And yet, if that coach gets fired, he still gets paid and they don't deduct that money from what they pay him.
So where's the penalty?
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Chip Kelly to Ohio State as OC
- Thread starter HuskrNew
- Start date
And yet, if that coach gets fired, he still gets paid and they don't deduct that money from what they pay him.
So where's the penalty?
Which also is in part the ever escalating costs of coaching salaries.
Fired or hired elsewhere, it benefits coaches.
The bluffs just let their OC go to demotion only to have him become HC elsewhere. Talent evaluation of coaches can be tough, yet the market value for them keep escalating.
Last edited:
Yea and some people believe penalizing the players is the answer.
Separate issue, however even that is imploding. Without a cap system installed its a what will the market bear as that pushes traditions, such as penalizing players or amateur status, school over money etc, out of the way.
It needs sorting and new rules.
Oh my.
This, is some serious spin. I already said you win.
He’s a professional with a contract. I’m not sure WT H you don’t understand here. We aren’t talking about anyone getting fired, we are talking about them leaving on their own. You have nothing here, so you went another direction. You are 1,000,000% wrong.
Last edited:
It’s not about winning for me. It’s a discussion board and I’m responding to some very ridiculous attempts to make this discussion a win or lose discussion.Oh my.
I’ve seen enough of your posts in 5 years to know you have a good grasp…..no maybe even a great grasp of Nebraska football and even college football as a whole. But you are digging a very deep hole.
Ragging on against athletes while justifying coaches moves as being penalized is ridiculous. Very few people including the NCAA and the courts believe tieing players to a school for 4 years when they are only guaranteed an athletic scholarship for 1 year is a fair system. They went from a penalty of one year to one free transfer and by the latest court ruling no transfer penalties. The only penalty they should have is what they are giving up…..their scholarship. And quite truthfully many of the transfers are nudges from coaches threatning not to renew their one year athletic scholarship.
Transfer penalties have been an issue long before NIL, and the desire to cap NIL were ever around. The NCAA has been in a 15 year stretch of reducing transfer penalties due to fairness, especially relative to coaches departing as a comparison. They have even gone as far as tieing in a coaches departure as acceptable criteria for transferring with no penalty even outside the windows of the normal transfer portal. So yes coaching departures and transfers are being compared for equity and fairness. And transfers penalties are continuing downward almost solely based on coaching moves being validated.
No, I’m not. Transfers, w o some type of penalty, is a recipe for disaster. You’re trying to compare grown men, professionals to young kids. There is no comparison between the two. I’m not against transfers, at all, but I am against just moving whenever you feel like it, mostly because of money. Sit your ass for a year, and you can go wherever you want. We won’t agree on this, and I am NOT in the minority here. This shouldn’t be hard for anyone to grasp. I’m starting to think you don’t care about the well being of college football with your take.
Last edited:
I haven't been directly involved in this conversation, but I'm going to have to disagree on what I believe is your core argument here, and that is that coaches are penalized and kids are not.
As of today, any financial penalty in a coaches contract (buyout, early termination, whatever you want to call it) is paid by the school who hires him away, not by the coach. Say you get a parking ticket and I give you the $50 to pay it. Who's being penalized? It's not your money, so you don't really care about the penalty. It's not a penalty in the same fashion as a kid having to sit for transferring or attaching a penalty to an NIL deal if the kid transfers, which I suspect is next in the evolution here.
I don't understand where the penalty is coming from. It's certainly not coming out of the coach's pocket.
We can agree, to disagree. Millions of dollars, under one’s name being paid, is a penalty, and, it’s a roadblock to hopefully curtail people from breaking a contract. The coach can’t leave without that being settled. It is a penalty, and the team paying it, ON BEHALF OF, said coach, feels it. Also, who’s to say some of that fee isn’t reflected in the new contract with the new team? So, maybe, instead of a 10m per year deal, it’s only 9m? We have no idea, but paying millions to leave somewhere, regardless of who’s paying it, is indeed, a penalty.
I see both sides of this argument.. It IS a penalty, it just isn't a big deal to the coach because that penalty is being paid for by someone else. Yes, it is a penalty, it just isn't big enough, or I should say, it isn't connected enough to the coach to really make a difference to him.. UNLESS said school can't pay that buyout, THEN the coach is on the hook, and he either pays that penalty, or he stays put. Of course, that doesn't happen much at all.
Yeah, probably agree to disagree.
It's really a toothless penalty in the grand scheme of things. A school wants a coach bad enough, they're paying the vig and the coach isn't letting them take it out of his salary. That is unless he hates his current gig or has zero business sense.
If we get to the point where a player is in an employee/employer type contract relationship with a school, I think there will be a discussion about penalties outside of having to sit once you've burned your free transfer. I'm not aware of any NIL deals currently that extend beyond a year and/or carry any penalties, but that's likely coming as well. Top end players will need an attorney and an accountant to weigh options and though financially it's better for the player, I don't like it much at all.
It appears to me it’s an agreement. The university is buying the rights to his contract. It’s no more a penalty for me than if someone buys me a beer. He pays the bartender. As long as I have plenty of guys wanting to offer me higher value bourbons and they pay……why would I not accept it.
Zero penalty.
