Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by sackman, May 6, 2009.
I don't think long term contracts are good for assistants or the head coach at this time. Hawkins's has got to be feeling the heat, patience has run out. He's got to $hit or get off the pot this year.
naw. it is not a positive. it is much harder to attract and retain quality people if you don't offer a package that is competitive in your market.
CU's assistant coaching salaries are lower than average. couple this with the fact that they cannot offer the security of a multi-year contract and you've got problems. remember that the issue isn't that someone may be asked to leave before the end of the contract... the issue is whether or not that person will have a nice safety net or not. this deters some very qualified people from coming to CU. and, it also causes some quality folks to leave... like grimes to auburn.
also, add in the fact that hawkins is still a relatively new coach in the major ball. that means he doesn't necessarily have the network of coaches that he can draw from when he needs to fill an opening. barnett could get a guy like hank to come and be the dc, even without a big contract, because of their professional relationship. hawk may not be able to draw on a big pool of guys like that.
also, add in the fact that this staff is likely perceived to be on thin ice given that they have not won in their 3 years here. asking a coach to come in without a contract is a big ask in this circumstance.
so, the net-net of it is that we likely fill the hole with someone who is not a proven performer. they may have a ton of potential, but if they are a proven commodity, they've got other options other than a 1 year, underpaid gig with a shaky staff at CU.
folks can rejoice about helfrich's departure or whatever, but we need to figure out a way to be competitive. and the current state of things makes that difficult.
The whole thing is like a snowball effect. The only thing that can turn it around is winning. Hawkins has said this is the year.
On the whole, I would definitely agree that the current situation is not preferable. My point was made with regards to the Helfrich situation exclusively.
To the point of not being able to attract quality coaches - I don't agree there. Greg Brown is considered one of the best defensive back coaches around, and he left the NFL to come here. Yeah, there are reasons that go beyond normal football stuff (family, roots, etc) but the fact remains.
Hawk has a long-term contract. And if you really think we could have a situation where the head coach went year-to-year, and compete and recruit, then you are out of your mind.
Hawk isn't going anywhere, even if we have a bad year this year. Rebuilding from Barney's clusterf*ck is a long-term project.
With the economy the way it is right now, long term assistant contracts are not a priority for the University. However, I think at some point, we as alumni and fans along with the AD should really get put a lot of pressure on university leadership to try to get this moving on capitol hill. This puts us at a distinct advantage when it comes to bringing in and retaining quality assistants, and there is no real reason to keep it the way it currently is.
I disagree. The entertainment industry, which sports is part of, are somewhat immune to this downturn. Movie receipts, for example, are on an upswing. I don't think the downturn is going to keep a multi-million dollar program, one that supports all other sports at the school, from hiring the guy they want.
The first thing to do is overturn the TABOR tax regulations and restrictions on Colorado employees contract restraints. Also, an improved economy would help. I agree that winning would be good, but until the restrictions on contracts and poor funding for higher education would do more to help the AD.
Okay, I'm a bit lost on the purpose of this regulation. I can see how it affects the coaching staffs, etc., but what is its impact on other agencies? Why was this enacted in the first place? (Laymens terms, please....I'm not a lawyer)
Wrong. It's true people still watch sports in an economic downturn, but a significant portion of football revenue comes from booster support and donations which ABSOLUTELY are affected by the economy. The movie biz is driven by advertising, product placement and ticket sales. Just because people are still buying tickets doesn't mean sports or the entertainment industry isn't affected by a weak economy.
TABOR was written by a d-bag named Douglas Bruce. A slumlord, and a bit of a racist.
The stated purpose of TABOR was to keep taxes from rising. Which, in 1992, wasn't a big problem since state taxes weren't going up. The same year TABOR was passed the voters voted down the only tax increase on the ballot, and the state legislature didn't dare try to increase taxes on their own.
The actual purpose of TABOR was to shrink government by ratcheting down taxes, fees, etc. until the state government had to stop doing things like maintaining buildings on college campuses, or paving streets, or building bridges. TABOR helped cause the fiscal train wreck after the last recession, and TABOR was finally tweaked to eliminate the ratchet effect of freezing revenues, but a lot of the little "stop government from functioning" clauses are still there. But talking about the overall features of TABOR probably belongs in the politics snakepit.
As for the football ramifications:
The "7 long-term contracts per campus" clause is actually a compromise; until 1999 there were NO long term contracts per campus. Bill McCartney was grandfathered in(his long term contract predated TABOR), but Rick Neuheisel had no long term contract, which was a real pain in the butt, as there were constant rumors that he was either leaving or getting fired.
We can argue about the entertainment dollar, but either way I don't think the economy is going stop a Division I football program from hiring the guy it wants.
The no longterm contracts affects EVERY government agency/department. Since CU receives state funding, it falls under that category. The original intent, and it's probably a good one for the vast majority of contracts, is to help minimize the damage in cronyism-issued contracts.
Why don't you stick to what's in the post and don't add in your bull $hit?
Year to year contract - what - that's something you dreamed up - it certainly was never in any of my posts. I have been on the side of Coach Mac, who said give Hawkins 4 years. Well this is it - year 4. If he has another losing season this year he's going to be in a bad situation with the fans, there will be alot of heat to show him the door. Recruiting - not enough quality players are going to sign with him, and the program will continue to fall. I hope he can back up what he's saying about winning this year. Brian Cabral is proof a quality assistant can stay employed.
Were these policies in place with Mallory & McCartney? I'm pretty sure they were with Barnett. If so, it debunks this issue to a certain degree. Not that I like the way assistant coaches contracts are currently handled. But I think they can be a little more creative in the way things are structured. Like maybe allowing for certain incentives.
I was responding directly to your post that I quoted. You said Hawk shouldn't have a long-term contract. I pointed out that he does (four years left at least). And in the context of the thread, which was about long term vs. year to year contracts, if you think he shouldn't have a long-term contract he should only have a year-to-year. In any event since you said point blank that Hawk should go if he doesn't win this year, I'm at a loss as to how you think I misrepresented what you said.
We are not firing Hawk this year, or next year, or even the year after that. The University is dead broke, and the Ath. dept. owes the University money.
And no, the fans are not losing patience, because most fans know that Barnett left behind a complete mess that you can't clean up over night. Hawk has drastically improved the talent level at CU, but most of the best players are still underclassmen. You really think we should fire Hawk before Scott, Miller, Simas, Givens, Smith, Major, Evans, Deehan, Nuckols, etc. are seniors? and do you really think we can go out and get a better coach for the lowest salary in the big 12 if we run Hawk after only four or five years? Keep spending those E-tickets in Fantasyland, dude.
this would be a myth. yeah, money is not flowing, but if hawk has another losing season, odds are good that he is toast. boosters will arrange it. ... just like w/ barnett and fairbanks and mallory...
I think he gets at least another year after the upcoming. JMHO
The first coach to be affected by the no-long-term-contracts deal was Neuheisal, as Tabor was passed during McCartney's tenure, but his long contract was grandfathered. During Barnett's tenure, the Legislature allowed each state agency to have a limited number of long-term contracts, and CU uses most of their allotment for the head coaches of the major sports.
Sorry, my bad. Should have read BuffsRising (#13) before shooting off...
I agree with you 100% the Mallory firing is the strangest of all - look at his record.
1974 5 - 6
1975 9 - 3
1976 8 - 4 we beat OU that year in Folsom
1977 7 - 3 - 1
1978 6 - 5
I was a student at CU during his tenure, and his teams weren't the best, but they were tough like Mallory. No amount of BS or sunshine pumping is going to save Hawkins if he has a losing season. If he does stay another year , it will be a year in hell. Hey, I said give him 4 years like Mac said - this is it. Time to start winning.
I graduated in 76, and when they announced Mallory was gone, I scratched my head over that decision. Didn't seam to make much sense at the time?
mallory didn't get along with some of the major boosters. and, at the time, we rarely could beat ou and nebraska. some big $ guys thought CU was just a great coach away from becoming a national power. so, these $ guys, including a guy named vickers, went to crowder and basically paid for the fairbanks hire. fairbanks was, at the time, the coach of the new england patriots. before that, he'd kicked some butt at ou. and the boosters thought the combo of nfl experience plus ou would mean that he'd be a star at CU.
mallory was viewed as a guy who couldn't take us to "next level." fairbanks did, in fact, take us to another level... the lowest level of competitiveness for CU football since i've been alive. :lol:
Fairbanks played Vicker's for a fool, he took the money and basically retired on the job at CU. Rumor was he got alot of extra perks besides a great salary like a membership at Cherry Hills.
Hmmm, so 5-7 for Hawk is "win or get off the pot", 6-5 for Mallory makes his firing "strangest of all". That after Hawk took over a team able to win 1 game his first year, Mallory a team that won 5 his first season. After Mallory had 5 seasons, Hawk 3.
I guess the line between 5 wins and 6 is a lot bigger than I would have thought. Either that, or you are just as irrationally negative as ever... :huh:
mallory had the team in the orange bowl in 76 or so. that's back when it meant something. that fact alone would be significantly different than hawk's first 3 years here. one of the other big knocks on mallory was that he wasn't recruiting as well as crowder did and that his best teams were full of crowder's recruits. ... kinda like when gb won the b12 and everyone said it had a lot to do with the skippy recruits...
even the pattern of ncaa troubles seems to recur at CU...
Separate names with a comma.