The Auburn Coach search articles shows another major isssue with NCAA FB

[Bulldog Bruce]

It truly is bothersome that when a job of a team that has National Championship history it is perfectly acceptable to poach a coach from another team. I don't know of a solution and the reporting is generally accurate. However it is disturbing that it has become so expected that Auburn can target anyone, including in-conference rivals coaches because they have a "better" job. At least in the NFL there is some sort of compensation when these things occur like when Belicheck went to the Patriots and spurned the Jets. There should be something in place that Auburn would have to compensate, in some fashion, OM if they get Lane Kiffin. At least put a hurdle in place to make coach movement a little harder.

 

[ronpolk]

The NFL is set up to be fair and create competitive balance. College sports are not.

 

[WilCoDawg]

Thats two things I disagree with you on now. You’re on a roll.

 

[GloryDawg]

Wait until we get to a point a true freshman is making more his freshman year than his head coach.

 

[msudawg12]

Serious question: How do you get a new coach if you dont "poach" someone? Are we just shooting for someone not in the coaching profession?

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It truly is bothersome that when a job of a team that has National Championship history it is perfectly acceptable to poach a coach from another team. I don't know of a solution and the reporting is generally accurate. However it is disturbing that it has become so expected that Auburn can target anyone, including in-conference rivals coaches because they have a "better" job. At least in the NFL there is some sort of compensation when these things occur like when Belicheck went to the Patriots and spurned the Jets. There should be something in place that Auburn would have to compensate, in some fashion, OM if they get Lane Kiffin. At least put a hurdle in place to make coach movement a little harder.

So if you are working at a job and another company comes along and offers you better pay and better benefits for the same job should that company have to be penalized for hiring you away?

 

[mcdawg22]

It truly is bothersome that when a job of a team that has National Championship history it is perfectly acceptable to poach a coach from another team. I don't know of a solution and the reporting is generally accurate. However it is disturbing that it has become so expected that Auburn can target anyone, including in-conference rivals coaches because they have a "better" job. At least in the NFL there is some sort of compensation when these things occur like when Belicheck went to the Patriots and spurned the Jets. There should be something in place that Auburn would have to compensate, in some fashion, OM if they get Lane Kiffin. At least put a hurdle in place to make coach movement a little harder.

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t there buyout clauses in a lot of contracts that do this exact thing?

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t there buyout clauses in a lot of contracts that do this exact thing?

Yes.

 

[GloryDawg]

So if you are working at a job and another company comes along and offers you better pay and better benefits for the same job should that company have to be penalized for hiring you away?

Most jobs don't come with a contract. College and Professional coaching do. The NCAA can tell you how many coaches you can hirer. The state can tell you how long you can make a contract. I am pretty sure with a contract job you can do a lot with.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

That's what buyouts are for. College football has always been a collection of haves and have nots. Even if money alone was not the issue, most coaches would want to be at a school where recruiting is easier, and a path to the playoffs more reasonable.

The real issue is the insane amount of money these coaches are making. I'm all for free market economics and people making as much money as they can. But College Football has become a financial monster. Now the players can make money, too, but I don't think coach's salaries will come down to balance that out.

 

[Podgy]

Just be a school with a large endowment or one with rich donors and you'll be o.k. It's a good thing to be rich in the world of college football. Be rich. Don't be poor and you'll be able compete for championships instead of playing in Bodie's Gun and Pawn Bowl (Jimbo's A&M is but one exception). Here's an interesting article on LSU: "If one word describes college football at this juncture, it is big. The players are big. The stadiums are big. (Tiger Stadium’s capacity is 102,000.) The television contracts are very, very big. And thanks to all of that bigness and the fact that schools do not pay players, the contracts for coaches are very, very, very big." Brian Kelly’s LSU Is the Future of College Football

 

[horshack.sixpack]

It truly is bothersome that when a job of a team that has National Championship history it is perfectly acceptable to poach a coach from another team. I don't know of a solution and the reporting is generally accurate. However it is disturbing that it has become so expected that Auburn can target anyone, including in-conference rivals coaches because they have a "better" job. At least in the NFL there is some sort of compensation when these things occur like when Belicheck went to the Patriots and spurned the Jets. There should be something in place that Auburn would have to compensate, in some fashion, OM if they get Lane Kiffin. At least put a hurdle in place to make coach movement a little harder.

It would be nice if there were some loyalty among coaches and players, but it is just a business. I like for people to like, and want to be at, MSU because of all the reasons I love MSU, but that's not how it is. I think that Auburn would be on the hook for a pretty substantial buyout.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t there buyout clauses in a lot of contracts that do this exact thing?

Buyout clauses exist, but are rarely enforced for obvious reasons in poaching situations. They usually only come into play when a coach is fired without cause. Mullen’s buyout from MSU was like $5 million, UF paid us something like $400-$500k total.

The reason why they are rarely enforced is that the poaching school can just wait out the “poachee” for as long as necessary. If the school that loses their coach tries to take it to court to get their fully owed amount, it gets tied up in litigation for weeks or months and their hands are tied to hire a replacement. Can’t do anything until it gets settled. Meanwhile, the coach that is departing can continue recruiting for the new school while it gets worked out.

You also have additional complexity with certain states not even recognizing buyout clauses in poaching situations or any other non-compete agreements as part of their contract law statutes. That makes it very difficult to ever get the fully owed amount unless you have a guy who will work for almost nothing to come in as the replacement.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I realize that it is semantics. It just seems a buyout is between the coach and the school where a compensation rule would be between the two schools. Like I said I have no solution to this. It just sucks that as a B tier school you almost hope you team doesn't do too well because you will lose your coach that is bringing you success.

And to answer that where do you get the coach from? I would think you could have a conference rule to prevent head coach poaching within the conference. You can get all the coordinators you want in conference or head coaches from any out of conference school. Like the LSU hire of Brian Kelly is fine because we as the SEC are in competition with the other conferences. I just don't like the weakening of B tier SEC schools by the A tier SEC schools.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

AU's last few coaches:

Tuberville, Chizik,Malzon, Harbin
It's not like they've gotten great coaching names.
They buy better players than coaches.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Buyout clauses exist, but are rarely enforced for obvious reasons in poaching situations. They usually only come into play when a coach is fired without cause. Mullen’s buyout from MSU was like $5 million, UF paid us something like $400-$500k total.

The reason why they are rarely enforced is that the poaching school can just wait out the “poachee” for as long as necessary. If the school that loses their coach tries to take it to court to get their fully owed amount, it gets tied up in litigation for weeks or months and their hands are tied to hire a replacement. Can’t do anything until it gets settled. Meanwhile, the coach that is departing can continue recruiting for the new school while it gets worked out.

You also have additional complexity with certain states not even recognizing buyout clauses in poaching situations or any other non-compete agreements as part of their contract law statutes. That makes it very difficult to ever get the fully owed amount unless you have a guy who will work for almost nothing to come in as the replacement.

This could be nominated for bad legal takes.

A buyout clause is not a restraint of trade. It is a liquidated damages provision which is valid and enforceable in every state I am aware of. It is an estimate of the economic harm each party will face in light of early termination.

The problem arises if the buyout greatly exceeds the financial damages the school will suffer as a result of the coach leaving, in which case it might be viewed as inequitable, or even a restraint of trade. The cost of hiring a new coach rarely exceeds 6 figures, but there is the unknown damage to the program (which could actually be $0).

Also, what makes you think a school cannot hire a new coach while litigating with the old coach over his buyout? The school is not trying to force the old coach to stay. They just want their money.

Buyout clauses are negotiated downward to resolve differences and avoid litigation. In the case of a coach going to a new school, the new employer usually handles the buyout. They may provide different compensation, like a home and home series, or some other type of favor. In addition, the school losing their coach is about to poach a coach from another school, so maybe they don't want buyouts to be iron clad.

 

[Dawgg]

Does the buyout not count as compensation? I mean... I think generally, the 'poacher' pays that to the 'poached'.
Auburn would end up paying that buyout, not Lane Kiffin.

 

[Maroon13]

It truly is bothersome that when a job of a team that has National Championship history it is perfectly acceptable to poach a coach from another team. I don't know of a solution and the reporting is generally accurate. However it is disturbing that it has become so expected that Auburn can target anyone, including in-conference rivals coaches because they have a "better" job. At least in the NFL there is some sort of compensation when these things occur like when Belicheck went to the Patriots and spurned the Jets. There should be something in place that Auburn would have to compensate, in some fashion, OM if they get Lane Kiffin. At least put a hurdle in place to make coach movement a little harder.

Yep. Now I agree with this.

For example, I thought it was in poor taste for Gameday to be discussing where Deon Sanders was going next, while they were having a gameday for Jackson State.

They sat on that set in the jackson state stadium parking lot surrounding by Jackson state fans talking like it was something that will should be done.

 

[Maroon13]

another thing, for the love .... please move national signing day back to spring. So we can allow coaches to finish seasons. Also to not allow the coaching carousel to dominate college football talk during the actual season.

 

[Lawdawg.sixpack]

This could be nominated for bad legal takes.

A buyout clause is not a restraint of trade. It is a liquidated damages provision which is valid and enforceable in every state I am aware of. It is an estimate of the economic harm each party will face in light of early termination.

The problem arises if the buyout greatly exceeds the financial damages the school will suffer as a result of the coach leaving, in which case it might be viewed as inequitable, or even a restraint of trade. The cost of hiring a new coach rarely exceeds 6 figures, but there is the unknown damage to the program (which could actually be $0).

Also, what makes you think a school cannot hire a new coach while litigating with the old coach over his buyout? The school is not trying to force the old coach to stay. They just want their money.

Buyout clauses are negotiated downward to resolve differences and avoid litigation. In the case of a coach going to a new school, the new employer usually handles the buyout. They may provide different compensation, like a home and home series, or some other type of favor. In addition, the school losing their coach is about to poach a coach from another school, so maybe they don't want buyouts to be iron clad.

^^^ Plus when hiring, it may be tough to get the interest you want if you are currently suing the last person who held the position.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Does the buyout not count as compensation? I mean... I think generally, the 'poacher' pays that to the 'poached'.
Auburn would end up paying that buyout, not Lane Kiffin.

Yes. The buyout is owed by the coach, but the new school generally steps in and takes care of it. Its kind of like a signing bonus, and is probably a tax headache if it is negotiated downward.

 

[HumpDawgy]

I wish coaching contracts had a return policy.