What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The Dan Hawkins contract extension

Jens1893

Club Member
Club Member
Junta Member
Is it fair to say we jumped the gun a little there?

We extended him 2 years into a five year deal after one horrible and one fairly promising season. Was there any need for the extension just 2 years in?

I don´t think anyone was truly unhappy with the extension at the time as most people seemed to think we´d continue to improve on the promise shown in 2007, but with today´s knowledge that looks like quite a bit of a **** up.
 
Is it fair to say we jumped the gun a little there?

We extended him 2 years into a five year deal after one horrible and one fairly promising season. Was there any need for the extension just 2 years in?

I don´t think anyone was truly unhappy with the extension at the time as most people seemed to think we´d continue to improve on the promise shown in 2007, but with today´s knowledge that looks like quite a bit of a **** up.

Quite true.
 
I believe the thought was that this was necessary to help with recruiting, which does make sense. :huh:
 
Is it fair to say we jumped the gun a little there?

We extended him 2 years into a five year deal after one horrible and one fairly promising season. Was there any need for the extension just 2 years in?

I don´t think anyone was truly unhappy with the extension at the time as most people seemed to think we´d continue to improve on the promise shown in 2007, but with today´s knowledge that looks like quite a bit of a **** up.

In hindsight I agree. I think we made this extension to early. Hawkins was not planning on leaving CU so extending him so soon was not being done to keep him from leaving. Or at least I don't think so. I think this was really from a recruiting stand point as mentioned earlier. It showed we had confidence in Hawkins.
 
First and foremost, let me make it clear that I was 100% for the extension at the time.

It's my recollection that Dan had been pushing Bohn not just for an extension for himself, but for his assistants (who I believe can't get extensions because of limitations posed by TABOR, if I remember correctly).

This was just after his awesome recruiting class (which included D Scott) and a close loss to Alabama in a respectable (not great, but respectable) bowl game. Hawkins said that if we wanted to continue to see results like this, he & his staff needed extensions to continue to have the credibility of being around the program long-term when talking to potential recruits.

I really don't blame Bohn for this - he's human just like us and he saw exactly what we saw. How could we not have been optimistic & encouraged by what we had seen from Hawkins at that point. Hindsight is 20/20.

I don't know what happened, nor exactly when, but Hawkins has clearly changed. Whether it's the pressure of a BCS school, academic entrance challenges, trouble at home, who knows...BUT this is not the Dan Hawkins we extended that is for sure
 
it was just 2 weeks after we'd upset WVU that this came down. What is his record SINCE the extension?
 
I don't think the mistake was the extension. It is good for recruiting and program stability. I think the problem lies in how the extension was done. When Bohn agreed to an extension, he should have said "Fine, we'll extend you and stand by you, but to cut the liability on our end, we're going to cut the buyout significantly." By extending the contract and not modifying the buy-out terms, Bohn gave Hawkins a golden parachute and took away any incentive to ensure performance. Yes, I'm sure as a football coach, Hawkins wants to win and does what he can to achieve that. However, he's under no pressure to 'win now'. Maybe Hawkins doesn't agree to an extension under those terms, but in any business, you can't put yourself in a position that makes it difficult or impossible to remove an employee who isn't performing.
 
is the extension guaranteed or does it fall under the current buyout situation?

The extension falls under the current buyout situation, which is the same or slightly increased from what it was. Something like 900k per year for the remaining years.
 
damn ill go out there and get my ass kicked for 900 k a year anybody else? My team would look a little different though, id hope Speedy and DScott were in shape. Also there would be other adjustments like putting our best players on the field.
 
it was just 2 weeks after we'd upset WVU that this came down. What is his record SINCE the extension?

The extension was SIGNED in early October, but it was approved by the Board of Regents in MAY 2008. I don´t know what the hold up in Hawkins signing it was, but it´s pretty clear the decision to extend him was made on the results of the 2007 season.
 
I don't think the mistake was the extension. It is good for recruiting and program stability. I think the problem lies in how the extension was done. When Bohn agreed to an extension, he should have said "Fine, we'll extend you and stand by you, but to cut the liability on our end, we're going to cut the buyout significantly." By extending the contract and not modifying the buy-out terms, Bohn gave Hawkins a golden parachute and took away any incentive to ensure performance. Yes, I'm sure as a football coach, Hawkins wants to win and does what he can to achieve that. However, he's under no pressure to 'win now'. Maybe Hawkins doesn't agree to an extension under those terms, but in any business, you can't put yourself in a position that makes it difficult or impossible to remove an employee who isn't performing.

Yep, it seems like CU has to pay Hawkins 850k for each year remaining on his contract if THE SCHOOL TERMINATES HIM, but if Hawkins himself decides to leave for greener pastures, his buy out is SIGNIFICANTLY less.

The contract also includes a buyout clause that would cost Hawkins $1 million "if terminated between July 1, 2008, and the day after the final game of the 2009 football season, including any bowl game . . . "

Hawkins' buyout would be reduced to $500,000 if he wants to leave after the 2009 season through Aug. 30, 2012.
 
My issue with the extension was not the extension itself, but the fact that the buyout language was not modified when the extension was granted. So in effect, they gave him a 5 year guaranteed contract and put the AD in a very similar situation they were in when it came time to part ways with Barnett.

JMO and all that.
 
My issue with the extension was not the extension itself, but the fact that the buyout language was not modified when the extension was granted. So in effect, they gave him a 5 year guaranteed contract and put the AD in a very similar situation they were in when it came time to part ways with Barnett.

JMO and all that.

That is a damn decent point.
 
My issue with the extension was not the extension itself, but the fact that the buyout language was not modified when the extension was granted. So in effect, they gave him a 5 year guaranteed contract and put the AD in a very similar situation they were in when it came time to part ways with Barnett.

JMO and all that.

You are correct. The contract could have been written in such a way as to give recruits and the assistants the security of knowing that Hawk would really have to screw up (which he has) to not be here and yet give the AD some flexibility in the case of utter collapse (which we have.)

At the time of the hiring I and I think most honest people would say that Hawk appeared to be the best candidate available and at the time of the extension everything pointed towards the program moving in the right direction, can't fault either decision.
 
It would have been self-defeating to provide an extension to show confidence in him for recruiting purposes, but structure it in a way that made it easier to fire him.
 
It would have been self-defeating to provide an extension to show confidence in him for recruiting purposes, but structure it in a way that made it easier to fire him.


It's actually a pretty common practice in college contracts. Give and take by both sides. "We'll extend you, but you have to give us a little back too in the form of a decreased buy-out" There's nothing self-defeating about it if you win.

Bohn just straight up got bent over by Hawkins agent.
 
Bohn just straight up got bent over by Hawkins agent.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think Mike Bohn is a good negotiator. In fact, I think it's his weakest area that I have seen.

Between giving away the farm on the CSU series to the Hawkins extension, Bohn has seriously underperformed in that department.
 
I accept this is part of contracts, but that has nothing to do with my point. When you make the statement that it's for recruiting - that means you are trying to impress recruits. My point is that the suggestion to offset an extension with a buyout modification works against the goal of impressing recruits.
 
I accept this is part of contracts, but that has nothing to do with my point. When you make the statement that it's for recruiting - that means you are trying to impress recruits. My point is that the suggestion to offset an extension with a buyout modification works against the goal of impressing recruits.

All you tell recruits is 'I'm under contract for the next X years. I'll be around until you are long gone'. I doubt the buyout ever comes up in conversation.
 
It would have been self-defeating to provide an extension to show confidence in him for recruiting purposes, but structure it in a way that made it easier to fire him.

I disagree. How many high school football players that are heading into college ball are going to be examining the specifics of the contract belonging to the coach recruiting them beyond how many years left on it there are? I believe that number would be somewhere around zero.
 
Is it fair to say we jumped the gun a little there?

We extended him 2 years into a five year deal after one horrible and one fairly promising season. Was there any need for the extension just 2 years in?

I don´t think anyone was truly unhappy with the extension at the time as most people seemed to think we´d continue to improve on the promise shown in 2007, but with today´s knowledge that looks like quite a bit of a **** up.

Please note: Serious and obvious posts containing statements of fact are not allowed or appreciated during the meltdown period.

Thanks for your compliance.
 
I think NU fans can relate with the whole early contract extension crap. We're still trying to dig out of that one.................:lol:
 
All you tell recruits is 'I'm under contract for the next X years. I'll be around until you are long gone'. I doubt the buyout ever comes up in conversation.

Of course the recruits don't bring it up - it's the other recruiters who tell the recruits "yeah, they put a good face on, but they made it easier to fire him."
 
I accept this is part of contracts, but that has nothing to do with my point. When you make the statement that it's for recruiting - that means you are trying to impress recruits. My point is that the suggestion to offset an extension with a buyout modification works against the goal of impressing recruits.

Yes, it makes it easier for the school to fire the coach, but if the school is close to firing the coach, recruits are going to have issues anyway and the school probably has bigger issues. If the coach is winning, there's really little chance the coach will be fired. If the coach sucks, he's generally going to be fired sooner or later depending on the buy-out. Recruits are more concerned about coaches leaving of their own accord, and that buy-out doesn't decrease.
 
Of course the recruits don't bring it up - it's the other recruiters who tell the recruits "yeah, they put a good face on, but they made it easier to fire him."

I would be surprised if that comes up. Not saying it couldn't, but it would surprise me.
 
Back
Top