Coach Brent Key Scenario

IEEEWreck

IEEEWreck

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
656
RonJohn said:
I am no expert, but I doubt it. The buyouts are there to protect the terms of the contract. If either party decides to bail out of the contract, the other party has some compensation for the pain and expenses. Compare it to a lease on an apartment. The lease gives a landlord assurance that they have the space occupied and give the tenant assurance that they have a place to live. If the lease has zero consequences of breaking the lease, then there are no assurances.
Click to expand...
The problem that I have is that the buyoit fundamentally does not protect the underlying consideration for GT. The buyout for us if our coach is poached by someone else is a low risk, low impact scenario and doesn't materially alter our strategic situation. It won't stop a poaching. It'd be nice, but you can't, for example, go after a higher priced coach with a few years of buyout money.

If the coach fails to deliver wins and improvement, it fundamentally ceases to offer the consideration GT is after. In fact, it substantially harms that underlying interest. Good contracts identify situations where one or both parties cease providing consideration as breaking the contract. Bad contracts name consideration in a way fundamentally misaligned with the parties interests.

We're talking about writing a lease where the tenant not paying rent doesn't break the contract.
 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,991
IEEEWreck said:
The problem that I have is that the buyoit fundamentally does not protect the underlying consideration for GT. The buyout for us if our coach is poached by someone else is a low risk, low impact scenario and doesn't materially alter our strategic situation. It won't stop a poaching. It'd be nice, but you can't, for example, go after a higher priced coach with a few years of buyout money.

If the coach fails to deliver wins and improvement, it fundamentally ceases to offer the consideration GT is after. In fact, it substantially harms that underlying interest. Good contracts identify situations where one or both parties cease providing consideration as breaking the contract. Bad contracts name consideration in a way fundamentally misaligned with the parties interests.

We're talking about writing a lease where the tenant not paying rent doesn't break the contract.
Click to expand...
I don't see it quite that way. A tenant not paying rent would be more equivalent to the HC not fulfilling the roles of HC. (i.e. not showing up for work, not meeting commitments for press/conventions/etc.) In the case of Collins, a seven year contract was probably a bad idea. Having a full contract buyout until the end of the fourth year was definitely a bad idea.

There are several reasons to have multi-year contracts and buyouts for the HC. Recruits need to believe that the person recruiting them will be around. It adds some protection to the athletic association from over-zealous boosters who demand that a coach be fired after one bad play. It gives the HC leeway to do some things even if they aren't immediately popular IF he believes that those things will lead to longer term success. You could draw up a contract with requirements for success. The problem with doing that is that a competent coach and legal team would want those requirements tied to minimum support levels from the athletic association. The athletic association can make a contract as cheap and strict as they want to, but it will greatly limit the availability of coaches willing to work here. The overall goal should be a contract that works for both sides. I think we can agree that the CGC contract did not.
 
bobongo

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,570
wrmathis said:
So many people In that thread couldn’t understand it
Click to expand...
It's ambiguous. The phrase "who currently have a winning record" could apply to either "teams" or "P-5 opponents". Also, it should read "who currently have winning records" and the mixing of singular and plural serves to add to the confusion. The only way to know which "winning record" is meant is to decipher with deductive reasoning that the phrase must refer to "P-5 opponents", because all of them have winning records while one among the "teams" does not (Georgia Tech). But you would have to look up all of the "opponents" to know that. The English language lends itself to this kind of ambiguity between modifiers of subject and predicate (although in this case there is no predicate because the tweet isn't a complete sentence).
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,912
bobongo said:
It's ambiguous. The phrase "who currently have a winning record" could apply to either "teams" or "P-5 opponents". Also, it should read "who currently have winning records" and the mixing of singular and plural serves to add to the confusion. The only way to know which "winning record" is meant is to decipher with deductive reasoning that the phrase must refer to "P-5 opponents", because all of them have winning records while one among the "teams" does not (Georgia Tech). But you would have to look up all of the "opponents" to know that. The English language lends itself to this kind of ambiguity between subject and predicate (although in this case there is no predicate because the tweet isn't a complete sentence).
Click to expand...
I dealt with a lot of foreign coworkers in my last job. When I sent emails I was very careful on not using slang expressions and was careful in my choice of words. I read it several times before sending to avoid misunderstanding. I was thanked several times by them for making policy clear to them. Emails also can seem very harsh when not intended by the sender due to no inflection. I think that happens on this board sometimes.
 

Jim Prather

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,038
There is a great exercise for understanding how e-mail (and form discussions) can be misunderstood. Read the sentence below, but put the emphasis on a different word each time. Its' amazing how the meaning of the sentence changes depending on which word you emphasize

"I know you didn't mean to kill him"
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,591
Jim Prather said:
There is a great exercise for understanding how e-mail (and form discussions) can be misunderstood. Read the sentence below, but put the emphasis on a different word each time. Its' amazing how the meaning of the sentence changes depending on which word you emphasize

"I know you didn't mean to kill him"
Click to expand...
🤯:unsure:

I’ll stick to emojis. No ambiguity in these cute little fellas.
(y)
 

CINCYMETJACKET

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,216
forensicbuzz said:
So, Duke and Pitt have winning records, so we get a tally of 2. Got it.

Yeah, that was a very poorly worded tweet. I decipher bad engineering writing every day and I still misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought the same thing and made a similar comment the first time I read it. Then I was notified how others interpreted the statement, and then understood.
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
Some more Key metrics to consider. I can't find the Defensive FEI rankings by the week, but I belive our DFEI when Collins was fired was in the 90's. Our DFEI is currently #57. I think that's the highest it's ever been in the last 3+ seasons since Collins took over for CPJ.

Our OFEI rankings rose to the 80's last week after beating Pitt, but slid back to #90 after beating Duke.

Pretty crazy how much better our defense has been...of course, the first four games of the season we had to play against the teams with OFEI of #9 (Ole Miss), #27 (Clemson), #41 (UCF). Key has faced teams with OFEIs of #56 (Pitt), #57 (Duke). Nonetheless, still an impressive feat for a team that struggled to consistently stop anyone the last 3 years.
 
bobongo

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,570
Techster said:
Some more Key metrics to consider. I can't find the Defensive FEI rankings by the week, but I belive our DFEI when Collins was fired was in the 90's. Our DFEI is currently #57. I think that's the highest it's ever been in the last 3+ seasons since Collins took over for CPJ.

Our OFEI rankings rose to the 80's last week after beating Pitt, but slid back to #90 after beating Duke.

Pretty crazy how much better our defense has been...of course, the first four games of the season we had to play against the teams with OFEI of #9 (Ole Miss), #27 (Clemson), #41 (UCF). Key has faced teams with OFEIs of #56 (Pitt), #57 (Duke). Nonetheless, still an impressive feat for a team that struggled to consistently stop anyone the last 3 years.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, don't FEI rankings take the level of opposition into account?
 
Top