jpfalcon09 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:09 am
Incentive and performance based extension is the way to go. You get an extra year. Want another year after that? Win seven games. Want two years? Win eight games. Want three years? Win nine games and win the East, and so on.
University should be smart too and protect themselves here and ensure any buyout without cause is minimal so we're not throwing away more cash the department doesn't already have.
He deserves one more year. Lame ducking him isn't good for optics to the team or recruits. So it's a show me year, here's what the goals are, go do it. He hasn't earned anything more than that in my book.
Great approach. But a one year extension of his contract starts AFTER he wins the bowl game.
NMSU is a bad matchup for us. If we get our asses handed to us, likely because we can't contain their QB, there is no need to talk about any extensions. Show him the door by New Years.
jpfalcon09 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:09 am
Incentive and performance based extension is the way to go. You get an extra year. Want another year after that? Win seven games. Want two years? Win eight games. Want three years? Win nine games and win the East, and so on.
University should be smart too and protect themselves here and ensure any buyout without cause is minimal so we're not throwing away more cash the department doesn't already have.
He deserves one more year. Lame ducking him isn't good for optics to the team or recruits. So it's a show me year, here's what the goals are, go do it. He hasn't earned anything more than that in my book.
Great approach. But a one year extension of his contract starts AFTER he wins the bowl game.
NMSU is a bad matchup for us. If we get our asses handed to us, likely because we can't contain their QB, there is no need to talk about any extensions. Show him the door by New Years.
While I agree in theory, that’s not going to happen. We could lose 90-0, but him getting us to a bowl game has protected him from being shown the door before next season.
BG '10
Attended more games than any responsible student should have.
Several posters have hit the nail on the head with this issue. Sure, standard operating procedure calls for a contract extension and not allowing a guy into a lame duck season. But I would venture to guess that 90% of FBS has no issues just cutting bait and paying a coach's buyout if they're unhappy a year or two into those extensions. BG cannot financially just do that, so we're not able to just "do what anybody else would do" in terms of granting an extension.
JP is probably right, extend him but do it in a way that protects the university and prepares him to be fired next year (which seems like a foregone conclusion unless we financially cripple ourselves). Allow him to save face saying he "earned an extension", without buying a diamond. A nice cubic zirconia "promise ring" should be good enough for this chick.
In the end though, I think it's going to be a fine line to try and walk and all you're doing is making a fincancial commitment/decision for PR reasons. And the more you protect the University (which MUST be the goal) the less PR BS actually comes from it. Personally I'd probably rank the potential outcomes as:
1. Let him coach his contract
2. Fire him
3. Small PURE performance extension so we can fire him next year (maybe even see if we can somehow make it cheaper to do so next year than this year).
4. Cut football and start offering scholarships for Rugby and bass fishing
5. Bulldoze the Doyt and build a commuter lounge
6. Shutter the university entirely
7. See if Loeffler wants to coach basketball instead
8. ?
9. Offer Loeffler a real contract extension tying him to us for 3+ years
It’s not just the extension that is coming which is absurd. It’s going to be the raise that comes with it. This is BGSU where it’s allow the standard to hit the floor so mediocre people can claim success.
guest44 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 2:08 pm
It’s not just the extension that is coming which is absurd. It’s going to be the raise that comes with it. This is BGSU where it’s allow the standard to hit the floor so mediocre people can claim success.
He received extra cash this year for winning five conference games ($7,500) and making it to a bowl game ($25,000). He gets another $12,500 if they win the bowl game. That's about 7-8% of his base. University is silly if they give him a raise. Make him earn it.
My guess is a multiple year extension and raise. The raise won't be like Huger where that was just robbing Frack money. You would have to believe that Briggs article was coming from the same sources who knew Moosbrugger was done.
A multi year extension is beyond reckless or ill advised....it's lunacy. We're going to be terrible next year before one more player hits the portal. We lose too much talent and we will have to train the next QB in the intricacies of our curious offense. Our OL will probably not be good because it hasn't ever been good under Loeffler. So..if we go 4-8 or 3-9 next year...what then? Do we start talking about making a change...or do we cite the cost of the buy out to keep him for another year after that?
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
Flipper wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 5:14 pm
A multi year extension is beyond reckless or ill advised....it's lunacy. We're going to be terrible next year before one more player hits the portal. We lose too much talent and we will have to train the next QB in the intricacies of our curious offense. Our OL will probably not be good because it hasn't ever been good under Loeffler. So..if we go 4-8 or 3-9 next year...what then? Do we start talking about making a change...or do we cite the cost of the buy out to keep him for another year after that?
With a new AD at the helm, I'd find it very surprising that an extension would be more than two years. He's not going to want to dig a hole right out of the gate. I think it *should* be one year, but I think it will be two years with a tiered buyout (not 100% owed).
BG '10
Attended more games than any responsible student should have.
Flipper wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 5:14 pm
A multi year extension is beyond reckless or ill advised....it's lunacy. We're going to be terrible next year before one more player hits the portal. We lose too much talent and we will have to train the next QB in the intricacies of our curious offense. Our OL will probably not be good because it hasn't ever been good under Loeffler. So..if we go 4-8 or 3-9 next year...what then? Do we start talking about making a change...or do we cite the cost of the buy out to keep him for another year after that?
Moosbrugger was fired largely for the struggles with the football program. I'd like to hope that Rodney is smart enough to communicate to DVDM that the university can't afford to tie itself down to a poor contract with a guy it seemed most were prepared to move on from before the season started.
All I care about is that any buyout is university friendly. The length of term is essentially meaningless then. BG absolutely must afford itself financial flexibility.
In my opinion the guy hasn’t “earned” anything. 6-6 with several wins against 2nd and 3rd string QB’s shows nothing. I don’t disagree the roster has gotten better, but I also do not think this was as big of a rebuilding job as it made out to be.
BG is one of the best jobs in the conference. It shouldn’t have been a 4 year “Dave Clawson” plan to get back to relevance.
I think the right thing to do would be to let him coach the bowl game and then let him go. I’m sure he’s a decent guy but he’s a bad coach. He’s had enough time…next year he isn’t going to “finish the mission.”
Honestly I’m disappointed in Jordan Strack making the statement he deserves an extension. He obviously isn’t watching weekly and loses some credibility with me by saying that multiple times.
I have to wonder if the traditional Conventional wisdom of no lame duck year and having to extend 2+ years so as “not to hurt recruiting” is a model of a bygone, pre-portal era?
If the players are free to come and go and not truly committing to a school or even coach for multiple years (especially at our level) does the conventional wisdom and thinking change?
Dayons_Den wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 8:28 pm
I have to wonder if the traditional Conventional wisdom of no lame duck year and having to extend 2+ years so as “not to hurt recruiting” is a model of a bygone, pre-portal era?
If the players are free to come and go and not truly committing to a school or even coach for multiple years (especially at our level) does the conventional wisdom and thinking change?
There are 2 coaches that I think would be great that are still out there. I'd take Jim Leonhard and Brian Hartline in an instant (DJ Durkin too but I get the push back).
I think you could float the idea to either before firing your coach. I assume that this happens all the time despite the feel of it. Both would be short term solutions on the rise. Both are in odd situations where they might jump at the chance to run a team
Dayons_Den wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 8:28 pm
I have to wonder if the traditional Conventional wisdom of no lame duck year and having to extend 2+ years so as “not to hurt recruiting” is a model of a bygone, pre-portal era?
If the players are free to come and go and not truly committing to a school or even coach for multiple years (especially at our level) does the conventional wisdom and thinking change?
You would think it should. Combine that with a past history of financially crippling contract extensions, it seems like it should be on the table. Briggs article makes me think the extension is already all but done.
Dayons_Den wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 8:28 pm
I have to wonder if the traditional Conventional wisdom of no lame duck year and having to extend 2+ years so as “not to hurt recruiting” is a model of a bygone, pre-portal era?
If the players are free to come and go and not truly committing to a school or even coach for multiple years (especially at our level) does the conventional wisdom and thinking change?
I think it's a very good point.
Similarly the portal era makes the whole, "The program was in shambles, it'll take 5 years to build this thing back up" equally as obsolete.
If our players are only going to be here for 1-3 years then it shouldn't take that long to turn over the roster and get competent players here. If half of our recruiting classes are transfers from other schools I don't buy the notion that they care about a guy's long term stability here. Hell, there could even be some kids prescient enough to realize that if the dude is gonna be gone in a year they might get a free transfer out of the deal.
