Alabama Fires Head Men's BB Coach
- Thread starter pirated
- Start date
After 6 years with an overall record of 117-85 and a conference record of 54-48 with one NCAA and two NIT appearances. Was the head coach at VCU for three years with an overall record of 76-25 and two NCAA and one NIT appearance in his three years.
This post was edited on 3/15 6:10 PM by hallgrad80
This post was edited on 3/15 6:10 PM by hallgrad80
That's coach two who was fired with a connection to Sina will there be a third? Things always happen in threes
The word is that Alabama wants to open their wallet and hire a "proven winner," thanks mainly to the money they made from football in the past year. That means they're willing to pay more than the $2 million Grant was making. The names being floated are Shaka Smart or Gregg Marshall, though it's hard to picture either guy at Bama. Murray State's Steve Prohm is a former student assistant and manager there, though it sounds like they want someone who's succeeded against a higher level of competition.
No inside information whatsoever, but I'll bet that either Josh Pastner or Michael White (the Louisiana Tech coach) get the job. The Memphis fans are even more insane than ours, and Pastner might be sick of that madness. White was a top assistant in the SEC before he got his head coaching gigs.
Last year, in the midst of Grant's fifth season, a season in which Alabama would finish 13-19, people openly questioned whether Alabama would retain Grant for a sixth year. Their concern was the rather large buyout - $5million dollars, equal to 50% of his salary for each of the last five years of his contract. The contract, which ran through 2019. had been extended two different times.
Perhaps this is nothing more than misery loves company, but on the surface it seems like we are not alone.
Anthony Grant
Perhaps this is nothing more than misery loves company, but on the surface it seems like we are not alone.
Anthony Grant
Definitely everyone goes through this when they think they have a younger, up-and-coming coach like Anthony or Willard, bet on it with these kid of dollar amounts (out of anxiety they'll jump to greener pastures) and then the horse comes up lame.
Alabama made $30 million from football. Their situation and Seton Hall's are not comparable.
Fordahm is another story. They cut Pecora loose with two years left on his $750,000 per year contract. Not only do they have to finish paying Pecora, but will have to also pay a new coach that is guaranteed to fail because the job stinks.
Fordahm is another story. They cut Pecora loose with two years left on his $750,000 per year contract. Not only do they have to finish paying Pecora, but will have to also pay a new coach that is guaranteed to fail because the job stinks.
No situation is exact.
Alabama extended Grant until 2019, with a buyout of $5 million dollars, His year five record was 13-19 and he got a sixth year.
Apparently, Pecora received a two year extension in 2012, per the NY Post, after his two year record at Fordham was 17- 40 and 4-28.
Alabama extended Grant until 2019, with a buyout of $5 million dollars, His year five record was 13-19 and he got a sixth year.
Apparently, Pecora received a two year extension in 2012, per the NY Post, after his two year record at Fordham was 17- 40 and 4-28.
What baffles me is why a coach who has been at a school for two years, has the record Pecora had in those two years even be under consideration for a contract extension at that point of time yet given one.
Did anyone truly believe that Willard was a young up and coming coach who would lead us to the promised land? From the moment I reviewed his record, I knew this clown was a loser. We were absolutely sold a bill of goods. Unfortunately this costly mistake cost us many years of potential progress.
80 - There are many reasons to give Pecora an extension after two years, in spite of the obvious on court record. One standard answer is the need to recruit. If you are committed to Pecora you have to give appearance to a recruit that the coach will stay through the potential recruit's eligibility. It has been noted in the other thread that the rebuilding job at Fordham is massive and requires a lot of time. There may have been behind the scenes progress that are not visible to us from a distance.
The bottom line is this is not really as uncommon as some people want to believe. It is a (high) cost of doing business.
The bottom line is this is not really as uncommon as some people want to believe. It is a (high) cost of doing business.
Knowknow
While your answer appears to be a logical one I think you and I both know that recruits today know the way the game is played and they know that coaches leave all the time before their contract is up for a different position and they know that the length of a contract means nothing as coaches get fired with years left on their contract. Hell we've seen examples of coaches who have been successful get a contract extension and leave within weeks of agreeing to that extension.
No I remain unconvinced that a contract extension to an unproven coach in his first two or three years into his tenure is a plus in recruiting .
While your answer appears to be a logical one I think you and I both know that recruits today know the way the game is played and they know that coaches leave all the time before their contract is up for a different position and they know that the length of a contract means nothing as coaches get fired with years left on their contract. Hell we've seen examples of coaches who have been successful get a contract extension and leave within weeks of agreeing to that extension.
No I remain unconvinced that a contract extension to an unproven coach in his first two or three years into his tenure is a plus in recruiting .
80- My answer is both logical and as you correctly point out, flawed. Kids have multiple reasons for selecting a school of which the coach is only one. In our specific case, you could make a pretty good argument the coach is pretty far down on the list.
The flip side is that athletes ( and their handlers) don't want to have change if they can avoid it. I do not subscribe to the "mass transfer" fear that so many others have, but changing a coach means having to prove yourself all over again. In equal situations, players will often choose the one they believe (right or wrong) to be more stable.
And why extend Anthony Grant five years? Fordham could simply have let it be known Pecora was the rebuilding coach for life, if in fact that is what they themselves believed. So there is the possibility you are 100% correct and contracts should simply not extended. That doesn't seem 100% logical. In the pros, the Giants wouldn't do it with Coughlin, a proven Super Bowl Coach who most likely was never leaving for another job.
You may not like my conclusion, but you need to consider the possibility that extensions are the (high) cost of doing business in college athletics.
This post was edited on 3/19 5:32 PM by knowknow456
The flip side is that athletes ( and their handlers) don't want to have change if they can avoid it. I do not subscribe to the "mass transfer" fear that so many others have, but changing a coach means having to prove yourself all over again. In equal situations, players will often choose the one they believe (right or wrong) to be more stable.
And why extend Anthony Grant five years? Fordham could simply have let it be known Pecora was the rebuilding coach for life, if in fact that is what they themselves believed. So there is the possibility you are 100% correct and contracts should simply not extended. That doesn't seem 100% logical. In the pros, the Giants wouldn't do it with Coughlin, a proven Super Bowl Coach who most likely was never leaving for another job.
You may not like my conclusion, but you need to consider the possibility that extensions are the (high) cost of doing business in college athletics.
This post was edited on 3/19 5:32 PM by knowknow456
knowknow
In our many discussions it never been about whether I like your answer or not it's always been for me an exchange of views which ,on rare occasions , our views actually coincide. I've always been a " show me" type of person and giving someone a reward, in the issue at hand , a contract extension without a level of performance that warrants that just goes against the grain for me .
College football and college basketball produce revenues in the billions when you add revenues from TV , ticket sales, athletic department fund raising , corporate sponsorship and more and that says to me they are big business so run it like the business it is reward performance not non- performance.
In our many discussions it never been about whether I like your answer or not it's always been for me an exchange of views which ,on rare occasions , our views actually coincide. I've always been a " show me" type of person and giving someone a reward, in the issue at hand , a contract extension without a level of performance that warrants that just goes against the grain for me .
College football and college basketball produce revenues in the billions when you add revenues from TV , ticket sales, athletic department fund raising , corporate sponsorship and more and that says to me they are big business so run it like the business it is reward performance not non- performance.
Tom Crean has that infamous $12 million dollar buyout. Paul Hewitt, late of George Mason, still gets a check every month from his $7 million dollar buyout from Georgia Tech. I am sure there are others. Not everyone has an onerous buyout. Rick Barnes from Texas has a buyout below $2 million dollars which is reasonable considering his salary and strength of the Texas athletic budget.
My point is two fold. One,athletic directors seem to put some value in rolling extensions and buyout provisions. Two, while we find our situation onerous, it is not unique.
My point is two fold. One,athletic directors seem to put some value in rolling extensions and buyout provisions. Two, while we find our situation onerous, it is not unique.
No our situation is not unique but the three schools you mention have the financial resources to meet the buyout and not have the buyout so onerous you can't make a change that is clearly warranted. If having a buyout provision is an element in college coach's contract then it should be at a level that the college can exercise not one where it can't.
I think it is important to accept that our situation is not unique. There are a number of people (not you) who think our problems are, in fact, unique to us. That really isn't the case.
Alabama and Indiana are way more solvent than we are, yet both schools (particularly Alabama based on the article) were/are hesitant to change their coach and the buy out was a factor. There are some people who want to fire the current Georgia Tech coach but believe that won't happen because the school is still on the hook for Hewitt's deal.
In our specific case, I think we can use the 1.4MM/850K buyout figures (fondly known as the SPK number) as a base for our models. If we look objectively (and for the moment without regard for result), the contract extension is for two years (through year seven) but the buyout is really only for one year. Next year the "buyout" is $850 which is more or less the base salary. So even if there is a secret extension through 2025, if it isn't vested, we don't care. What we do care about is whether there is a provision that vests 2017 (year 8) automatically.In addition, if the SPK numbers are correct, the buyout really should be 1.7/850. We owe two years on the contract but would only pay 82% of that amount in a buy out this year. In a sense, that is a bargain, even if it doesn't really feel that way based on the results..
As far as your comment, "If having a buyout provision is an element in college coach's contract then it should be at a level that the college can exercise not one where it can't." that makes perfect sense. But we have no objective evidence that that is the case we have here. We know it is a big number, and we know it is a factor, but to conclude it is the one and only factor at play is guesswork.
This post was edited on 3/20 10:23 AM by knowknow456
Alabama and Indiana are way more solvent than we are, yet both schools (particularly Alabama based on the article) were/are hesitant to change their coach and the buy out was a factor. There are some people who want to fire the current Georgia Tech coach but believe that won't happen because the school is still on the hook for Hewitt's deal.
In our specific case, I think we can use the 1.4MM/850K buyout figures (fondly known as the SPK number) as a base for our models. If we look objectively (and for the moment without regard for result), the contract extension is for two years (through year seven) but the buyout is really only for one year. Next year the "buyout" is $850 which is more or less the base salary. So even if there is a secret extension through 2025, if it isn't vested, we don't care. What we do care about is whether there is a provision that vests 2017 (year 8) automatically.In addition, if the SPK numbers are correct, the buyout really should be 1.7/850. We owe two years on the contract but would only pay 82% of that amount in a buy out this year. In a sense, that is a bargain, even if it doesn't really feel that way based on the results..
As far as your comment, "If having a buyout provision is an element in college coach's contract then it should be at a level that the college can exercise not one where it can't." that makes perfect sense. But we have no objective evidence that that is the case we have here. We know it is a big number, and we know it is a factor, but to conclude it is the one and only factor at play is guesswork.
This post was edited on 3/20 10:23 AM by knowknow456
Similar threads
