Will we can Brian Gregory

[MidtownJacket]

my comments were more general, not directed at your post. It just happened to follow your post.

I agree, the extention made sense, the renegotiation, not so much. At this point, I'd tell Gregory "we can extend your contract as much as you want for recruiting, but the guaranteed money only lasts as long as what we have in place now. Your current performance is not acceptable, and if it doesn't improve next year, you'll be terminated. As long as you're making solid progress in terms of 'building the team' AND 'wins and losses' you'll have a job. Stumble and you'll be replaced. If you don't like these conditions, you're free to resign your position."

I actually think that kind of tough love could be effective - given the right set of circumstances.

 

[lv20gt]

Isn't it entirely possible that the agent negotiating for CBG just said that was a nonstarter? I mean both parties (GT and CBG) operate in a fashion to maximize their gain.

Then you tell him to pound sand.

 

[dtm1997]

Then you tell him to pound sand.

BG had no leverage unless he was going to walk away. Should've said pound sand. It's not like the buyout for existing & extended year were going to $0.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Isn't it entirely possible that the agent negotiating for CBG just said that was a nonstarter? I mean both parties (GT and CBG) operate in a fashion to maximize their gain.

At that point, I'd have offered him the opportunity to walk away from the extention discussions. "We'll just come back to this next year, then."

 

[orientalnc]

At that point, I'd have offered him the opportunity to walk away from the extention discussions. "We'll just come back to this next year, then."

So much that could have been done differently.

 

[eetech]

Here's something I wrote elsewhere. The AJC is claiming they've reviewed the contract via Freedom of Information Act. The Sports Compensation article links to an AJC article that no longer exists. Now, I'm not saying the AJC is such a reliable source, but if anyone is going to have gone about it in a journalistic, fact-based matter, it'll be them. Signs point to MBob putting us $800M-$1MM further in the hole, based on public sources. The rest of my comment about the donors taking a stand against such a stupid move is purely my speculation.

Assuming the AJC is correct (and that's a big assumption on my part), the $2.4MM buyout was a colossal mistake by Bobinski having only himself to blame. I understood & agreed with the rationale for the extension (recruiting impact, program stability), but the performance through that point did not garner BG the leverage to demand a reset of the buyout percentages.
Per the article below, had the buyout percentages just been continued, we'd be looking at a buyout of about $1.5MM-$1.6MM, a much easier pill to swallow and convince donors to pony up for compared to $2.4MM
http://sportscompensation.com/former-dayton-coach-brian-gregory-hired-by-georgia-tech/
Per the AJC article below, it would appear that Bobinski agreed to restart the buyout percentages, resulting in the aforementioned buyout amount. I recognize that we had seen some progress and hindsight is 20/20 on the past two seasons' performance, but there just doesn't seem to be a business rationale to agree to resetting the buyout until you've seen even more improved performance, in which case you're giving him a much better, much deserved extension anyway.
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2015/03/12/notes-background-on-gregory-buyout/
I guess the bottom line is that Bobinski managed to Braine the situation and has now potentially dug an even deeper hole for Georgia Tech hoops that may take another 3-5 years to climb out of.

With the AJC shift, a lot of old links have died. But thank god for the WayBack Machine (or archive.org as it is now):

http://web.archive.org/web/20110401...how-much-will-georgia-tech-pay-brian-gregory/

Note that this was apparently an MoU sent from DRad to CBG, and not an Open Records request. That being said, it is probably accurate, otherwise I'd imagine the AJC would have gotten into mucho legal trouble. So the buyout differences are as follows:

Year | Original Buyout % (on $1mm base) | Buyout % after Extension (On $1.075mm)
2011-2012 | 100% | 100%
2013 | 100% | 100%
EXTENSION
2014 | 75% | 100%
2015 | 75% | 100%
TODAY
2016 | 50% | 100%
2017 | 50% | 75%
2018 | 0% | 50%

So basically, the extension means that today we have to pay a buyout of 225% of 1.075mm (2.4mm), as opposed to the 100% of $1mm (1mm) Radanovich signed him to.

I think Radanovich signed a very good deal. No one would have been complaining if we had to pay CBG 1mm to leave today. Increasing that to 2.4mm is a whole different ball game.

So if those 2 links are accurate (the new contract details almost certainly are... not sure about the old one, though it was in the AJC and is purported to be from an email from Radanovich to CBG) we didn't just give an extension, but increased the buyout we had to pay today to nearly 2 and a half times the original.

 

[dtm1997]

@eetech Thanks for doing the work I was too lazy to do. Even with the final year at 50% buyout, the $1.5MM would've been acceptable.

 

[awbuzz]

What are the odds CBG is not fired after next season?

 

[Fatmike91]

What are the odds CBG is not fired after next season?

Coulda asked the same question about this season...

/

 

[RamblinRed]

With the AJC shift, a lot of old links have died. But thank god for the WayBack Machine (or archive.org as it is now):

http://web.archive.org/web/20110401...how-much-will-georgia-tech-pay-brian-gregory/

Note that this was apparently an MoU sent from DRad to CBG, and not an Open Records request. That being said, it is probably accurate, otherwise I'd imagine the AJC would have gotten into mucho legal trouble. So the buyout differences are as follows:

Year | Original Buyout % (on $1mm base) | Buyout % after Extension (On $1.075mm)
2011-2012 | 100% | 100%
2013 | 100% | 100%
EXTENSION
2014 | 75% | 100%
2015 | 75% | 100%
TODAY
2016 | 50% | 100%
2017 | 50% | 75%
2018 | 0% | 50%

So basically, the extension means that today we have to pay a buyout of 225% of 1.075mm (2.4mm), as opposed to the 100% of $1mm (1mm) Radanovich signed him to.

I think Radanovich signed a very good deal. No one would have been complaining if we had to pay CBG 1mm to leave today. Increasing that to 2.4mm is a whole different ball game.

So if those 2 links are accurate (the new contract details almost certainly are... not sure about the old one, though it was in the AJC and is purported to be from an email from Radanovich to CBG) we didn't just give an extension, but increased the buyout we had to pay today to nearly 2 and a half times the original.

Thank you for tracking this down. At some point after this they had a pdf of the actual contract, but this is largely the same.
The change under the extension is just beyond unacceptable imo. MBob was basically guaranteeing 5 yrs before he could legitmately make a change. They he decided after 4 yrs he needed to and found out he couldn't.

 

[eetech]

I do want to add, in all fairness to MBob, that the original contract we signed with CBG did have a provision for the contract to be reviewed at the end of the 2012-2013 season. So he was obligated to do something then.

I think the 1 year extension and salary increase was fine, if as @dtm1997 suggested, we had simply retained the existing buyout percentages and added another year at 50%.

But that is water under the bridge for me now. It's past midnight and I won't be venting about this anymore. I will be genuinely rooting for CBG to succeed next year and hopefully he can snag Jaylen Brown this off season and give us an opportunity to make it to the big dance next March.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

No, but CBG can!

 

[AE 87]

I just listened to March MBob on 680, Wed before decision. When asked if money would affect decision, he mentioned also the impact of raising more money for scholarship athletes all P5 schools are doing, money not budgeted.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

When Cremins got his walking papers I pretty much lost interest in bball. Haven't really followed it much since. But from what I have observed...I haven't been very surprised with the direction the program has gone...with one exception...hewitts championship run. But the program was in complete shambles when Hewitt finally got the boot. Did everyone really expect CBG to be able to turn it around with a flick of a switch? In the ACC? Delusional take imo. I'm not saying CBG is the answer. But expecting to get elite again quickly, from how far the program was allowed to deteriorate...I just don't see it. How many coaches are out there capable of bringing in McDonalds All Americas to Tech? That's what it will take. And I honestly have not a clue as to the answer to that question.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I think we all know, when we are honest with ourselves, that our expectations are exceedingly high for the program. I think that is the kind of attitude that MaTech instills in the gunners who come, succeed and get out of the Institute. We are driven, we expect results, and we work hard to ensure we get them.

That is goodness, and frankly a large part of why I enjoyed my time at the Institute. That said, when unrealistic expectations begin to take hold we have a problem. I think we need to see steady and continual improvement, but still believe people are not evaluating the program as a whole. CBG came in and focused on defense first (as that was his philosphy's foundation) and academics. Two decisions - in the abstract - everyone who is a Tech fan would likely support. He has made strides - some larger than others, but progress all the same - in those two areas. We just want more.

It is ok to have high goals but they have to be tempered with a realistic understanding of the facts on the ground. I think when we look back on the CBG years people will see he came in and worked hard every day to get the team better than they were the day before. He has not been able to get us to a place (roster wise or record wise) that people are happy with, but I think he is not happy yet either. Given the financial situation we are in, I still think he is the right guy for the job.

As always, we should continue to evaluate progress along the continuum, and reevaluate as necessary. I am just not ready to close the book on him yet. I see more fire and passion in the team last year than I have since 2006 or so. That is coaching too. You can tell a lot about a coach by how his teams play when they're down and these guys still fight and bleed and dive and hustle for eachother, the coach, and the school.

/rant.

 

[awbuzz]

Regarding the OP. Yes, most likely at some time in the future, it will happen.

As for this thread... can it be locked down and allowed to fade away?

 

[dtm1997]

Regarding the OP. Yes, most likely at some time in the future, it will happen.

As for this thread... can it be locked down and allowed to fade away?

+1

 

[gt69hjcollins]

I think we all know, when we are honest with ourselves, that our expectations are exceedingly high for the program. I think that is the kind of attitude that MaTech instills in the gunners who come, succeed and get out of the Institute. We are driven, we expect results, and we work hard to ensure we get them.

That is goodness, and frankly a large part of why I enjoyed my time at the Institute. That said, when unrealistic expectations begin to take hold we have a problem. I think we need to see steady and continual improvement, but still believe people are not evaluating the program as a whole. CBG came in and focused on defense first (as that was his philosphy's foundation) and academics. Two decisions - in the abstract - everyone who is a Tech fan would likely support. He has made strides - some larger than others, but progress all the same - in those two areas. We just want more.

It is ok to have high goals but they have to be tempered with a realistic understanding of the facts on the ground. I think when we look back on the CBG years people will see he came in and worked hard every day to get the team better than they were the day before. He has not been able to get us to a place (roster wise or record wise) that people are happy with, but I think he is not happy yet either. Given the financial situation we are in, I still think he is the right guy for the job.

As always, we should continue to evaluate progress along the continuum, and reevaluate as necessary. I am just not ready to close the book on him yet. I see more fire and passion in the team last year than I have since 2006 or so. That is coaching too. You can tell a lot about a coach by how his teams play when they're down and these guys still fight and bleed and dive and hustle for eachother, the coach, and the school.

/rant.

CBG has done a great job of representing Georgia Tech and I like his philosophy on team work and defense. I agree with you that the team has shown progress. I also agree that we should not close the book on him. If he does in fact make it, he will do it the right way!

 

[RamblinRed]

My last thought on last season before completely turning to this upcoming one.
If the last 2 AD's had not changed the buyout provisions of basketball contracts (and if the Board hadn't approved those changes) - GT would have been looking at a radically different financial picture in March.
The way the buyouts are structured now Hewitt was due 4 more years at 900K - $3.6M. Gregory had 3 more years totalling $2.4M. $6M total
If no changes were made Hewitt would have been owed 1 year at $1.4M and Gregory 2 yrs at just over $1M. So a little under $2.5M.

That was likely the difference between making a coaching change and not making one.