Coaching Carousel (Basketball)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#126      
the juiceman cometh
jamarvelous31 said:
I just think you all are romanticizing contracts here.

68 head coaches changed jobs this offseason, so with 5 person staffs at least 340 ACs moved. So conservatively you had ~400 coaches move across 355 D1 programs.

www.espn.com

Men's college basketball coaching changes for 2024-25

An up-to-date list of every coaching hiring and firing in men's college basketball ahead of the 2024-25 season.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...
A couple differences.

First, each team has only one head coach, and a handful of assistants. Therefore a program is often willing to pay an exorbitant buyout to get the coach the head coach they want, and is sometimes willing to pay a lesser buyout for an assistant. Particularly since the pool of high level football coaches is very small. They will be less willing to pay an exorbitant (or even any) buyout for one of 85 scholarship football players on their roster, particularly when the talent pool is much bigger and is constantly being replenished.

Second, coaches have buyouts because they negotiate for them. You don't really see buyouts in professional sports in the US, but in European soccer they are pretty common. At the end of the day, they are negotiated by the players. If players want them in the contract that is fine - but like with anything they'd likely have to make concessions on some other point. And schools would have to agree to them. I don't see a problem with that.
 
#130      
jamarvelous31
the juiceman cometh said:
A couple differences.

First, each team has only one head coach, and a handful of assistants. Therefore a program is often willing to pay an exorbitant buyout to get the coach the head coach they want, and is sometimes willing to pay a lesser buyout for an assistant. Particularly since the pool of high level football coaches is very small. They will be less willing to pay an exorbitant (or even any) buyout for one of 85 scholarship football players on their roster, particularly when the talent pool is much bigger and is constantly being replenished.

Second, coaches have buyouts because they negotiate for them. You don't really see buyouts in professional sports in the US, but in European soccer they are pretty common. At the end of the day, they are negotiated by the players. If players want them in the contract that is fine - but like with anything they'd likely have to make concessions on some other point. And schools would have to agree to them. I don't see a problem with that.
Click to expand...
How big do you think these buyouts are going to be?!? They're not going to exceed the contract, so the 85th man in your example is going to have a ~1k buyout?

I hate the idea. It would further distance the haves & the have nots to cover the buy outs (could we afford our current QB&WR2?). It's also taking money out of the players pockets (and re-re-distributing it to the schools) since any offer they're going to get is going to be lowered by the cost of the buy out.
 
#131      
BretMyBeachHouse
jamarvelous31 said:
How big do you think these buyouts are going to be?!? They're not going to exceed the contract, so the 85th man in your example is going to have a ~1k buyout?

I hate the idea. It would further distance the haves & the have nots to cover the buy outs (could we afford our current QB&WR2?). It's also taking money out of the players pockets (and re-re-distributing it to the schools) since any offer they're going to get is going to be lowered by the cost of the buy out.
Click to expand...
So they stay put. It's a contract. You signed it. Deal with the consequences.
 
#133      
BretMyBeachHouse
jamarvelous31 said:
So you just want the old system with LOI and schools controlling players.
Click to expand...
Kinda like Ohtani is controlled by the Dodgers?

Right now, a player signs a LOI with a school who has no obligation to keep that player the following year. You're saying that you don't want that player to be able to sign a multi-year contract that protects his rights for future years. I want to give him that option. If he believes that he's being undervalued, he can go ahead and sign a one year deal and be a free agent after that year.

The result will be just like it is in professional sports. Some players will make the right call, some will make the wrong one. Some teams will make the right call, others will make the wrong call.
 
#134      
the juiceman cometh
jamarvelous31 said:
So you just want the old system with LOI and schools controlling players.
Click to expand...
No. Players signing contracts that fairly pay them for their services is not the old system. Not at all.

Presumably, players could also sign shorter deals. 1 year contract. 2 year contract.

But that also comes with risks. The player that signs a one-year deal and gets injured may well wish he'd signed a longer term deal.

You seem to think there are no drawbacks to players in the current system, but there are. If a player doesn't perform, or gets injured, his NIL can dry up real fast. A multi-year contract with guaranteed money is a different story. I have a feeling that in that truth there is a basis for mutually beneficial compromise.
 
#135      
sacraig
BretMyBeachHouse said:
Kinda like Ohtani is controlled by the Dodgers?

Right now, a player signs a LOI with a school who has no obligation to keep that player the following year. You're saying that you don't want that player to be able to sign a multi-year contract that protects his rights for future years. I want to give him that option. If he believes that he's being undervalued, he can go ahead and sign a one year deal and be a free agent after that year.

The result will be just like it is in professional sports. Some players will make the right call, some will make the wrong one. Some teams will make the right call, others will make the wrong call.
Click to expand...
Thankfully Jerry Jones is not affiliated with the Illini.

*Strategically ignores the Jaguars...*
 
#139      
jamarvelous31
the juiceman cometh said:
No. Players signing contracts that fairly pay them for their services is not the old system. Not at all.

Presumably, players could also sign shorter deals. 1 year contract. 2 year contract.

But that also comes with risks. The player that signs a one-year deal and gets injured may well wish he'd signed a longer term deal.

You seem to think there are no drawbacks to players in the current system, but there are. If a player doesn't perform, or gets injured, his NIL can dry up real fast. A multi-year contract with guaranteed money is a different story. I have a feeling that in that truth there is a basis for mutually beneficial compromise.
Click to expand...
What you're suggesting is mostly downside for players. And I'm not sure that the goal of limiting their ability to maximize their benefits to make it easier on coaches/athletic departments in billion dollar industries is admirable.

Besides that, you're right that income certainty is a benefit, but if a player is signing a one year deal then what are you actually solving for vs today?
 
#140      
the juiceman cometh
jamarvelous31 said:
What you're suggesting is mostly downside for players. And I'm not sure that the goal of limiting their ability to maximize their benefits to make it easier on coaches/athletic departments in billion dollar industries is admirable.

Besides that, you're right that income certainty is a benefit, but if a player is signing a one year deal then what are you actually solving for vs today?
Click to expand...
I think what we've readily seen from decades of free agency in professional sports is that, given the option, players won't sign for one-year deals. Players want the certainty of multi-year deals, usually the longer, the better.

Players get injured. Players fail to meet expectations. In the current system, those players are screwed. Yes, they have tons of flexibility. But they won't get paid.

And likely, as with any other pro sports league, this players would be unionized, and have the benefit of a negotiated CBA which would offer various kinds of protection for players' interests.

I mean, here's the thing that really makes no sense. If this system is better for the players, why didn't the players unions in any other sports try to set up something similar? How is it possible that a system that happened basically by accident, without any collective bargaining on the part of players, is better for players than those which were exhaustively negotiated by players' unions?
 
#141      
jamarvelous31
BretMyBeachHouse said:
Kinda like Ohtani is controlled by the Dodgers?

Right now, a player signs a LOI with a school who has no obligation to keep that player the following year. You're saying that you don't want that player to be able to sign a multi-year contract that protects his rights for future years. I want to give him that option. If he believes that he's being undervalued, he can go ahead and sign a one year deal and be a free agent after that year.

The result will be just like it is in professional sports. Some players will make the right call, some will make the wrong one. Some teams will make the right call, others will make the wrong call.
Click to expand...
D-1 scholarships can already be guaranteed for 4 years.

Ohtani is a hilarious example here. Him and the Dodgers gamed the luxury tax system to have him be ridiculously underpaid in the short term and then overpaid for a decade. It's the exact kind of contract shenanigans I'm talking about that I think will make any contract not under a full semi-pro league with collective bargaining mostly symbolic (and even then there will be tricks).
 
#142      
jamarvelous31
the juiceman cometh said:
I think what we've readily seen from decades of free agency in professional sports is that, given the option, players won't sign for one-year deals. Players want the certainty of multi-year deals, usually the longer, the better.

Players get injured. Players fail to meet expectations. In the current system, those players are screwed. Yes, they have tons of flexibility. But they won't get paid.

And likely, as with any other pro sports league, this players would be unionized, and have the benefit of a negotiated CBA which would offer various kinds of protection for players' interests.

I mean, here's the thing that really makes no sense. If this system is better for the players, why didn't the players unions in any other sports try to set up something similar? How is it possible that a system that happened basically by accident, without any collective bargaining on the part of players, is better for players than those which were exhaustively negotiated by players' unions?
Click to expand...
That's the thing, they did!

Owners collectively bargained it away to limit their costs. It was so valuable to Owners that it was worth the NBA locking out players for a combined 9 months between 95 and 98.
 
#143      
jamarvelous31
jamarvelous31 said:
That's the thing, they did!

Owners collectively bargained it away to limit their costs. It was so valuable to Owners that it was worth the NBA locking out players for a combined 9 months between 95 and 98.
Click to expand...
Similarly the 1974 NFL strike was related to player movement and contracts (as well as every strike since then).
 
#144      
IlliniFan42
jamarvelous31 said:
D-1 scholarships can already be guaranteed for 4 years.

Ohtani is a hilarious example here. Him and the Dodgers gamed the luxury tax system to have him be ridiculously underpaid in the short term and then overpaid for a decade. It's the exact kind of contract shenanigans I'm talking about that I think will make any contract not under a full semi-pro league with collective bargaining mostly symbolic (and even then there will be tricks).
Click to expand...
Just to be clear about Ohtani, they're gaming California's income tax, not the luxury tax. His contract is simply valued in present day terms when it comes to luxury tax, which is $46M a year, which still makes him the highest paid MLB player ever per average value.
 
#145      
jamarvelous31
IlliniFan42 said:
Just to be clear about Ohtani, they're gaming California's income tax, not the luxury tax. His contract is simply valued in present day terms when it comes to luxury tax, which is $46M a year, which still makes him the highest paid MLB player ever per average value.
Click to expand...
There's still a discount added by the league for deferrals, it should have a $70M AAV. The point stands though that contracts and buyouts are not a silver bullet here, and most of the solutions will be worse for players and better for ADs/Coaches....which seems bad to me.

www.mlbtraderumors.com

Latest On Luxury Tax Impact Of Shohei Ohtani's Contract

Two-way superstar Shohei Ohtani rocked the baseball world yesterday by agreeing to a ten-year, $700MM deal with the Dodgers. That …
www.mlbtraderumors.com www.mlbtraderumors.com
 
#146      
the juiceman cometh
jamarvelous31 said:
That's the thing, they did!

Owners collectively bargained it away to limit their costs. It was so valuable to Owners that it was worth the NBA locking out players for a combined 9 months between 95 and 98.
Click to expand...
You fundamentally misunderstand what those lockouts were about.

At no point did the NBA players union want a system in which NBA players were basically always free agents and were not paid to play basketball, where their only income would come from sponsorship deals their NBA team would help facilitate. It's crazy you think this is what happened.
 
#147      
IlliniFan42
jamarvelous31 said:
There's still a discount added by the league for deferrals, it should have a $70M AAV. The point stands though that contracts and buyouts are not a silver bullet here, and most of the solutions will be worse for players and better for ADs/Coaches....which seems bad to me.

www.mlbtraderumors.com

Latest On Luxury Tax Impact Of Shohei Ohtani's Contract

Two-way superstar Shohei Ohtani rocked the baseball world yesterday by agreeing to a ten-year, $700MM deal with the Dodgers. That …
www.mlbtraderumors.com www.mlbtraderumors.com
Click to expand...
I think the $700M was to make the contract seem bigger than it is. You can't value his contract as it's set up at $70M AAV because that's not how much it costs the Dodgers to actually employ him. They're paying him $2M annually and socking away $44M to pay him a decade later.
 
#148      
the juiceman cometh
jamarvelous31 said:
D-1 scholarships can already be guaranteed for 4 years.
Click to expand...
But the NIL money isn't. In most cases it isn't even guaranteed for any amount of time. If a player comes to campus and completely lays an egg, a team/boosters/sponsors may even pull the rug completely out from under them and welch on whatever promises got that player to campus. There really are no regulations here, and for the most part, no contractual obligations. In most circumstances the lack of guardrails favors the party with more resources (universities) not those with fewer (players).
 
#149      
Bigtex
the juiceman cometh said:
But the NIL money isn't. In most cases it isn't even guaranteed for any amount of time. If a player comes to campus and completely lays an egg, a team/boosters/sponsors may even pull the rug completely out from under them and welch on whatever promises got that player to campus. There really are no regulations here, and for the most part, no contractual obligations. In most circumstances the lack of guardrails favors the party with more resources (universities) not those with fewer (players).
Click to expand...
I think the frustration part - as reported (if accurate), S.Clark was still getting NIL money after leaving the team. Like you say, the players could experience rug pull (which in this scenario - would be appropriate) of funding.
 
#150      
grue2
jamarvelous31 said:
I just think you all are romanticizing contracts here.

68 head coaches changed jobs this offseason, so with 5 person staffs at least 340 ACs moved. So conservatively you had ~400 coaches move across 355 D1 programs.

www.espn.com

Men's college basketball coaching changes for 2024-25

An up-to-date list of every coaching hiring and firing in men's college basketball ahead of the 2024-25 season.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...

Aren't there 6 coaches per staff now? 1 HC, and 5 assistants? Also, I'm not sure what percentage of ACs have contracts with penalties for leaving, I'm guessing it is pretty small. If so, that makes the penalty clause argument moot for ACs. If we focus on HCs, and estimate a HC lasts on average 30 years (aiming high), that would be 12 retirements a year. So this is 54/355, or about a 1/6.5 movement rate. What was it for non-graduating players? 1/3? Higher?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back