Mel Tucker to MSU
- Thread starter PittFathead87
- Start date
hmm, credible hire, good recruiter. Colo was paying him 3m. So assuming Sparty had to pay up some. But he kind of pulled a Todd Graham on Colo.
That is a good hire. Also should eliminate the stupid yinzer hot takes that said sparty would make another run at narduzzi next year.
The original offer wasn't enough and tucker turned them down.
They sweetened the deal and he signed. The question I have, is did they circle back to Narduzzi with a second, sweeter offer?
They sweetened the deal and he signed. The question I have, is did they circle back to Narduzzi with a second, sweeter offer?
Somewhat underwhelming hire. Maybe it will work out.
This is the reason college sports should include non compete clauses/agreements in coach contracts.
We hired you for x years.
If we fire you you get xxxx $.
If you leave you get either $0 or xxxx $ ( depends what you negciated) and you cant work in the same or related industry ( football coach)
until your contract expires.
You can work as a TV analyst or something like that but you cant coach until your contract expires.
The private sector does this with top people all the time.
I had to sign a non compete clause the last 20 yrs of my working career.
College football needs staff stability!
We hired you for x years.
If we fire you you get xxxx $.
If you leave you get either $0 or xxxx $ ( depends what you negciated) and you cant work in the same or related industry ( football coach)
until your contract expires.
You can work as a TV analyst or something like that but you cant coach until your contract expires.
The private sector does this with top people all the time.
I had to sign a non compete clause the last 20 yrs of my working career.
College football needs staff stability!
Who cares. Why is that even relevant? Does it make everybody feel better that if they did and he turned it down we are better loved? Good or bad, PN in his mind has finally got Pitt to where he is seeing the fruits of his labor and has put Pitt in a good position going forward. My guess is that is why he turned it down to begin with.
You're right of course.
Let's go back to talking about the Penguins, the pirates, the XFL and mark madden.
One year as a head coach at 5-7. Only in college football.
If this happened it's great news for Pitt.
If they approached Narduzzi, made a second offer, and Duzz is staying that means Pitt is his place.
Imo that's good.
That's why it matters and we should care .
Could also discuss also the recent recruits Pitt offered in football. Or, maybe discuss whether or not the incoming FR will have an impact on this incoming class.
MSU doubled his salary to get him. $5.4mil a year is a hell of a stupid tax to pay for an unproven head coach.
Just shows what desperation can do but also how much money the BIG 10 schools have both from television contexts but also gate receipts and donations
I can't imagine wanting to leave Boulder Colorado for East Lansing. But I guess an additional $2.4MM might do it.
Once you become a member of the mile high club, they can't take it away.
True.
And there will be less members since airlines are watching for potential club members and actually charging them with crimes after landing.
Back in the day they ignored it as long as you were quick and not obvious.
My wife and her best friend went on alot of Club Med and ski vacations before we were married, well even after.
They were Platinum Mile High Club members.
CU signed 24 recruits with a team ranking of 32 (not bad).
Are the recruits in play for transfer.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Are the recruits in play for transfer.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
pittdan77
Athletic Director
While non-competes are common in in the real world, they are generally disfavored by courts and are governed by state law. As a general rule, you cannot lock someone out of participating in their profession/job without significant geographic and time restrictions [and it still may not be enforceable]. To the extent this is a problem from a University athletic perspective, you just write a contract that has heavy financial penalties for breaching the contract [leaving early]. Generally speaking, most coaches would refuse to sign such an offer. I understand your point, but unfortunately the remedy you suggest would not solve the problem in most cases. Hail to Pitt!
He was committed right up until the moment that he wasn't.
He's so funny because he's simulatenously "da free market is gawd hurr durr!" but also "employees should all sign non-competes so they can't leave their companies!"
Just baffling levels of inconsistency and ignorance.
Non-competes, shwan-competes. I’m still trying to process this little gem:
My wife and her best friend went on alot of Club Med and ski vacations before we were married, well even after.
They were Platinum Mile High Club members.
Dear Mr Flea,
I'm not sure how you make your living but I reported to C suite people in a Fotune 500 Pharma Co.
I appreciate PittLaw's very informative response.
One point that PittLaw may have misunderstood was when a person signs a non compete agreement they get significant compensation to not work for a specified period usually the length of their contract if they get fired or decide to leave.
I had to sign one.
In Pharma and other companies like Hi Tech non compete agreements are common for key employees especially researchers.
Last time I looked Pharma and Tech participate in the free market.
College HC 's are key employees.
I didn't say every employee.Only key employees and executives which I'm sure would have excluded you Flea.
This would encourage hc's to stay in their jobs for the length of their contracts which equals stability.
The theory is an individual will accept the non compete payout and not challenge the agreement in court with their money.
It works for large companies so it should work for colleges.
I hope Mr Flea brain understands.
Last edited:
pittdan77
Athletic Director
In CFB, there are contract buyouts that effectively work as a barrier against losing someone. The theory is that if another school wants to poach the HC, he (but really the predatory school) will have to pony up. It's a risk for the school because, in turn, they usually have to offer a buyout in the event they want to end the contract early and fire the guy. That can go horribly wrong (see Charlie Weiss). Remember the time Pitt had to pay a settlement to the guy that was HC for a couple of days?
Everything has a price. Even your pharma or tech non-compete clause. I'd never sign one unless I was certain it was the right move and the compensation was right.
I get that but here's the difference.
Your posts are good posts.
The objective of non compete agreements is to discourage key employees from leaving.
leaving.
With a non compete the HC could leave but can't work until his or her contract expires or for the term in the non compete contract.
They get paid to sit if they're smart enough to include that in their non compete contract.
I had one like that. If I left I got paid but couldn't work for a competitor for 5 years. That's a long time and I might have trouble getting a top exec job after being out of the market for that time period.
Coach buyouts are negotiated down and the HC leaves and starts work the next day leaving one college program scrambling to keep recruits, players and coaches.
Who gets hurt?
The student athlete.
Pitt is the poster program for this remember 5 or so coaches in six years.
Last edited:
I am aware of the law and the situation [and how a non-compete works]. We are talking multi-million dollar a year contracts for college football coaches. The non-compete value would never match the new offer, or the employee would not contemplate leaving. I'd venture to say that a non-compete for a football coach may be enforceable in some states...if it is very carefully tailored, has some limited geographic scope and is short in time. I'd also venture to say that it would be tough to find a court that would enforce a 4 or 5 year ban on coaching college football for a particular coach. As for the pharma industry, trust me, non-competes are litigated and nullified on a regular basis. I respect your concept, just telling you, a non-compete will not solve the problem for college football or basketball. Hail to Pitt!
It's really simple. If Universities had the leverage, then the contracts would contain greater barriers to coaches leaving. P5 schools have tons of money they have to spend and will spend it on what they think will bring them the most success (success = donations).
Thanks!
More valuable information.
Continuous learning, it only stops when you w ant it to stop !
Meanwhile in Pittsburgh:
Local Media still is trying to decide if the announcement of the Tucker hiring by Michigan State is concrete enough evidence to convince them Narduzzi is not leaving for the job.
From the KDKA Sports Show:
Bob Pompeani: "Now that the Michigan State job has been filled, can we now accept that Pat Narduzzi will be the coach at Pitt for next year?"
Kevin Gorman: "The time was right for Narduzzi to take Michigan State job."
Andrew Filaponi: "Finally we now can be certain that Michigan State has targeted Pat Narduzzi all along".
Ron Cook: "Michigan State draws alot of fans, it just makes sense for Narduzzi to take, what in my mind, is the better job."
Pompeani: "But fellas, I mean, he is not taking the Michigan State job, they hired the Colorado Coach Mel Tucker."
Gorman: "Well Narduzzi has to get a staff together now, I wonder if he will take any assistants with him?"
Filaponi: "Didn't Tucker just say he was staying at Colorado? Has anyone actually seen a signed contract by Tucker?"
Cook: "Michigan State has played in the Rose Bowl recently and is a Big Ten School. I don't know about the rest of you, but that makes it a much better job than Pitt."
Pompeani: Come on guys, it is a done deal. It's time to admit this is not happening.
Gorman: "This has to hurt Pitt in recruiting. Has any players entered the transfer portal yet?"
Filaponi: "When I see Pat Narduzzi lead Pitt out on the field next year, I will believe he is not the coach of Michigan State."
Cook: "Bubba Smith and Lorenzo White went to Michigan State! When you have talent like that going through your school, how can Pitt compete in keeping coaches like Narduzzi."
Pompeani: You guys are not getting it. You are idiots.
Gorman: "Whoever Pitt gets to replace Narduzzi will be lucky to win 8 games next year."
Filaponi: "Can't blame a guy for moving closer to home and his roots."
Cook: "Well if I am Pitt, I look at one name, Tom Bradley."
Pompeani: That's it, I am replacing you guys next time with Mark Madden and John Steigerwald and that other dude who wanted some chick to do a 3some with his wife.
Local Media still is trying to decide if the announcement of the Tucker hiring by Michigan State is concrete enough evidence to convince them Narduzzi is not leaving for the job.
From the KDKA Sports Show:
Bob Pompeani: "Now that the Michigan State job has been filled, can we now accept that Pat Narduzzi will be the coach at Pitt for next year?"
Kevin Gorman: "The time was right for Narduzzi to take Michigan State job."
Andrew Filaponi: "Finally we now can be certain that Michigan State has targeted Pat Narduzzi all along".
Ron Cook: "Michigan State draws alot of fans, it just makes sense for Narduzzi to take, what in my mind, is the better job."
Pompeani: "But fellas, I mean, he is not taking the Michigan State job, they hired the Colorado Coach Mel Tucker."
Gorman: "Well Narduzzi has to get a staff together now, I wonder if he will take any assistants with him?"
Filaponi: "Didn't Tucker just say he was staying at Colorado? Has anyone actually seen a signed contract by Tucker?"
Cook: "Michigan State has played in the Rose Bowl recently and is a Big Ten School. I don't know about the rest of you, but that makes it a much better job than Pitt."
Pompeani: Come on guys, it is a done deal. It's time to admit this is not happening.
Gorman: "This has to hurt Pitt in recruiting. Has any players entered the transfer portal yet?"
Filaponi: "When I see Pat Narduzzi lead Pitt out on the field next year, I will believe he is not the coach of Michigan State."
Cook: "Bubba Smith and Lorenzo White went to Michigan State! When you have talent like that going through your school, how can Pitt compete in keeping coaches like Narduzzi."
Pompeani: You guys are not getting it. You are idiots.
Gorman: "Whoever Pitt gets to replace Narduzzi will be lucky to win 8 games next year."
Filaponi: "Can't blame a guy for moving closer to home and his roots."
Cook: "Well if I am Pitt, I look at one name, Tom Bradley."
Pompeani: That's it, I am replacing you guys next time with Mark Madden and John Steigerwald and that other dude who wanted some chick to do a 3some with his wife.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I would argue that if you want to keep a key employee, compensate them. It's amazing what people put up with if they're getting paid good money. A non-compete seeks to keep someone trapped, if you will, at a far lower cost than their potential market value. In coaching, the market won't allow it so it won't happen. If someone is putting you under a non compete, it's because the market allows it and you've obviously accepted it as gospel, so it worked (that's not a slight on you, it just shows how these things end up working). It doesn't mean you're not compensated well. It just means everyone in your industry accepts it as what it takes to be there.
I don't argue that athletes and schools get hurt. It's one of the reasons I don't like to see players sit when they transfer. They should have more power to move because they're not really being compensated -- not trying to start a "what's the value of a scholarship" debate but it's not like an extra 85 kids is really putting the school out if nobody was paying for those scholarships. And, the kids have the most to lose if they are trapped under a scholarship, stuck in a toxic situation, or if they're not playing/getting a good education.
The outrage at CU is justified. If you read nothing else above, please understand THIS: Stability is important to Pitt and it's exactly why Pitt will stick with Narduzzi for a while. He hasn't been awful so that's actually good enough to at least ride out his contract. When you're a school that has been a hot mess for a long time, you could do a lot worse. Imagine if Narduzzi had left and this morning it's Pitt left holding the bag.
I'm an employment attorney. I practiced privately for a number of years at a large, international, law firm, and now I work on similar issues (among many others) at a global company. I am very familiar with the state of the law on non-competes.
First, I've seen few, if any, non-competes that came with garden leave (i.e., your former employer pays you to not work during the restricted period). That is generally just not a provision that is found in US law. Some states (i.e., Washington) now require it but only if the non-compete is enforced as a result of a layoff. So if you leave of your own accord, you still don't get paid.
Second, you're incorrect on non-competes being limited to "key" employees or that employees receive significant compensation to sign a non-compete. Non-competes can be used this way, but in recent decades they have proliferated and become a way for bad companies to capture employees and depress wages. In fact, non-competes have become so ubiquitous and burdensome that many fast food restaurants have gotten busted trying to enforce non-competes against hourly workers who earn in the single digit dollars per hour, and managers who make less than $50,000 per year. These are hardly "key" employees. Other hugely profitable companies like Apple and Google have gotten caught using illegal "no-poach" agreements whereby they agreed not to hire each other's workers. This again resulted in the capture of employees and depressing of wages. It's not a conspiracy, it's a documented fact that companies engage in this behavior as a means to tie their employees down and/or depress their labor costs. My company believes that the best way to keep employees is to treat its people well and pay well. We don't use them whatsoever.
Beyond your typical ignorance with respect to these issues or the state of the law, I think your view of encouraging or requiring coaches to work to the end of their contract is misguided at best. Sure, you can force someone to work but you can't force them to work well. Do you really want the coach of your football team being forced to work somewhere he no longer wants to be for years on end? You claim to be a smart guy, for a boomer anyway, so I feel no need to explain to you why that isn't a very good idea.
Last edited:
So you like the chaos that ensues when a coach who signs a 5 yr contract leaves after one year.
Student athletes who were recruited by that coach thinking he'd be there for their tenure are now scrambling to find a new home along with assistant coaches.
Many of these coaches are State employess not private section workers and are paid with taxpayer dollars.
This isnt the dog eat dog private sector which I love and worked in all my life.
Coaches leaving prior to the expiration of their contract has alot of Negative Unintended Consequences for student athletes and the Universities that they attend.
Just use PITT football as an example!
The PITT football coaching carosel did have a negative impact on the football program and the University.
I live in Eastern PA and when I say PITT many say oh the place that had all of those football coaches they'll never be relevant in college football.
Or PITT football isn't very good they cant keep a coach. We heard that the other day in a restaurant / bar we frequent where sports and college sports are discussed! In fact Larry Holmes the boxer is a regular at the bar. In fact he was one of the people who mentioned that when we were discussing PITT vsPSU games.
Its funny what people remember isn't it!
Last edited:
I'm not an attorney. Is a non-compete agreement the part of the contracts of Ed Bozik, J. Dennis O'Connor, Scott Barnes, etc. that incented them to make Pitt non-competitive and run our programs into the ground?
Good one and I think they did sign a We Wont Be Competitive Agreement. Yes they did sign that. LOL!
Stalling signed one of those in addition to a Why Should I Coach Agreement I have a crossword puzzle to finish.
Good thinking!
Maybe you should have been an attorney?
You're right. Forcing someone to work somewhere he doesn't want to be for 4 years would have no negative consequences for the program. I'm sure he'd work really hard - go in early, stay past midnight, bust his butt working on film and recruiting - to do a good job for the employer he no longer wants to work for. You're totally right.
With respect to the kids. Those kids committed to the University of Colorado, not to Mel Tucker. They know that things change and coaches leave. It's unfortunate timing for them, but they still have a scholarship and they still get to play. If they truly hate the new coach that much, they can always transfer to play for a new coach or a new system that suits them better.
With respect to the assistant coaches, most of them will be fine. Mel Tucker will just bring them to MSU with him. Or they'll get another job elsewhere. I've never heard of an Assistant Coach who never got another job because of a coaching change.
This is not a problem unique to college football. Bosses change in the real world. Lines of business change or go away entirely due to changing technology, laws, or other factors. Jobs are outsourced to cheaper foreign competition. 21st century life is mostly nothing but constant change. Get over it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Koby Brea in the portal (and probably wishful thinking)- Latest: pitt90seven
