Unfortunately today commit to coaches not the U.
That's not right but its the way it works.
The new coach comes in and many find themselves out.
Everyone has an opinion.
By Mr Flea!
Mel Tucker to MSU
- Thread starter PittFathead87
- Start date
Unfortunately today commit to coaches not the U.
That's not right but its the way it works.
The new coach comes in and many find themselves out.
Everyone has an opinion.
By Mr Flea!
Very germane to the subject as I think it was Larry's fight with Michael Spinks that began over a debate about whether non-compete clauses constitute tortious interference. I think it was their first fight. The second one stemmed from a "New Coke" vs Coke Classic argument.
He has his own bar stool in the place that they keep open when they know he's coming in and the one next to it because he always comes with a friend.
My wife was sitting two bar stools down from him and asked him if he experienced any mental health issues from boxing. He said other than losing and wanting to redo match-ups he said no? He went on to say as he got older he attempted to avoid a lot of head shots and took more body blows? Not sure how someone in his line of work does that but that's what he said.
But I think you're right again the New Coke really pi-sed him off.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I think that's the definition of indentured servitude.
The first thing they teach you in law school is that specific performance for personal service is a clearly terrible idea and that courts will never grant it. It's easy to see why:
Homeowner: "You agreed to paint my fence for $100!"
Painter: "I'm painting someone's house for $500 so I'm not doing your fence. I'll return your $100 and you can find someone else."
Homeowner: "I demand that you perform the contract as agreed."
Painter: "Ok, fine. (doesn't sand/prime fence, buys wrong paint, puts 1 coat on). Job's done."
I feel bad for Colorado but change the fact pattern and apply it to Mel Tucker. You can force him to go to practice, you can force him to coach 12 games, you can force him to recruit 85 players, but you can't force him to do it right. Once someone has decided they no longer want to work at a company, it's best for everyone to move on.
With a non compete agreement an employee could leave but not work in the industry or "for a competitor."
Usually the employee gets some level compensation if they decide to leave, but cant work for a period of time.
The intent is to discourage key employees for leaving and going to a competitor.
Most employees don't litigate this stuff because the legal cost is on their dime.
I had a non compete agreement for 20 years prior to retiring.
All key executives researchers, anyone with proprietary knowledge of products, key processes, customers, etc had to sign one or not work for the company.
It was a Fortune 500 Pharm co that we all buy stuff from and know about!
They've been in the news lately!
Funny two people with legal experience say non competes aren't worth much yet almost everyone I knew in a key spot signed one and I know of many others in Tech and other industries who are required to sign a similar agreement.
I wonder why top Fortune 500 companies spend the time and money crafting these agreements and having employees sign them. I really don't just thought I'd add that.
I guess PantherLair Posters are smarter than they are.
Last edited:
Bubba Smith? 55 years ago. (From the perspective of most people on the Lair, Bubba was one of those mastodons who once walked the earth.)'
Lorenzo White? 30 years ago.
They could have at least referenced LeVeon Bell (someone at least in recent memory).
1. Saying that a non-compete agreement isn't a realistic solution to college coaches job-hopping doesn't mean that you don't view it to be a problem.
2. I wonder what the narrative would be if Narduzzi left / retired / was fired, and Pitt had the opportunity to hire some hotshot young HC from a G5 school, but a non-compete prevented them from hiring that coach until his current contract expired.
2. I wonder what the narrative would be if Narduzzi left / retired / was fired, and Pitt had the opportunity to hire some hotshot young HC from a G5 school, but a non-compete prevented them from hiring that coach until his current contract expired.
Remember the time we PAID a settlement for a guy who was going to be fired? Cough, cough Stallings, cough, cough.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Why do the do it? Easy. Companies view everything as risk/reward. Can I ask you to agree to terms that aren't enforceable? Sure. Will they hold up? Who cares as long as you think it's written in stone or that it's too expensive to take to court. If you do take them to court? Undisclosed settlement. So long as most of their former employees buy into it, it's worth it.
That struck me as curious too. Kind of makes it sound like the Buffets are "in the lifestyle".
pittdan77
Athletic Director
That's what I got from it but I really don't want to know more.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Honesty, they do it to keep people like you in place. Just like locks keep honest people out of your house, a non-compete keeps an employee either to stay put, or risk sitting out. Trust me, nearly every non-compete that is challenged goes down. I know you love your idea...but unfortunately in the real world, and especially college coaching, it just will not work. Hail to Pitt!
Ummm...there was irony in me pulling those two names for Ron Cook. Guess you didn't get it.
I have to correct you here - because I believe what you posted is not fully accurate and in conflict with what you earlier posted regarding significant geographic and time restrictions.
I have seen numerous non competes in this area upheld as long as there was a reasonable geographic and time restriction. The most obvious situation I recall is many years ago when UPMC and AGH and later Highmark were at war in acquiring doctors. A physician could have an employment contract with a non-compete prohibiting then from practicing medicine within 50 miles of his employer for a year. Those were upheld. It didn't stop a doctor from jumping from AGH to UPMC or vice versa and doing non-clinical work for a year, but the geographic restriction was so small and the time period very reasonable that these were valid with respect to seeing actual patients.
I agree, it is highly unlikely that any widespread non compete (ie you can't coach in the midwest, or you can't take another coaching job in the Big 10) would likely not be upheld if challenged
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Were those tested in court? Just curious because a year would be pretty fast. I'll also point out that a doctor in that situation was still working with only some limitations and probably no reduction in pay, under terms they agreed to. Not sure how they could make a case for being an injured party. But yeah, I think @PITTLAW was pretty clear that there are some limited circumstances where they can work.
Just like most things with the law, almost everything is dependent upon the facts at issue. I've seen non-competes enforced where workers from NY were prohibited from working in Saudi Arabia because they were the only person (or one of a very, very small circle) in the world with this particular set of skills. The restriction was the entire world and it was upheld.
Most non-competes are not that broad. For 99% of workers, restrictions over 50 miles and longer than a year are unlikely to be upheld. There's also a mesh of different subject matter to be restricted depending upon state law. Usually those include "trade secrets" but is coaching football actually a "trade secret?" Nick Saban clearly coaches very differently than Mike Leach so I'm not sure it's feasible to argue that there's one single way to do it that needs to be protected. And even if there were, that "trade secret" came with the the Coach....it's not like Colorado gave Mel Tucker a manual about how to assemble a staff, recruit, practice, install an offense, etc. And furthermore a variety of states, chiefly California, have banned non-competes entirely or have significant restrictions on when and how they can be used.
So I don't see how a non-compete would be enforced in college football. None of the California or Oklahoma coaches would sign them, since they're per se unenforceable in those states - so that's 6 of the 55 Power 5 schools already out. Then you get the enforcement problems: 1) subject matter (who owns the knowledge of coaching football; and 2) distance restriction (is it reasonable to tell Mel Tucker he can't work 1,300 miles away, in a different conference). It would be a hard sell to a judge.
Finally, and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here. Forcing someone to work against their will presents both a significant image problem for the employer because of our terrible history with slavery and indentured servitude and severe negative ramifications for the employer. Imagine the things people would say about Colorado enforcing a non-compete against Mel Tucker but Ohio State not enforcing theirs against Jeff Hafley. And think about how little Mel Tucker would work at Colorado if they prevented him from going elsewhere. He'd mail it in and do the absolute minimum. Would recruits even go there knowing that the Coach wants to leave? It's just such a short-sighted and poor idea.
There's a lot of criticism towards Mel Tucker going on. I wonder if it will be lasting?
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...colorado-to-recruiting-the-pac-12-and-beyond/
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...colorado-to-recruiting-the-pac-12-and-beyond/
Funny there's a peripheral mention of Todd "T-Mobile" Graham in the linked article without noting his own history.
