(11-01-2016 10:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 08:57 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 07:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:38 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I think Tyner/Granato should be getting significant time (at least two quarters, but probably more)to allow the new coach to have some game film on them. A few plays here and there isn't going to cut it.

Hypothetical: Suppose the AD ordered DB to do precisely that. Suppose he refused. Would that constitute insubordination? Would it be grounds for termination with cause? Would it create any negotiating leverage to reduce the buyout? I doubt it, but I haven't seen his contract.

Fair point. In that case, regardless of whether it is legaly defined as insubordination in his contract, I would assume that Bailiff is financially incentivized to continue his tenure as coach (assuming his buyout money if he was fired today is less than the sum of his salary for last four games and his buyout as a result of being terminated at end of season). Therefore, I could see a scenario where Karlgaard allows him to stay on through end of season (better financial situation for Bailiff) in return for Bailiff playing the younger QBs (benefit for future coach). But obviously just supposition on my part regarding that.

I don't know where some of you guys are dreaming this stuff up. JK and no other AD worth his salt is going to dictate to a head coach who plays or even who his assistant coaches are. Rather, he holds the head coach accountable. Period.

And just how has DB been held accountable?

(11-01-2016 10:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I don't know where some of you guys are dreaming this stuff up. JK and no other AD worth his salt is going to dictate to a head coach who plays or even who his assistant coaches are. Rather, he holds the head coach accountable. Period.

Walt, I agree that is certainly the normal procedure. These are not normal times. I haven't seen Bailiff's contract. It might preclude such actions by the AD. Then again, it might not. Without seeing the contract, I have no idea whether this could be done, or what the ramifications could be. But I was just wondering.

I seem to remember that about 15 - 16 months ago we got access to or bought a system that allowed the QB to "visualize" the field, learn from it, and make better decisions. It didn't seem to work well last year and, again, not this year. I know that there are variables (injuries, etc.) that can affect the performance, but it doesn't seen to be beneficial.

Can anyone expound on why?

(11-01-2016 10:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 08:57 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 07:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:38 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I think Tyner/Granato should be getting significant time (at least two quarters, but probably more)to allow the new coach to have some game film on them. A few plays here and there isn't going to cut it.

Hypothetical: Suppose the AD ordered DB to do precisely that. Suppose he refused. Would that constitute insubordination? Would it be grounds for termination with cause? Would it create any negotiating leverage to reduce the buyout? I doubt it, but I haven't seen his contract.

Fair point. In that case, regardless of whether it is legaly defined as insubordination in his contract, I would assume that Bailiff is financially incentivized to continue his tenure as coach (assuming his buyout money if he was fired today is less than the sum of his salary for last four games and his buyout as a result of being terminated at end of season). Therefore, I could see a scenario where Karlgaard allows him to stay on through end of season (better financial situation for Bailiff) in return for Bailiff playing the younger QBs (benefit for future coach). But obviously just supposition on my part regarding that.

I don't know where some of you guys are dreaming this stuff up. JK and no other AD worth his salt is going to dictate to a head coach who plays or even who his assistant coaches are. Rather, he holds the head coach accountable. Period.

Exactly.

(11-01-2016 11:17 PM)grOWLer Wrote:  I seem to remember that about 15 - 16 months ago we got access to or bought a system that allowed the QB to "visualize" the field, learn from it, and make better decisions. It didn't seem to work well last year and, again, not this year. I know that there are variables (injuries, etc.) that can affect the performance, but it doesn't seen to be beneficial.

Can anyone expound on why?

Our unconventional coaching

(11-02-2016 12:46 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:17 PM)grOWLer Wrote:  I seem to remember that about 15 - 16 months ago we got access to or bought a system that allowed the QB to "visualize" the field, learn from it, and make better decisions. It didn't seem to work well last year and, again, not this year. I know that there are variables (injuries, etc.) that can affect the performance, but it doesn't seen to be beneficial.

Can anyone expound on why?

Our unconventional coaching

I have wondered the same thing. Best I can come up with is that while JK believed it would be beneficial the current staff isn't convinced. During the Patterson open house I asked where the STRIVR set up was and was told it was in a room upstairs.....sort of smacks of "up in the attic".

(11-02-2016 08:26 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 12:46 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:17 PM)grOWLer Wrote:  I seem to remember that about 15 - 16 months ago we got access to or bought a system that allowed the QB to "visualize" the field, learn from it, and make better decisions. It didn't seem to work well last year and, again, not this year. I know that there are variables (injuries, etc.) that can affect the performance, but it doesn't seen to be beneficial.

Can anyone expound on why?

Our unconventional coaching

I have wondered the same thing. Best I can come up with is that while JK believed it would be beneficial the current staff isn't convinced. During the Patterson open house I asked where the STRIVR set up was and was told it was in a room upstairs.....sort of smacks of "up in the attic".

Actually, Tiki, I saw it up and running when I was given the tour during Homecoming Week. It is, in fact, in a room upstairs, along with the various coaches' offices and rooms for each position unti (e.g., OL, DL, LB, secondary, RBs, receivers, QBs)!

(11-01-2016 07:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:38 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I think Tyner/Granato should be getting significant time (at least two quarters, but probably more)to allow the new coach to have some game film on them. A few plays here and there isn't going to cut it.

Hypothetical: Suppose the AD ordered DB to do precisely that. Suppose he refused. Would that constitute insubordination? Would it be grounds for termination with cause? Would it create any negotiating leverage to reduce the buyout? I doubt it, but I haven't seen his contract.

Here's another Hypothetical: Suppose the same AD ordered DB to do precisely that. Suppose he (DB) complied. And then suppose that the AD tried to fire DB at the end of the season for poor job performance because Rice only won a single game in 2016. Did the AD lay the grounds for a lawsuit that would result in DB being paid the full salary for the remaining years of the contract plus some additional compensation for damages to his reputation?

I'd submit that accountability - to the extent that it exists - is a double-edged sword (noting a general lack of legal knowledge on my part).

(11-03-2016 03:49 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 07:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:38 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I think Tyner/Granato should be getting significant time (at least two quarters, but probably more)to allow the new coach to have some game film on them. A few plays here and there isn't going to cut it.

Hypothetical: Suppose the AD ordered DB to do precisely that. Suppose he refused. Would that constitute insubordination? Would it be grounds for termination with cause? Would it create any negotiating leverage to reduce the buyout? I doubt it, but I haven't seen his contract.

Here's another Hypothetical: Suppose the same AD ordered DB to do precisely that. Suppose he (DB) complied. And then suppose that the AD tried to fire DB at the end of the season for poor job performance because Rice only won a single game in 2016. Did the AD lay the grounds for a lawsuit that would result in DB being paid the full salary for the remaining years of the contract plus some additional compensation for damages to his reputation?

I'd submit that accountability - to the extent that it exists - is a double-edged sword (noting a general lack of legal knowledge on my part).

Go back and read the original post. The options were 1) get fired immediately or 2) keeps your job till this season is done. Your hypothetical does fit the original scenario. He's gone either way. Just negotiating when and how, not if.