(12-31-2010 04:16 PM)uakronkid Wrote: These BCS schools are using us as a proving ground. Win at a MAC school and you can win anywhere. Then when we eventually fire our coach, we can bring you back.
We are being used and we like it.
This is the formula of the BCS. Why can't we adapt that formula and do the same thing with FCS schools becoming proving grounds for our coordinators? Flip this thing on its head.
I don't have an answer or rule for BCS coordinator vs. FCS HC hire decision, but to counterbalance the notion that the BCS, actually our MAC HCs, are using us as stepping stones to BCS HC jobs, the only answer is the buyout clause.
MAC contracts should include (they should work in concert):
1). Provide heavy incentives for things like MAC West or East champion, MAC champion, bowl games, bowl game wins, conferences wins (say 6 or more), top 25 rankings, etc.
2). Heavy but fair buyout clause (early termination) - decline in value as the contract ages.
How would they work 'in concert'?
Bad example (now), but someone like Haywood should have had enough incentives in his contract to say add 100K to his '10 salary.
Add that to a say 2 year salary buyout clause (he was in the 2nd year of his contract with MIA), and it would have incentives to keep some of these young up and coming HCs.
OR better yet, see what Boise does with their coaches and try to emulate it.
Schools like Boise, TCU, Gonzaga and Butler (hoops), etc are finding ways to keep their coaches so MAC should try as well.
MAC needs to find a way to minimize these coaches who stay for two years and then move up leaving our schools holding the bag.