Chip Kelly to Ohio State as OC

[Husker In Oklahoma]

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.

So, let’s say a coach is coaching East Carolina, and is killing it. Let’s say, he’s under contract for like 5 years, 7.5m total. After two seasons of 11-2 records, let’s say Baylor wants to hire him. Baylor pays the remaining 4.5m, or whatever the buyout is, and hires him. In negotiations, Baylor is offering 5/13.5m, or, 2.7m per season to start. Coach gets a 1.2m per raise, a better job, and Baylor recoupes some of its buyout money paying slightly less, because no one else was hiring him, yet. Initially, it’s win win for both parties. Happens all the time. it is, a penalty, whether it’s grey or not.

 

[Husker In Oklahoma]

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.

No, it probably doesn’t happen often anymore. It used to happen much more frequently, before all this tv money came into play. It is, a penalty, to someone, on behalf of hiring coach.

 

[goodnterribles]

So, let’s say a coach is coaching East Carolina, and is killing it. Let’s say, he’s under contract for like 5 years, 7.5m total. After two seasons of 11-2 records, let’s say Baylor wants to hire him. Baylor pays the remaining 4.5m, or whatever the buyout is, and hires him. In negotiations, Baylor is offering 5/13.5m, or, 2.7m per season to start. Coach gets a 1.2m per raise, a better job, and Baylor recoupes some of its buyout money paying slightly less, because no one else was hiring him, yet. Initially, it’s win win for both parties. Happens all the time. it is, a penalty, whether it’s grey or not.

Give an example of that happening where a coach gets a lesser contract from his new school because of the buyout

 

[Bigger Ed]

So, let’s say a coach is coaching East Carolina, and is killing it. Let’s say, he’s under contract for like 5 years, 7.5m total. After two seasons of 11-2 records, let’s say Baylor wants to hire him. Baylor pays the remaining 4.5m, or whatever the buyout is, and hires him. In negotiations, Baylor is offering 5/13.5m, or, 2.7m per season to start. Coach gets a 1.2m per raise, a better job, and Baylor recoupes some of its buyout money paying slightly less, because no one else was hiring him, yet. Initially, it’s win win for both parties. Happens all the time. it is, a penalty, whether it’s grey or not.

Do you know for a fact that's what happens or are you resorting to a hypothetical to support your position?

 

[Hville]

Does anyone stop to think that the people most benefiting from the transfer portal is the coaches and fans. Matt Rhule would be nowhere close to where he has Nebraska now without the transfer portal. Not only in gains but also in the ability to open up scholarships by nudging people to transfer.

There are certainly some exceptions but in general the transfer portal and free transfers are allowing a certain amount of corrections to the roster. The fact that most in the transfer portal never get a scholarship offer or go down to a lower level program proves that.

Let’s face it. Many players don’t pan out. Why saddle the coaches with a player that doesn’t want to be with the program or even more so…..the program would like to replace.

I don’t understand this whole argument that players should be penalized for what most of the coaches want them to do.

 

[Hville]

Do you know for a fact that's what happens or are you resorting to a hypothetical to support your position?

Well when he says “let’s say” three times in the first three sentences I’m pretty sure he setting the stage for the hypothetical.

 

[Hville]

I’d like to see the narrative change regarding transfers. How many of the transfers Matt Rhule brought in the last two years do you think he wanted to bring in? Knowing he had to get to 85 scholarships…..how many of the departing transfers do you think he wanted to leave.

The answer is …..almost all…. To both questions. Why tie the coaches hands getting rid of players by forcing them to stay because of transfer restrictions?

 

[CrabHusker]

So, let’s say a coach is coaching East Carolina, and is killing it. Let’s say, he’s under contract for like 5 years, 7.5m total. After two seasons of 11-2 records, let’s say Baylor wants to hire him. Baylor pays the remaining 4.5m, or whatever the buyout is, and hires him. In negotiations, Baylor is offering 5/13.5m, or, 2.7m per season to start. Coach gets a 1.2m per raise, a better job, and Baylor recoupes some of its buyout money paying slightly less, because no one else was hiring him, yet. Initially, it’s win win for both parties. Happens all the time. it is, a penalty, whether it’s grey or not.

A lot of hypotheticals in there that IMO don't align with the current environment.

I think the biggest problem with this scenario is if a guy is 'killing it', he's not getting a little bump, even if by percentage of current salary it's substantial. He's making a move to get paid the big bucks and a guy who's won 22 games in two years is going to be in the mix for some good jobs. Again, he or his agent will negotiate the salary requirements separately from any buyout the destination school will be funding. There may be a conversation about a lessor salary to help cover the cost of the buyout, but again a coach in demand right now is pretty much writing his own ticket. 'Pay it or I'll look for another opportunity'.

Now you can make a buyout so substantial that schools will think twice about paying it off, but I don't know of any right now that fit that bill. Even if it's $10 million or more, the TV money has really changed things and it becomes a cost of doing business expense for the destination school's Athletic Department.

 

[Husker In Oklahoma]

Give an example of that happening where a coach gets a lesser contract from his new school because of the buyout

How about, the initial offer is less, based on what they paid. They probably say nothing, but it’s on their minds when determining a final salary. They aren’t hiring Nick Saban, they are hiring an up and comer.

 

[Husker In Oklahoma]

Do you know for a fact that's what happens or are you resorting to a hypothetical to support your position?

Of course not, but if they are smart, it’s on their minds. Most of the time, you’re hiring a young coach, not Kirby Smart. Instead of 5m, it might be 4m.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

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.

Transfer penalties no longer exist. There are no binding contracts from player to team anymore either, and just like the NFL, some players will follow their coach, but only with their NFL contracts.
I'm pointing out the current scenario and the precedence here, and why these are considerations.
Trades, or a form of market value exists within pro ball, no such defined value exists for college, but there is a slight one.
I have to laugh at those who don't believe at all in the star rating systems we have, because the onus will more steadily be put on them going forwards as some form of market and market value develops

 

[goodnterribles]

How about, the initial offer is less, based on what they paid. They probably say nothing, but it’s on their minds when determining a final salary. They aren’t hiring Nick Saban, they are hiring an up and comer.

Well give an example of that happening. I don't recall Jimbo Fisher getting less because A&M paid his buyout from FSU.

 

[Hville]

How about, the initial offer is less, based on what they paid. They probably say nothing, but it’s on their minds when determining a final salary. They aren’t hiring Nick Saban, they are hiring an up and comer.

That’s not a factual example that can be used to support your position.

 

[Hville]

Transfer penalties no longer exist. There are no binding contracts from player to team anymore either, and just like the NFL, some players will follow their coach, but only with their NFL contracts.
I'm pointing out the current scenario and the precedence here, and why these are considerations.
Trades, or a form of market value exists within pro ball, no such defined value exists for college, but there is a slight one.
I have to laugh at those who don't believe at all in the star rating systems we have, because the onus will more steadily be put on them going forwards as some form of market and market value develops

Yes I know transfer penalties no longer exist. Thus the argument with HIO who believes they need to come back.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Yes I know transfer penalties no longer exist. Thus the argument with HIO who believes they need to come back.

Its all switched over to monetary value without scholarship as the main driver or substance of that monetary value. I think it will continue in a lesser form through PWOs.
The kids say quit treating us like kids because they're under some form or way to be compelled beyond a pure adult scenario, no monies, lose a year etc.
Once you bridge that gap and take on full responsibility, its on the player exclusively and no such previous penalty should apply.
This doesn't lessen the responsibility a coaching staff puts upon themselves as to looking out and helping student athletes, this is a plus for the university and shows at that point a greater concern as student athletes transition into the real world by hiring such coaches.