All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
- Thread starter cyclonestate
- Start date
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
I disagree with this part. The contract does distinguish between minor and major infractions. In fact it doesn't even say anything about the type of infraction, just the resulting penalty. Any penalty that precluded us from having a scholarship available or being allowed to play in the post season is in fact a major infraction IMO.
The contract as you point out pays similar money, and I disagree that 6 years was a long time. The problem has been the interpretation of the contract that has made 6 years into 9 instead of the 7 it should be.
I disagree with this part. The contract does distinguish between minor and major infractions. In fact it doesn't even say anything about the type of infraction, just the resulting penalty. Any penalty that precluded us from having a scholarship available or being allowed to play in the post season is in fact a major infraction IMO.
The contract as you point out pays similar money, and I disagree that 6 years was a long time. The problem has been the interpretation of the contract that has made 6 years into 9 instead of the 7 it should be.
Re: McDermott's Magic Extension: Last Time, I Promise
I agree generally.
But, just to be clear. My original post wasn't an attempt to find a way to get rid of McDermott. Rather, it was simply to call attention to the myriad ways Pollard has botched this whole deal from the word go.
I agree generally.
But, just to be clear. My original post wasn't an attempt to find a way to get rid of McDermott. Rather, it was simply to call attention to the myriad ways Pollard has botched this whole deal from the word go.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
I think that's generally the case, but not always. And when you're talking about giving someone anywhere from $500,000-$800,000 based on the language, I think another level of specificity is called for.
I think that's generally the case, but not always. And when you're talking about giving someone anywhere from $500,000-$800,000 based on the language, I think another level of specificity is called for.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
vmpplayer- Thanks for the info. It would appear that some (maybe a lot) of the apr problem stemmed from so many players leaving when Morgan was canned. That can hardly be blamed on Morgan, and may reflect on GMac for being unable to get many players to stay. And again it's been posted that the team gpa improved under Morgan. If that is correct, I'd call that progress in the right direction. How does our apr sit under GMac with so many players leaving? Somebody posted that we have the highest turnover/lack of retention rate of any school in the Big 12.
vmpplayer- Thanks for the info. It would appear that some (maybe a lot) of the apr problem stemmed from so many players leaving when Morgan was canned. That can hardly be blamed on Morgan, and may reflect on GMac for being unable to get many players to stay. And again it's been posted that the team gpa improved under Morgan. If that is correct, I'd call that progress in the right direction. How does our apr sit under GMac with so many players leaving? Somebody posted that we have the highest turnover/lack of retention rate of any school in the Big 12.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
All in all our inability to pay coaches the going rate is what drove this contract. A prime example is Iowa paying Lick $1.2/ year for 7 years. Travis Ford got $1.3 for seven years. Mike Anderson $1.3 for seven years. Gmac over 9 years at $755K is still less than what Lick gets over 7. So in the long haul comparative to what our competitiors pay we are at or ahead of the game. The biggest difference is time.
Mac at $755K for eight years is about the same as any coach at $1.2 for five. $1.2 million is average for BCS conference schools. So even at six years we were under paying. Quite honestly, from a financial standpoint GMac was stupid. You should always take the pay up front as you can invest that money and increase it.
Then you look at what kind of penalties may be applied and how that affects recruiting and the ability to produce APR not only affect schollies but also affected who we could recruit. So they are two separate issues just like they are listed in the contract.
The more time was to compensate for less money. That is it. Nothing to do with anything else. You address the fact that we were paying far less with an added year. That guarantees the coach Money.
All in all our inability to pay coaches the going rate is what drove this contract. A prime example is Iowa paying Lick $1.2/ year for 7 years. Travis Ford got $1.3 for seven years. Mike Anderson $1.3 for seven years. Gmac over 9 years at $755K is still less than what Lick gets over 7. So in the long haul comparative to what our competitiors pay we are at or ahead of the game. The biggest difference is time.
Mac at $755K for eight years is about the same as any coach at $1.2 for five. $1.2 million is average for BCS conference schools. So even at six years we were under paying. Quite honestly, from a financial standpoint GMac was stupid. You should always take the pay up front as you can invest that money and increase it.
Then you look at what kind of penalties may be applied and how that affects recruiting and the ability to produce APR not only affect schollies but also affected who we could recruit. So they are two separate issues just like they are listed in the contract.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
Of all the issues I have with the contract, the initial length is not one of them. I think 6-8 years is more the norm than the exception. I'm totally fine with the term of the contract. I do believe, however, the language leaves a little to be desired.
Of all the issues I have with the contract, the initial length is not one of them. I think 6-8 years is more the norm than the exception. I'm totally fine with the term of the contract. I do believe, however, the language leaves a little to be desired.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
- So we are competing with Nebbi and CU in basketball? If so great. We swept Nebbie and split with CU. In short,we are getting what we paid for
- It distinguished between major and minor infractions based on the loss of a scholarship. The loss of a scholarship signifies a major infraction
- Long term we are financially no worse off than the average contract of 5 years at $1.2 million. It just allowed us to spread the payment out over a longer period
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
Perhaps, but I don't think the language is all that unspecific. I think Jiri's situation clearly does not qualify for it as it was a 6 game suspension. I think the only thing not clear is whether the option to take both scholarships in 1 year instead of 2 changes anything.
Here's an article from gocyclones.com that says at the bottom he only lost 6 games.
Go Cyclones - In Control: Jiri Hubalek hopes college lessons lead to professional success
So that didn't really do anything with McDs contract, and I don't think that's an interpretation, that is flat out what the contract says.
If I write you a contract that says I'll give you $20 to mow my lawn, and then you mow my lawn and trim a pine tree on my property I'm not going to pay you for having cut the pine tree. A lot of people are arguing that the contract was dumb or lacked specificity. In my opinion the contract is clear and the only thing that is baffling is the Associate AD saying it's good until 2015. It'd be like me saying I owe you 100 bucks for mowing the lawn after you signed the contract for 20. If the Ath Dept had come out and said it's good until 2013, no one would question it or look at that clause and say it's not specific. The ONLY confusion is from the 3 years which have been cited in less than formal capacities.
Perhaps, but I don't think the language is all that unspecific. I think Jiri's situation clearly does not qualify for it as it was a 6 game suspension. I think the only thing not clear is whether the option to take both scholarships in 1 year instead of 2 changes anything.
Here's an article from gocyclones.com that says at the bottom he only lost 6 games.
Go Cyclones - In Control: Jiri Hubalek hopes college lessons lead to professional success
So that didn't really do anything with McDs contract, and I don't think that's an interpretation, that is flat out what the contract says.
If I write you a contract that says I'll give you $20 to mow my lawn, and then you mow my lawn and trim a pine tree on my property I'm not going to pay you for having cut the pine tree. A lot of people are arguing that the contract was dumb or lacked specificity. In my opinion the contract is clear and the only thing that is baffling is the Associate AD saying it's good until 2015. It'd be like me saying I owe you 100 bucks for mowing the lawn after you signed the contract for 20. If the Ath Dept had come out and said it's good until 2013, no one would question it or look at that clause and say it's not specific. The ONLY confusion is from the 3 years which have been cited in less than formal capacities.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
Good info. I wonder of the APR schollies were supposed to be spread out over two years but ISU chose to take them in one. So we lost a scholly in 06 due to Jiri, 07 and 08 due to APR but ISU chose to clump them into one year. That would contractually lead to three years extra for GMac
Good info. I wonder of the APR schollies were supposed to be spread out over two years but ISU chose to take them in one. So we lost a scholly in 06 due to Jiri, 07 and 08 due to APR but ISU chose to clump them into one year. That would contractually lead to three years extra for GMac
Last edited:
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
Okay, I agree wholeheartedly.
My only point with the specificity was a contingent one I guess. If you honestly think that the contract actually does call for 3 years worth of extensions, then language was poorly drafted.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone can honestly say, after actually reading the provision, that the contract calls for three years of automatic extensions.
Okay, I agree wholeheartedly.
My only point with the specificity was a contingent one I guess. If you honestly think that the contract actually does call for 3 years worth of extensions, then language was poorly drafted.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone can honestly say, after actually reading the provision, that the contract calls for three years of automatic extensions.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
Yea, we're on pretty much the same page then. I was just looking at it from the opposite direction.
Yea, we're on pretty much the same page then. I was just looking at it from the opposite direction.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
To an extent...Carr, Stinson, and Blalock were already out the door and rumors indicated that Taggart was iffy. One could argue that Stinson and Blalock knew what was coming but they did announce 3 days before the firing, I think. We'll probably never know for sure with Taggart. Evanovich may have been gone to since he wasn't getting any playing time.
To an extent...Carr, Stinson, and Blalock were already out the door and rumors indicated that Taggart was iffy. One could argue that Stinson and Blalock knew what was coming but they did announce 3 days before the firing, I think. We'll probably never know for sure with Taggart. Evanovich may have been gone to since he wasn't getting any playing time.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
It has been confirmed that we lost a schollie due to Jiri's issue. So it is a loss of a schollie.
It has been confirmed that we lost a schollie due to Jiri's issue. So it is a loss of a schollie.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
khaal53- You are right, we may never know. But Stinson did make a remark when interviewed for the Energy a few months ago about how good that team could have been if everyone had returned. I think we can assume that it was clear to the players well before the end of the season that Morgan might be canned, and another possibility is that Stinson and Blaylock said they were going to go pro in an effort to influence JP into not firing Morgan. Or they may just have wanted to test the waters with the option to return, depending on who was coaching. Like you said, we may never know.
khaal53- You are right, we may never know. But Stinson did make a remark when interviewed for the Energy a few months ago about how good that team could have been if everyone had returned. I think we can assume that it was clear to the players well before the end of the season that Morgan might be canned, and another possibility is that Stinson and Blaylock said they were going to go pro in an effort to influence JP into not firing Morgan. Or they may just have wanted to test the waters with the option to return, depending on who was coaching. Like you said, we may never know.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
My guess is McD could have decided to spread the three schollies over three years which would trigger a three year extension.
Probably what happened was he walked into JP's office and said that he is entitled to three years but he would rather take the losses all at once (or at least over two years). JP said that was fine as there is no reason to handicap the program just for McD to trigger the three year extension. Thus, McD and JP probably have an unwritten mutual understanding that he is entitled to three extra years even though the terms of the contact might say differently. This understanding should have been made explicit in a new contract that clarified the situation but for whatever reason it hasn't been.
just my guess.
My guess is McD could have decided to spread the three schollies over three years which would trigger a three year extension.
Probably what happened was he walked into JP's office and said that he is entitled to three years but he would rather take the losses all at once (or at least over two years). JP said that was fine as there is no reason to handicap the program just for McD to trigger the three year extension. Thus, McD and JP probably have an unwritten mutual understanding that he is entitled to three extra years even though the terms of the contact might say differently. This understanding should have been made explicit in a new contract that clarified the situation but for whatever reason it hasn't been.
just my guess.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
This thread has nothing to do whether WM was a good coach or not and I would prefer it stay that way. take it somewhere else please. Also, learn to spell Blalock.
This thread has nothing to do whether WM was a good coach or not and I would prefer it stay that way. take it somewhere else please. Also, learn to spell Blalock.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
Where? I have found nothing to indicate that. Not saying we didn't, but I can find no source that says we had anything happen but a 6 game suspension, and there are usually news articles about that sort of thing.
Where? I have found nothing to indicate that. Not saying we didn't, but I can find no source that says we had anything happen but a 6 game suspension, and there are usually news articles about that sort of thing.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
I'm trying to find it myself. I did find an article that said we voluntarily took away one scholarship.
I do believe the six game suspension was Juri's punishment and Iowa State's punishment (if any) was a separate matter.
I'm trying to find it myself. I did find an article that said we voluntarily took away one scholarship.
I do believe the six game suspension was Juri's punishment and Iowa State's punishment (if any) was a separate matter.
re: All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott
Not to be curt, but it's been well established that ISU took the non-Jiri scholarship hit in one year.
If you're scenario is correct, then JP acted in a manner clearly contrary to the purpose of the contractual language.
Not to be curt, but it's been well established that ISU took the non-Jiri scholarship hit in one year.
If you're scenario is correct, then JP acted in a manner clearly contrary to the purpose of the contractual language.
