🏈 Mel Tucker - Mich. State: UPDATE: "We Were Hoodwinked': Inside the Final Hours of Mel Tucker as Colorado's Head Coach"

[rocknthefreeworld]

Michigan State more than doubled his $2.7 million annual pay and provided him with a $6 million staff salary pool, roughly twice what he had in Boulder.

There is the answer. I understand commitment, etc. But in the end everyone has to do what is best for themselves.

... The kids should be released from the NLI, he just recruited them. ...

Maybe they should only be able to go where that coach goes. If the coach is the reason they signed, then why should they be able to just go anywhere if he goes. Either stay with the school you recruited or go with the coach that is leaving. There is no real reason a Colorado kid should be able to go to Alabama now just because their coach went to Michigan State other than some perceived fairness thing. But kids are either signing with a school or a coach so they should be tied to at least one of them. At the same time, should coaches be able to rescind signatures of kids they wouldn't have recruited at their new school? Isn't that fair too? Or kids be able to rescind and open their recruiting because they don't want to play for the new coach? What about kids who have a year or two in and know they won't be used now (example: TE at a school where the new coach doesn't use TE)? Maybe we should just allow unrestricted transfers without penalty whenever coaching changes as a school. Imagine the mess that would cause.

 

[planomateo]

Honestly, some sort of coaching hire window would help with some of this. There is somewhat of a window in place for football coaches already, most hires happen within a certain time of the season. At the end of the day, this type of window would only be needed for a few sports. But I'm just not a fan of big government.

One major issue I have with most of this, the double standards between coaches and student athletes.

 

[TerryP]

One major issue I have with most of this, the double standards between coaches and student athletes.

Now we're circling back to an old argument: one is a professional, the other a student, so how can the standard of one be compared to another?

What really strikes me is a quick glance at the transfer portal shows more than 50 at the quarterback position alone who are looking to move on to another opportunity. Here was have both the players and a coach going against what both have said, "I'm committed." Both leave with impunity to a degree. I don't see the double standard there.

 

[TerryP]

Maybe they should only be able to go where that coach goes. If the coach is the reason they signed, then why should they be able to just go anywhere if he goes. Either stay with the school you recruited or go with the coach that is leaving. There is no real reason a Colorado kid should be able to go to Alabama now just because their coach went to Michigan State other than some perceived fairness thing.

Here's where it gets cloudy.

A player, in most situations, can't just leave one school and choose to attend another. Hypothetically, if Alabama hired a coach from Louisville after players have signed the NLI there's a good chance those players won't qualify. The Cardinal program hasn't had the same entrance/acceptance requirements as that of Bama.

Another example, if you will, is Harbaugh. How many of the players he signed at USD would be accepted at Stanford.

Matt has a good point about having a structure involved with when changes can be made but I have a hard time seeing how that would work. IF it did we could see the transition of these kids from one school to another more easily.

Just one more though to ponder...

Let's say Coach A recruits a class and decides to leave University A to go to University B. His signees are allowed to follow him. What does that leave for Coach B who takes over the position at University A? Are we now going to allow new coaches a different timeline for recruiting and signing?

Convoluted mess...no doubt about that.

 

[RTB X Bot]

 

[94 Grad]

Here's where it gets cloudy.

A player, in most situations, can't just leave one school and choose to attend another. Hypothetically, if Alabama hired a coach from Louisville after players have signed the NLI there's a good chance those players won't qualify. The Cardinal program hasn't had the same entrance/acceptance requirements as that of Bama.

Another example, if you will, is Harbaugh. How many of the players he signed at USD would be accepted at Stanford.

Matt has a good point about having a structure involved with when changes can be made but I have a hard time seeing how that would work. IF it did we could see the transition of these kids from one school to another more easily.

Just one more though to ponder...

Let's say Coach A recruits a class and decides to leave University A to go to University B. His signees are allowed to follow him. What does that leave for Coach B who takes over the position at University A? Are we now going to allow new coaches a different timeline for recruiting and signing?

Convoluted mess...no doubt about that.

Coaches and schools have negotiated deals that outline the terms and conditions where either side can terminate the contract. There is typically a cost on either way. If you don't want your coach to leave, then the school needs to negotiate harsher terms that would make it more difficult for the coach to be poached... however, this would most likely cause that coach to want to be paid more and have a higher "guaranteed" number in case he was fired. There is a balancing point somewhere between the two.

Players, sign into a similar deal although it's not negotiable. They have two options. 1. They can sign their NLI and receive a scholarship at the cost of having to sit out a year if they transfer without graduation or some waiver issued by the NCAA. or 2. They can forgo the scholarship and walk onto the program and would be able to transfer without having to sit a year.

I really don't see an issue on either of these options except in the case where a program changes coaches and moves to a different type of offense or defense that doesn't fit the actual player. I think the NCAA should allow an incoming coach to be able to release a kid from his scholarship and transfer if BOTH the kid and the coach agree on the transfer. IE the coach can't run players off if they don't want to leave and the Kids can't abandon the coach just because they don't like the system or new staff. I'm sure there are issues that would need to be fleshed out, but in general I think this would allow some "fairness" in the coaching revolving wheel.

My 2 cents are not worth much, so grain of salt here...

 

[Tidestalker]

The optics are not good even with the limited view we have of the whole picture.

If a coach moves to another job in December.
The kids should be released from the NLI, he just recruited them.
If a coach leaves after signing day.
Same response.
If a coach leaves after spring camp? In the summer? Right before the season? During the season?

I don't see a winning situation all throughout the year when it comes to fans perceptions. UNLESS it's a coach who they wanted gone in the first place.

TP this is true.... And now I'll go on to state the obvious that everyone understands but doesn't quite comprehend.

Everything has negative repercussions.... ONLINE. Just add that into the end of any sentence regarding overwhelming negativity.

Basically, if you want to find an overwhelming amount of negativity, just go online. You'll find it about ANYTHING.

I'll go out on a limb and say not 1 person will actually tell him to his face that was wrong. But on the internet the guy is the devil for getting paid!

2020.... Crazy times.

 

[94 Grad]

TP this is true.... And now I'll go on to state the obvious that everyone understands but doesn't quite comprehend.

Everything has negative repercussions.... ONLINE. Just add that into the end of any sentence regarding overwhelming negativity.

Basically, if you want to find an overwhelming amount of negativity, just go online. You'll find it about ANYTHING.

I'll go out on a limb and say not 1 person will actually tell him to his face that was wrong. But on the internet the guy is the devil for getting paid!

2020.... Crazy times.

My guess is some of his former players and former employer would say it to his face... but your point is valid and noted

 

[Tidestalker]

My guess is some of his former players and former employer would say it to his face... but your point is valid and noted

Would... But won't.

 

[footballer]

From this statement from CMT, how can you tell if he is really committed to, his school, his boosters, his players, his fans? Or is he committed to the dollar?

 

[planomateo]

From this statement from CMT, how can you tell if he is really committed to, his school, his boosters, his players, his fans? Or is he committed to the dollar?

Clearly he isn't committed to Colorado. And what if Colorado would have extended him? Would you be ok with a 2nd year coach with a 5-7 record getting a raise?

Why should a program have to spend more money on this guy?

Which brings up how poorly these contracts are written to begin with. Why should either side get to walk away without skin in the game?

And for the record, I could easily double my salary moving back to California, I could make more money in Texas vs Montana, but that's not important to me.

 

[JoseyWalesTheOutlaw]

Two coaches talking about how to Hold The Rope....give them a Call Mel

 

[footballer]

I think Colorado came out to the good all the way around., @planomateo,

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Coaches and schools have negotiated deals that outline the terms and conditions where either side can terminate the contract. There is typically a cost on either way. If you don't want your coach to leave, then the school needs to negotiate harsher terms that would make it more difficult for the coach to be poached... however, this would most likely cause that coach to want to be paid more and have a higher "guaranteed" number in case he was fired. There is a balancing point somewhere between the two.

Players, sign into a similar deal although it's not negotiable. They have two options. 1. They can sign their NLI and receive a scholarship at the cost of having to sit out a year if they transfer without graduation or some waiver issued by the NCAA. or 2. They can forgo the scholarship and walk onto the program and would be able to transfer without having to sit a year.

I really don't see an issue on either of these options except in the case where a program changes coaches and moves to a different type of offense or defense that doesn't fit the actual player. I think the NCAA should allow an incoming coach to be able to release a kid from his scholarship and transfer if BOTH the kid and the coach agree on the transfer. IE the coach can't run players off if they don't want to leave and the Kids can't abandon the coach just because they don't like the system or new staff. I'm sure there are issues that would need to be fleshed out, but in general I think this would allow some "fairness" in the coaching revolving wheel.

My 2 cents are not worth much, so grain of salt here...

Sounds fair!

 

[Bamabww]

Unless a coach is unemployed to begin with, hiring a coach, someone else’s coach, is always going to be messy.