
NEIChawk said:
"Oh and by the way, my shirts and shorts need ironing"

"Oh Biff Barta, is my truck ready for this weekend?"

"Brian's dog needs to be let out promptly at 10am and 3 pm"

"I'm on it Kirk"
Click to expand...

"I'm sorry, Mr. Ferentz.
I-I meant I was just starting on the second 10-year extension."
1267617.jpg
 
Joshbrown said:
Don't argue with him. He just offered us the better end of the deal. Say YES before he withdraws the offer!!!!
Click to expand...

No doubt really, but in good conscience, I would not wish KF's contract on even the Huskers. (Ok - maybe I've gone too far with that one.)

My point is that I wonder if a court of law would hear an argument that his contract could be considered as "unconscionable"?

One definition: An unconscionable contract is one that is so one-sided that it is unfair to one party and therefore unenforceable under law. It is a type of contract that leaves one party with no real, meaningful choice, usually due to major differences in bargaining power between the parties.
 
HawkU said:
No doubt really, but in good conscience, I would not wish KF's contract on even the Huskers. (Ok - maybe I've gone too far with that one.)

My point is that I wonder if a court of law would hear an argument that his contract could be considered as "unconscionable"?

One definition: An unconscionable contract is one that is so one-sided that it is unfair to one party and therefore unenforceable under law. It is a type of contract that leaves one party with no real, meaningful choice, usually due to major differences in bargaining power between the parties.
Click to expand...

I'm at attorney, and I've thought about the unconscionability argument a few times. There are essentially two components that are required for unconscionability:

(1) Contract terms that "shock the conscience," or, as you have worded it, are "so-one sided that it is unfair to one party and therefore unenforceable..."

(2) Absence of a meaningful choice.

Both elements must be satisfied to render a contract void and unenforceable. I don't think that a court would buy an argument for either element, unfortunately. While it's true that it isn't really the industry standard to have these long-term, lock-in contracts, and while the terms are definitely one-sided in terms of Ferentz, and while it's an insane FOOTBALL deal to me, the contract is still justified because of the revenue. It would be a different story if Ferentz were losing games AND money - either way, it's unlikely that a court would inject itself into the "football decisions" of a program when the finances don't smell.

Unconscionability is typically reserved for consumer contracts. You know, the "standard term agreements" you click on online where there end up being hidden charges.

Like it or not, this program is still making tons of money and that's what a court of law would focus on - not what makes sense from a "football perspective."

Additionally, given the current college football landscape (read: there are a lot of people who would willingly take Ferentz' job for a lot less money) a court wouldn't buy an argument that Barta had no other choices. Barta could have gone with someone else, in other words - it's not like Ferentz is the only option out there.

There's no way to get out of this contract under unconscionablity.

Are you a lawyer? I'm very impressed that you recognized unconscionability as a way to get out of this contract
 
Last edited:
STLhawkeye20 said:
I'm at attorney, and I've thought about the unconscionability argument a few times. There are essentially two components that are required for unconscionability:

(1) Contract terms that "shock the conscience," or, as you have worded it, are "so-one sided that it is unfair to one party and therefore unenforceable..."

(2) Absence of a meaningful choice.

Both elements must be satisfied to render a contract void and unenforceable. I don't think that a court would buy an argument for either element, unfortunately. While it's true that it isn't really the industry standard to have these long-term, lock-in contracts, and while the terms are definitely one-sided in terms of Ferentz, and while it's an insane FOOTBALL deal to me, the contract is still justified because of the revenue. It would be a different story if Ferentz were losing games AND money - either way, it's unlikely that a court would inject itself into the "football decisions" of a program when the finances don't smell.

Unconscionability is typically reserved for consumer contracts. You know, the "standard term agreements" you click on online where there end up being hidden charges.

Like it or not, this program is still making tons of money and that's what a court of law would focus on - not what makes sense from a "football perspective."

Additionally, given the current college football landscape (read: there are a lot of people who would willingly take Ferentz' job for a lot less money) a court wouldn't buy an argument that Barta had no other choices. Barta could have gone with someone else, in other words - it's not like Ferentz is the only option out there.

There's no way to get out of this contract under unconscionablity.

Are you a lawyer? I'm very impressed that you recognized unconscionability as a way to get out of this contract
Click to expand...

Thanks but not a lawyer - just consider myself well read. However, the way you laid it out it seems that it would be a real uphill battle in an actual court case. One can still dream - and should. ;)

It seems you hit the nail on the head regarding revenue. I don't think it's a stretch to say that we, the fans, look more (mostly?) at the W-L record and Barta and company look simply at the R.O.I.

Iowa, in 2015, reported a football revenue stream of almost $106M. I'm not sure what the salary expenses are but $10M total is probably on the high side. Going with that, it's a hell of an R.O.I. for the U.
 
I think Garry is simply afraid of change. He'd rather live in a gray twilight than take the chance that is 50/50 purdue-like results or improvement to something resembling Wisconsin. Either way the athletic department revenue is the same. Ticket revenue is a shrinking % of total revenue, given TV $.

So you see there is not much incentive really to make a change.

however

He left the reputational risk out of the calculus.
 
KF's Agent: "Hey, it's almost time to start negotiating for another extension and raise."

KF: "Already? Well...bring out the gimp."

Barta:
K9QB5uU.gif



The Hawkeye Fanbase:
R9cmNvG.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top