|
|
Post by kersting13 on Sept 3, 2017 12:13:41 GMT -8
I'm still confused as to what's going on. We did not run most of the offense that we are running this year. One would assume either (1) the offense was selected and the personnel were chosen to fit the new offense or (2) the personnel were chosen and the offense was installed around the personnel. However, it appears that both (1) and (2) are false. It is like personnel are chosen without regard to scheme and scheme is chosen without regard to personnel. We're going to choose the best players, regardless of whether they can run the scheme! If this were happening to Oregon, I would think that it is one of the funniest things ever. It is bush league. It is embarrassing. Even more depressing is that the offense is less of a train wreck than the defense. And the most depressing aspect is that Oregon State owes CGA $11.6 million between now and 2021.Excuse my ignorance - why after our recent contract with our former coach not to be named, did we enter into another contract that is just as one sided? Why not offer a contract that has a clause in it, kinda like some of the NFL contracts, that are for good money, but stipulates in the fine print if you are injured, if your production drops off precipitously, we are not required to pay you for the entire contract. Many of these contracts look really huge in total dollars, until you look at the fine print, and much of it is not guaranteed. Why not do the same with a coaches' contract - contract is for X per year, for say five years, but it is tied to performance, including a minimum number of wins per season. What, is this not legal? Are we so ashamed of Corvallis, the program, the university that we are convinced no one of quality will take a contract like that? Why in the hell should we have to pay over 11 million dollars to a coach, to replace him, who is thus far underperforming, if the trend holds true for the remainder of the season (God forbid). Am I missing something here? Yes, NFL player contracts are held to a collective bargaining agreement. NFL player contracts are not guaranteed based on their CBA. NCAA head coaching contracts are done individually, and are generally guaranteed. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Sept 3, 2017 13:06:56 GMT -8
Excuse my ignorance - why after our recent contract with our former coach not to be named, did we enter into another contract that is just as one sided? Why not offer a contract that has a clause in it, kinda like some of the NFL contracts, that are for good money, but stipulates in the fine print if you are injured, if your production drops off precipitously, we are not required to pay you for the entire contract. Many of these contracts look really huge in total dollars, until you look at the fine print, and much of it is not guaranteed. Why not do the same with a coaches' contract - contract is for X per year, for say five years, but it is tied to performance, including a minimum number of wins per season. What, is this not legal? Are we so ashamed of Corvallis, the program, the university that we are convinced no one of quality will take a contract like that? Why in the hell should we have to pay over 11 million dollars to a coach, to replace him, who is thus far underperforming, if the trend holds true for the remainder of the season (God forbid). Am I missing something here? Yes, NFL player contracts are held to a collective bargaining agreement. NFL player contracts are not guaranteed based on their CBA. NCAA head coaching contracts are done individually, and are generally guaranteed. SaveSaveThanks for the clarification. All the more reason to vet as much as possible a candidate before hiring. Just because they come from a big school..........never mind. Considering the quantity of money in college football these days, maybe it is time to rethink the "guaranteed" part of coach contracts. I am not suggesting contracts be totally open ended, and the minute a program drops below .500 someone needs to be fired (like tosdtr), but if there are multiple years of sub par levels, and the program is trending downward, there should be a clause that allows dismissal, without the buyout. |
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Sept 3, 2017 13:40:04 GMT -8
Yes, NFL player contracts are held to a collective bargaining agreement. NFL player contracts are not guaranteed based on their CBA. NCAA head coaching contracts are done individually, and are generally guaranteed. SaveSaveThanks for the clarification. All the more reason to vet as much as possible a candidate before hiring. Just because they come from a big school..........never mind. Considering the quantity of money in college football these days, maybe it is time to rethink the "guaranteed" part of coach contracts. I am not suggesting contracts be totally open ended, and the minute a program drops below .500 someone needs to be fired (like tosdtr), but if there are multiple years of sub par levels, and the program is trending downward, there should be a clause that allows dismissal, without the buyout. I'm not saying that it was based on reality in our case, necessarily, but I have sensed a concern in Beaver Nation through the years that we are stuck in a "Catch-22" situation with our coaches. We (I include myself in the "we" at times through the years) want a winner. When our coaches have success, there is always talk about how that may attract more touted programs to come after our coaches. This was actually true when USC pursued both MR and DE while they were here. Both said no and chose to stay obviously. Alabama also was interested MR in the early 2000s. Several prominent baseball programs have tested the waters with Pat Casey. It seems like our administration also gets nervous when they see that we have a winner, and we offer long deals and extensions to try to lock those coaches up. Given the fickle, unpredictable nature of college sports - particularly at schools like OSU that aren't oozing with money and/or tradition - things can change pretty quickly. Today's "hot item" often fades tomorrow. It's a fine line for us to walk. If you want to keep good people, you have to treat them right and give them what they deserve. However, things can change - as much as I loved Coach Riley, even I could sense we needed to shake things up a little (for me, canning Banker and getting a fresh, talented DCoordinator would have done wonders) - and locking into long, guaranteed contracts is not generally very good business. I get the psychology of those contracts, but they can really hamstring you. We need to have better self-esteem as a University and fan base. Competitive pay for shorter terms would be better. If coaches can't live with it and bail early for "greener pastures", we need to trust that we can get a quality new coach to replace them. The good news is that the only way they'd get lured away is if the Beavs are succeeding on the field! |
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Sept 3, 2017 13:42:57 GMT -8
Thanks for the clarification. All the more reason to vet as much as possible a candidate before hiring. Just because they come from a big school..........never mind. Considering the quantity of money in college football these days, maybe it is time to rethink the "guaranteed" part of coach contracts. I am not suggesting contracts be totally open ended, and the minute a program drops below .500 someone needs to be fired (like tosdtr), but if there are multiple years of sub par levels, and the program is trending downward, there should be a clause that allows dismissal, without the buyout. I'm not saying that it was based on reality in our case, necessarily, but I have sensed a concern in Beaver Nation through the years that we are stuck in a "Catch-22" situation with our coaches. We (I include myself in the "we" at times through the years) want a winner. When our coaches have success, there is always talk about how that may attract more touted programs to come after our coaches. This was actually true when USC pursued both MR and DE while they were here. Both said no and chose to stay obviously. Alabama also was interested MR in the early 2000s. Several prominent baseball programs have tested the waters with Pat Casey. It seems like our administration also gets nervous when they see that we have a winner, and we offer long deals and extensions to try to lock those coaches up. Given the fickle, unpredictable nature of college sports - particularly at schools like OSU that aren't oozing with money and/or tradition - things can change pretty quickly. Today's "hot item" often fades tomorrow. It's a fine line for us to walk. If you want to keep good people, you have to treat them right and give them what they deserve. However, things can change - as much as I loved Coach Riley, even I could sense we needed to shake things up a little (for me, canning Banker and getting a fresh, talented DCoordinator would have done wonders) - and locking into long, guaranteed contracts is not generally very good business. I get the psychology of those contracts, but they can really hamstring you. We need to have better self-esteem as a University and fan base. Competitive pay for shorter terms would be better. If coaches can't live with it and bail early for "greener pastures", we need to trust that we can get a quality new coach to replace them. The good news is that the only way they'd get lured away is if the Beavs are succeeding on the field! I remember many being worried that CGA would bolt for Utah before he had coached a day here! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 3, 2017 15:21:12 GMT -8
I'm not saying that it was based on reality in our case, necessarily, but I have sensed a concern in Beaver Nation through the years that we are stuck in a "Catch-22" situation with our coaches. We (I include myself in the "we" at times through the years) want a winner. When our coaches have success, there is always talk about how that may attract more touted programs to come after our coaches. This was actually true when USC pursued both MR and DE while they were here. Both said no and chose to stay obviously. Alabama also was interested MR in the early 2000s. Several prominent baseball programs have tested the waters with Pat Casey. It seems like our administration also gets nervous when they see that we have a winner, and we offer long deals and extensions to try to lock those coaches up. Given the fickle, unpredictable nature of college sports - particularly at schools like OSU that aren't oozing with money and/or tradition - things can change pretty quickly. Today's "hot item" often fades tomorrow. It's a fine line for us to walk. If you want to keep good people, you have to treat them right and give them what they deserve. However, things can change - as much as I loved Coach Riley, even I could sense we needed to shake things up a little (for me, canning Banker and getting a fresh, talented DCoordinator would have done wonders) - and locking into long, guaranteed contracts is not generally very good business. I get the psychology of those contracts, but they can really hamstring you. We need to have better self-esteem as a University and fan base. Competitive pay for shorter terms would be better. If coaches can't live with it and bail early for "greener pastures", we need to trust that we can get a quality new coach to replace them. The good news is that the only way they'd get lured away is if the Beavs are succeeding on the field! I remember many being worried that CGA would bolt for Utah before he had coached a day here! LOL... that was good... damn you Kyle!!! |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Sept 3, 2017 15:52:29 GMT -8
Thanks for the clarification. All the more reason to vet as much as possible a candidate before hiring. Just because they come from a big school..........never mind. Considering the quantity of money in college football these days, maybe it is time to rethink the "guaranteed" part of coach contracts. I am not suggesting contracts be totally open ended, and the minute a program drops below .500 someone needs to be fired (like tosdtr), but if there are multiple years of sub par levels, and the program is trending downward, there should be a clause that allows dismissal, without the buyout. I'm not saying that it was based on reality in our case, necessarily, but I have sensed a concern in Beaver Nation through the years that we are stuck in a "Catch-22" situation with our coaches. We (I include myself in the "we" at times through the years) want a winner. When our coaches have success, there is always talk about how that may attract more touted programs to come after our coaches. This was actually true when USC pursued both MR and DE while they were here. Both said no and chose to stay obviously. Alabama also was interested MR in the early 2000s. Several prominent baseball programs have tested the waters with Pat Casey. It seems like our administration also gets nervous when they see that we have a winner, and we offer long deals and extensions to try to lock those coaches up. Given the fickle, unpredictable nature of college sports - particularly at schools like OSU that aren't oozing with money and/or tradition - things can change pretty quickly. Today's "hot item" often fades tomorrow. It's a fine line for us to walk. If you want to keep good people, you have to treat them right and give them what they deserve. However, things can change - as much as I loved Coach Riley, even I could sense we needed to shake things up a little (for me, canning Banker and getting a fresh, talented DCoordinator would have done wonders) - and locking into long, guaranteed contracts is not generally very good business. I get the psychology of those contracts, but they can really hamstring you. We need to have better self-esteem as a University and fan base. Competitive pay for shorter terms would be better. If coaches can't live with it and bail early for "greener pastures", we need to trust that we can get a quality new coach to replace them. The good news is that the only way they'd get lured away is if the Beavs are succeeding on the field! For me, paying people well and treating them right, does not mean you cannot have accountability. Paying a coach a competitive salary plus benefits (and let's not kid ourselves, if they are here long enough, PERS) can go hand in hand with accountability. Create a structured contract that increases pay (and length of contract) based on number of Pac12 wins, bowl game wins, and BCS bowls. But, any school (or coach, for that matter) that is intimidated by writing into the contract that if you have one or more seasons where you drop below .500 (specifics would need to be laid out), you are subject to reduced pay/ contact length then you deserve what you get - a staff that is complacent, and does not take any responsibility for losses (sound familiar?). The university should retain the right to terminate the contract early, without future guaranteed payouts. A good competent coach that believes in his ability to develop and coach up his players should not be intimidated by that. How many of us in the public/ private sector have a multi-year severance package? After all, as we are all too aware at this point, college football is a business - run it like one with the coaching staff. While we are on the subject, how many freaking asst. coaches/ aides does it take to run a team? Every time I turn around, there is a new position coach/ assistant that never existed before. Problem is, I am not seeing more wins - just a larger and larger bloated payroll. It is starting to look more and more like a govt. bureaucracy (or corporate one). Sometimes trimming down the staff has positive results, as the overall organization is leaner and meaner, so to speak - and gets better results. My .02 cents |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 3, 2017 15:59:12 GMT -8
I'm not saying that it was based on reality in our case, necessarily, but I have sensed a concern in Beaver Nation through the years that we are stuck in a "Catch-22" situation with our coaches. We (I include myself in the "we" at times through the years) want a winner. When our coaches have success, there is always talk about how that may attract more touted programs to come after our coaches. This was actually true when USC pursued both MR and DE while they were here. Both said no and chose to stay obviously. Alabama also was interested MR in the early 2000s. Several prominent baseball programs have tested the waters with Pat Casey. It seems like our administration also gets nervous when they see that we have a winner, and we offer long deals and extensions to try to lock those coaches up. Given the fickle, unpredictable nature of college sports - particularly at schools like OSU that aren't oozing with money and/or tradition - things can change pretty quickly. Today's "hot item" often fades tomorrow. It's a fine line for us to walk. If you want to keep good people, you have to treat them right and give them what they deserve. However, things can change - as much as I loved Coach Riley, even I could sense we needed to shake things up a little (for me, canning Banker and getting a fresh, talented DCoordinator would have done wonders) - and locking into long, guaranteed contracts is not generally very good business. I get the psychology of those contracts, but they can really hamstring you. We need to have better self-esteem as a University and fan base. Competitive pay for shorter terms would be better. If coaches can't live with it and bail early for "greener pastures", we need to trust that we can get a quality new coach to replace them. The good news is that the only way they'd get lured away is if the Beavs are succeeding on the field! For me, paying people well and treating them right, does not mean you cannot have accountability. Paying a coach a competitive salary plus benefits (and let's not kid ourselves, if they are here long enough, PERS) can go hand in hand with accountability. Create a structured contract that increases pay (and length of contract) based on number of Pac12 wins, bowl game wins, and BCS bowls. But, any school (or coach, for that matter) that is intimidated by writing into the contract that if you have one or more seasons where you drop below .500 (specifics would need to be laid out), you are subject to reduced pay/ contact length then you deserve what you get - a staff that is complacent, and does not take any responsibility for losses (sound familiar?). The university should retain the right to terminate the contract early, without future guaranteed payouts. A good competent coach that believes in his ability to develop and coach up his players should not be intimidated by that. How many of us in the public/ private sector have a multi-year severance package? After all, as we are all too aware at this point, college football is a business - run it like one with the coaching staff. While we are on the subject, how many freaking asst. coaches/ aides does it take to run a team? Every time I turn around, there is a new position coach/ assistant that never existed before. Problem is, I am not seeing more wins - just a larger and larger bloated payroll. It is starting to look more and more like a govt. bureaucracy (or corporate one). Sometimes trimming down the staff has positive results, as the overall organization is leaner and meaner, so to speak - and gets better results. My .02 cents Great points and everyone on this site can surely agree on one thing... the coaching profession is not real life. If any of us performed at this level in whatever occupations we hold would we still have a job??? *Qualified for PERS after the 6 month waiting period... luckily under the new system and not "beLOTtied" |
|
|
|
Post by halverbk on Sept 3, 2017 16:13:02 GMT -8
For me, paying people well and treating them right, does not mean you cannot have accountability. Paying a coach a competitive salary plus benefits (and let's not kid ourselves, if they are here long enough, PERS) can go hand in hand with accountability. Create a structured contract that increases pay (and length of contract) based on number of Pac12 wins, bowl game wins, and BCS bowls. But, any school (or coach, for that matter) that is intimidated by writing into the contract that if you have one or more seasons where you drop below .500 (specifics would need to be laid out), you are subject to reduced pay/ contact length then you deserve what you get - a staff that is complacent, and does not take any responsibility for losses (sound familiar?). The university should retain the right to terminate the contract early, without future guaranteed payouts. A good competent coach that believes in his ability to develop and coach up his players should not be intimidated by that. How many of us in the public/ private sector have a multi-year severance package? After all, as we are all too aware at this point, college football is a business - run it like one with the coaching staff. While we are on the subject, how many freaking asst. coaches/ aides does it take to run a team? Every time I turn around, there is a new position coach/ assistant that never existed before. Problem is, I am not seeing more wins - just a larger and larger bloated payroll. It is starting to look more and more like a govt. bureaucracy (or corporate one). Sometimes trimming down the staff has positive results, as the overall organization is leaner and meaner, so to speak - and gets better results. My .02 cents Great points and everyone on this site can surely agree on one thing... the coaching profession is not real life. If any of us performed at this level in whatever occupations we hold would we still have a job??? *Qualified for PERS after the 6 month waiting period... luckily under the new system and not "beLOTtied" |
|
|
|
Post by halverbk on Sept 3, 2017 16:16:38 GMT -8
The challenge is that the market, out of touch and distorted as it is, has coaches with similar types of contracts at this level. It will take Congressional legislation to change that for everyone, and I think that is the last thing on their full plates.
|
|
