I wonder how much JL was either out of touch with the fan base or didn’t think their concerns were critical enough to take for action. Some may seem small to him, but large to others. For example:
Slobbering Hog. Big to me! And I’m serious! I want it back yesterday.
Coke vs. Pepsi. I’m a Coke guy, so it’s important to me!
Razorback logo. I prefer the original logo of the sprinting razorback, not the new frontal version the UA/ JL paid big $$ for. We need to return to our roots. We have one of the most original mascots and we abandoned it. How stupid?
Concessionaire. Very important. I guess JL contracted out the concessionaire business and the execution was very faulty. Fans/ donors pay out a lot of $$ and get upset when JL/ UA can’t get even the simple things right.
Replacing the home grown executives with out of town yankees. May be it it had merit. I don’t know. Maybe the execution was faulty. I’m not privy to those details. But I do know it had a negative ripple affect within the State and with some major shareholders.
“What I’d like to look at in the future moving forward is I don’t have an understanding of how we got to the point where in the sense of losing games is not a for-cause termination. We hire coaches, regardless of what their sport is, to come in and support the mission of our athletic program, which is to educate young men or women … and to make sure they have athletic success. To me, if you fall short of that goal as a coach, that should be termination with cause. Now, we’re in an instant gratification society, where sometimes coaches are terminated when they have a winning record. So I think maybe there’s a way to set up these buyouts where if your winning percentage is .500 or above, your buyout is X, and if it’s .500 or below, your buyout is something else. But to say that you can walk away having lost a significant amount of your conference games and get a seven-figure payout to me seems like a very bad business model. That’s money that could be reinvested in the student-athletes on your campus.”
The buyout is simple. Who has the leverage? Is it the school or the coach. The more leverage the coach has, the better his buyout. To hire another Power 5 coach means the coach has the leverage. You decide going in what you can bite off and chew. That’s common sense stuff. You hire away the Tulsa coach, the buyout can be what you set it to be. You hire Jimbo Fisher (or Bret Bielema from Wisconsin, or Bobby Petrino from the Falcons), then it’s going to be a buyout that is very much protective in the eyes of the coach. The AD then has a lot of pressure on himself. This all seems common sense to me. I agree with what Hunter Yurachek said. The buyouts are out of hand. I am very sure it’s going to be difficult to change.
This is the problem when any one individual has that much control. I was all for CBB, and if he had left with a 20-20 SEC record still would not have felt he was worthy of an $11 million buyout. It’s insane. 40-0 is not worth an $11 million buyout. I liked what Hunter said his buyout would be: 50 percent. That should be the cap number for all buyouts. No more than half one’s contract, and only then with a winning record. W-L’s should be a determination of buyouts, too. Then the next thing that needs to be under control are the contracts themselves. We are paying way too much for individuals. I know it’s the going rate and I want the university to be able to pay top dollar, but these contracts have to be reeled in–they are out of control.