That's a parody Twitter account I believe
Coaching Carousel (Basketball)
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.
So they stay put. It's a contract. You signed it. Deal with the consequences.
So you just want the old system with LOI and schools controlling players.
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.
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.
sacraig
- The desert
Thankfully Jerry Jones is not affiliated with the Illini.
*Strategically ignores the Jaguars...*
skyIdub
Winged Warrior
Meowboys' Ron Guenther.
Bigtex
- DFW
As a result of Jerry Jones Cowboy ownership - I am no longer a Cowboy fan.
Well, he's not available. Isiah Thomas I believe is free.
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?
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?
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).
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.
Similarly the 1974 NFL strike was related to player movement and contracts (as well as every strike since then).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
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 …
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).
Bigtex
- DFW
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.
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.
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
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:
Yeah, I think a lot of it probably depends on the program and the specifics of the NIL situation. A player may have contracts with whatever business is giving them the NIL money that forces those payments to be made. Or a program may decide (correctly I think) to convince its business-owning boosters to honor NIL commitments to players like Clark so as not to sour prospective recruits. But not every player will be so lucky, and I think the lower profile the recruit, the more likely a harsher outcome is.
This makes it sound as though proven, established players who want security are the same as developing players about to enroll in college. I think it's just as likely that a college player over-performs as underperforms. If they develop, they're the ones who will look at their long term deal and want out.
I personally don't see multi-year deals working in college sports, or if they do, as an exception. I don't see either side being happy enough with multi-year commitments. And an unhappy player isn't worth nearly as much as when they're fully bought in (pun intended?)
The point is that contracts are not stopping coaches from moving. If they're not putting buyouts on ACs why would they be putting buyouts on players.