His contract would have called for a buyout around $4 million. Not sure why he would take any less than that, but a pretty affordable move for us. Good payout for a nearly 70 year old.
Mainieri settles for $2.5 million buyout
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
Yep, set historic losses in just over one season of work. Made $1M last year. What a joke-we paid him $3.5M essentially to coach us into the ground.
With the right guy, I think baseball can bounce back fairly quickly.
Wonder how they got him to take 2.5? No real cause for termination of a coach. Maybe he wanted out?
Maybe his contractual buyout required him to actively look for another job, which is pretty common, but they agreed on a lower buyout with him just retiring.
Maybe he has another job lined up, LSU seems to want to bring back their old coaches right now.
That's part of it. That's the only reason for it to be negotiated down at all. I had heard his buyout was $5.1 million. Every account I've read or heard has been something different.
I have always wondered if these high paying coaches, crap the bed on purpose to hit the golden parachute. I always felt Muschamp did this on purpose his last year with the Gamecocks. I think Mainieri could have done the same thing.
USCALUMNI
USCALUMNI
Well, it's up to our leaders to not allow that to happen. Over and over again.
You'd think that a university with the #1 international business school (at one time) could get a clue about how the real world operates.
I think that happens everywhere occasionally. Brian Kelly probably did that because of friction with LSU.
Muschamp, yes, Mainieri no, IMO.
I wonder how muc h of this was Tanner nudging Mainieiri to come out of retirement and nudging Spurrier to not retire?
I’m not a contractual expert by any means, but these buyouts are pretty costly for programs across the country. Are there parameters or performance requirements for these buyouts? I know a contract is a contract, but to work a year then get 2.5 million to not work sounds like some sort of wild fantasy for me.
Muschamp is a mediocre HC as such he did not need to try and crap on the bed, as he does that naturally. His was the worst hire made by Tanner, I still don't understand why he did that.
I don't see how his taking a job that was offered to him and accepting the pay offered and then taking a discounted buyout when he wasn't doing well makes him a sleazebag.
Spurrier screwed Tanner and SC over by quitting on the team mid season. Tanner was put in a desperate position looking for a head coach for a program that was so bad, Spurrier quit mid season.
Spurrier gets far too much love for having three seasons with nice looking records but no hardware associated with those seasons. When a hall of fame coach throws up his hands and says "I give up on this dumpster fire" and walks away mid season, the job isn't exactly enticing for good coaches.
Exactly. Everyone blames Tanner for “talking Spurrier into staying” when in reality only Spurrier is at fault for staying and not following through on his commitment. . . a commitment he alone made. Some act as though Spurrier was a little boy goaded into staying too long by a domineering AD. All of a sudden, Spurrier became a manipulated wimp overnight. I don’t buy it.
Yes - Spurrier should have done 1 of 2 things:
- Tell Tanner "no - I'm done." OR
- By saying "yes, I'll stay" should have stayed for the entire season. Announcing midway through the season that he would resign at season's end would also have been acceptable.
No coach in his right mind would sign a contract that required him to win a certain number of games or else it is grounds for termination. You can incentivize winning but you can't make it a condition.
Like I've said over and over, in sports there is a winner and a loser in every game. In business its not a 1 to 1 ratio.
^ This right here is the lie that everybody believes. Do we really believe in free market capitalism or not?
Obviously, a young coach or somebody with something to prove (like Dabo in 2009 or Muschamp in 2016) would DEFINITELY sign such a contract!
For example, they could get 500k base pay plus 500k per win and whatever other huge incentives for winning big games. And that is the contract, take it or leave it, no buyouts or other BS until they are earned later.
If an unproven or disgraced coach wouldn't sign a contract like that, then they lack the confidence and many other characteristics that I would expect in a successful head coach.
People are not very adept at recognizing con artists like Muschamp and really our whole athletic department.
How many of these OJT coaches do you burn through, and how long do you give each of them to figure out how to win? If the coach turns out to be good, how long before another team offers him a bigger guaranteed contract?
We currently waste years and decades on incompetence.
If the coach turns out to be good, WE could offer them a bigger guaranteed contract ourselves.
There's really no question that what we've been doing is NOT working. Nobody gives away money like we do except maybe the government.
Realistically, you would have to give any coach two or three seasons, no matter how bad he was doing in the first year. It would be easy to go a decade without much success and the program would be crippled in recruiting because other schools could point to the revolving door and tell recruits the coach would not likely be around for more than a couple years.
Tanner was an outlier in a good way. Finding another Tanner isn't going to happen over night.
I don't think you can compare football with baseball in this situation. 12 reguler season games vs 56.