Yes. There is no roster control if not. You have to have some rules.
-
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
I think the spin is coming from you. The real fact is the coach isn’t penalized for breaking his contract and moving on. Zero. That has been your contention and you have used it to justify players being penalized. That is the truth.
I don't disagree that it can't be the free for all that it's become. But it's hypocritical to criticize the players for leaving whenever they want and not do the same for coaches.
ok man. You know you’re full of crap, but you can have your win.
Dude, coaches are professionals and have contracts. When those contracts are broken, millions are paid on behalf of said leaving coach. That’s a penalty, no matter how you want to spin it. Like it or not, spin or not, those are indeed, penalties.
It's not a penalty to the coach. They have zero recourse for leaving.
Who gets penalized? The coach gets the job he wants, his new team gets the coach it wants. Buying out a contract is a COST, it's not a PENALTY.
There really isn't an apples to apples comparison between a contracted employee (coach) and a scholarship athlete moving on.
As it's currently set up, a player gets one 'freebie' and then has to suffer the consequences where as a coach can do whatever he wants, as long as his destination school picks up the tab.
I don't know what will change with this in the future, but suspect with player rights being more and more a topic going back to the original NIL lawsuit, something will move in their direction.
Conceivably it is in part responsible for the raising of coaches salaries.
Its similar to various coaches shopping around to other teams only to get a uni to give him a raise.
Again, no penalty incurred. If a coach feels he's not getting market value, you can't blame him for testing the waters to see if he can improve his situation. If the school renegotiates his contract, that's still a cost.
Ok
Again, it in part is responsible for raising the salaries of coaches.
Some here think they make too much, personally I don't.
So, if you have a loan on your car, and you’re making payments on that car, in your name, and your folks decide to help you out and pay it off, should you get the bump on your credit report? By your theory, hell no, you shouldn’t, even though it was your ass responsible for it. However, the fact is, yes, you would indeed get that credit score bump, even though the payoff money came from elsewhere.
The buyouts to schools to hire away staff, is made ON BEHALF OF, said coach. It’s his name, his contract, his responsibility. It makes no difference where the buyout money comes from, it’s under the coaches name, and ultimately, he’s responsible. That, no matter how you slice it, is a penalty paid.
Nick Saban himself just said college football is on an implosion course, and it’s going to crash, if something isn’t done soon to stabilize it. He wants to help in whatever way he can. He knows firsthand this can’t continue. You can’t plan for anything.
Sure it is. It’s a penalty/fee to buyout an existing contract, if it’s in said contract. That’s why it’s in there. Just like if you break a lease on something, you have to pay, and it can hurt. Cost, as you say, hurts when it’s outside of a budget. A kid grabs his suitcase and is gone. The coach has to settle up, regardless of who pays it off. It’s legally binding.
Pretty sure Nick Sabin wasn’t referring to whatever loans the parents paid off for them. If you think that’s a stupid comment than think about how you tried making the connection.
Not to mention what penalty did the kid make for his parents paying it off. He got rewarded just like coaches do.
Last edited:
