With everything that is happening right now. I was curious how contacts work. A coach can sign a 5yr contact, but just leave and maybe the school pays some buyout. But if he sucks shlt and is fired they still get paid. Shouldn't there be more of an issue for a coach to just up and leave that easy? If he's in a contract could a school right it? Or is that the buyout? If it's the buyout, why wouldn't every G5 make the buyout super high? Just curious. Thanks guys.

If a coach signs a 5 year contract that pays him $1 million per year and he voluntarily leaves or the school fires him without cause during that term, then the contract has been breached by one of the parties. In some contracts the parties agree to an amount of damages for a breach (called liquidated damages). This makes the non breaching party whole for the damage caused by the breaching party.

If Odom leaves, he is breaching the contract and he and usu have agreed on a damages value for that breach based upon the time remaining on his contract and salary. Odom has to pay that to usu, not south Florida (though south Florida may reimburse him through his new contract).

Because this provision is part of the negotiation, market forces will limit it. Schools aren’t going to pay a coach in the above example liquidated damages of $20 million when the whole contract was $5 million and no coach wants to make himself impossible to hire due to a huge buyout so it’s usually some percentage of the remaining contract balance. It is also the case that courts look unfavorably on contracts with liquidated damages provisions that are effectively a penalty. In other words, does the buyout amount reflect the damage done to usu by Odom if he leaves or is it so high as to be a punishment should he leave far above any actual damage done to usu? This is another reason these are usually limited based on contract value.

If Odom were to say I will sign an extension if you remove the buyout so I’m easy to hire, usu could agree to that (which I think they did with Craig smith). We could also say we’ll give you a big raise but your buyout has to be higher so you’re harder to hire.

Usu also doesn’t want to be known as a school that makes it difficult on coaches since it’s a small circle and word gets around. For instance, the buyout for Odom drops by $400,000 in a week. We could make him wait to sign the deal with south Florida or agree he can leave now and pay the reduced price or take even less in exchange for a home and home series in football or basketball if both schools wanted to.

Edit: I’m a lawyer but I do high end tax and M&A deals not contract litigation so this is 1L law student stuff so others may have more detail to share but Google liquidated damages and college coaching and you’ll get some good articles

Intermeddler wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 2:05 am

If a coach signs a 5 year contract that pays him $1 million per year and he voluntarily leaves or the school fires him without cause during that term, then the contract has been breached by one of the parties. In some contracts the parties agree to an amount of damages for a breach (called liquidated damages). This makes the non breaching party whole for the damage caused by the breaching party.

If Odom leaves, he is breaching the contract and he and usu have agreed on a damages value for that breach based upon the time remaining on his contract and salary. Odom has to pay that to usu, not south Florida (though south Florida may reimburse him through his new contract).

Because this provision is part of the negotiation, market forces will limit it. Schools aren’t going to pay a coach in the above example liquidated damages of $20 million when the whole contract was $5 million and no coach wants to make himself impossible to hire due to a huge buyout so it’s usually some percentage of the remaining contract balance. It is also the case that courts look unfavorably on contracts with liquidated damages provisions that are effectively a penalty. In other words, does the buyout amount reflect the damage done to usu by Odom if he leaves or is it so high as to be a punishment should he leave far above any actual damage done to usu? This is another reason these are usually limited based on contract value.

If Odom were to say I will sign an extension if you remove the buyout so I’m easy to hire, usu could agree to that (which I think they did with Craig smith). We could also say we’ll give you a big raise but your buyout has to be higher so you’re harder to hire.

Usu also doesn’t want to be known as a school that makes it difficult on coaches since it’s a small circle and word gets around. For instance, the buyout for Odom drops by $400,000 in a week. We could make him wait to sign the deal with south Florida or agree he can leave now and pay the reduced price or take even less in exchange for a home and home series in football or basketball if both schools wanted to.

Edit: I’m a lawyer but I do high end tax and M&A deals not contract litigation so this is 1L law student stuff so others may have more detail to share but Google liquidated damages and college coaching and you’ll get some good articles

I am a 1L currently in a contracts class and this seems right from my end!

hello understand me androidaggie

Intermeddler wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 2:05 am

If a coach signs a 5 year contract that pays him $1 million per year and he voluntarily leaves or the school fires him without cause during that term, then the contract has been breached by one of the parties. In some contracts the parties agree to an amount of damages for a breach (called liquidated damages). This makes the non breaching party whole for the damage caused by the breaching party.

If Odom leaves, he is breaching the contract and he and usu have agreed on a damages value for that breach based upon the time remaining on his contract and salary. Odom has to pay that to usu, not south Florida (though south Florida may reimburse him through his new contract).

Because this provision is part of the negotiation, market forces will limit it. Schools aren’t going to pay a coach in the above example liquidated damages of $20 million when the whole contract was $5 million and no coach wants to make himself impossible to hire due to a huge buyout so it’s usually some percentage of the remaining contract balance. It is also the case that courts look unfavorably on contracts with liquidated damages provisions that are effectively a penalty. In other words, does the buyout amount reflect the damage done to usu by Odom if he leaves or is it so high as to be a punishment should he leave far above any actual damage done to usu? This is another reason these are usually limited based on contract value.

If Odom were to say I will sign an extension if you remove the buyout so I’m easy to hire, usu could agree to that (which I think they did with Craig smith). We could also say we’ll give you a big raise but your buyout has to be higher so you’re harder to hire.

Usu also doesn’t want to be known as a school that makes it difficult on coaches since it’s a small circle and word gets around. For instance, the buyout for Odom drops by $400,000 in a week. We could make him wait to sign the deal with south Florida or agree he can leave now and pay the reduced price or take even less in exchange for a home and home series in football or basketball if both schools wanted to.

Edit: I’m a lawyer but I do high end tax and M&A deals not contract litigation so this is 1L law student stuff so others may have more detail to share but Google liquidated damages and college coaching and you’ll get some good articles

I do commercial litigation (low-end stuff that a mouth-breather like me can handle) and insurance defense, and this is all 100% correct.

aggie_in_NC wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 4:55 am

Intermeddler wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 2:05 am

If a coach signs a 5 year contract that pays him $1 million per year and he voluntarily leaves or the school fires him without cause during that term, then the contract has been breached by one of the parties. In some contracts the parties agree to an amount of damages for a breach (called liquidated damages). This makes the non breaching party whole for the damage caused by the breaching party.

If Odom leaves, he is breaching the contract and he and usu have agreed on a damages value for that breach based upon the time remaining on his contract and salary. Odom has to pay that to usu, not south Florida (though south Florida may reimburse him through his new contract).

Because this provision is part of the negotiation, market forces will limit it. Schools aren’t going to pay a coach in the above example liquidated damages of $20 million when the whole contract was $5 million and no coach wants to make himself impossible to hire due to a huge buyout so it’s usually some percentage of the remaining contract balance. It is also the case that courts look unfavorably on contracts with liquidated damages provisions that are effectively a penalty. In other words, does the buyout amount reflect the damage done to usu by Odom if he leaves or is it so high as to be a punishment should he leave far above any actual damage done to usu? This is another reason these are usually limited based on contract value.

If Odom were to say I will sign an extension if you remove the buyout so I’m easy to hire, usu could agree to that (which I think they did with Craig smith). We could also say we’ll give you a big raise but your buyout has to be higher so you’re harder to hire.

Usu also doesn’t want to be known as a school that makes it difficult on coaches since it’s a small circle and word gets around. For instance, the buyout for Odom drops by $400,000 in a week. We could make him wait to sign the deal with south Florida or agree he can leave now and pay the reduced price or take even less in exchange for a home and home series in football or basketball if both schools wanted to.

Edit: I’m a lawyer but I do high end tax and M&A deals not contract litigation so this is 1L law student stuff so others may have more detail to share but Google liquidated damages and college coaching and you’ll get some good articles

I am a 1L currently in a contracts class and this seems right from my end!

Offer, acceptance, consideration. You’ve got this!

How much is if that has to be paid if signs with usf before April 1?

How much is it if he signs April 1 or after?

slcagg wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:19 am

How much is if that has to be paid if signs with usf before April 1?

How much is it if he signs April 1 or after?

I haven’t seen the actual contract, but I believe it is $1.2 million before April 1 and drops by $400,000.00 or so after April 1.

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:28 am

slcagg wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:19 am

How much is if that has to be paid if signs with usf before April 1?

How much is it if he signs April 1 or after?

I haven’t seen the actual contract, but I believe it is $1.2 million before April 1 and drops by $400,000.00 or so after April 1.

Know there are two parties here but we shouldn’t do a step down at April 1. Of course the party is going to wait until April 1. Would prefer it to be non hiring season step down.

slcagg wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:46 am

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:28 am

slcagg wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:19 am

How much is if that has to be paid if signs with usf before April 1?

How much is it if he signs April 1 or after?

I haven’t seen the actual contract, but I believe it is $1.2 million before April 1 and drops by $400,000.00 or so after April 1.

Know there are two parties here but we shouldn’t do a step down at April 1. Of course the party is going to wait until April 1. Would prefer it to be non hiring season step down.

Yep, that’d be ideal. USU’s contracts usually favor the coaches because the coaches have nearly all the leverage. I recall that the coaches’ buyouts usually scale down over the years, but USU’s do not.

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:50 am

slcagg wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:46 am

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:28 am

slcagg wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:19 am

How much is if that has to be paid if signs with usf before April 1?

How much is it if he signs April 1 or after?

I haven’t seen the actual contract, but I believe it is $1.2 million before April 1 and drops by $400,000.00 or so after April 1.

Know there are two parties here but we shouldn’t do a step down at April 1. Of course the party is going to wait until April 1. Would prefer it to be non hiring season step down.

Yep, that’d be ideal. USU’s contracts usually favor the coaches because the coaches have nearly all the leverage. I recall that the coaches’ buyouts usually scale down over the years, but USU’s do not.

I think a lot of places do. However I’d love to change that timing. But I don’t know how these usually work

Intermeddler wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 2:05 am

If a coach signs a 5 year contract that pays him $1 million per year and he voluntarily leaves or the school fires him without cause during that term, then the contract has been breached by one of the parties. In some contracts the parties agree to an amount of damages for a breach (called liquidated damages). This makes the non breaching party whole for the damage caused by the breaching party.

If Odom leaves, he is breaching the contract and he and usu have agreed on a damages value for that breach based upon the time remaining on his contract and salary. Odom has to pay that to usu, not south Florida (though south Florida may reimburse him through his new contract).

Because this provision is part of the negotiation, market forces will limit it. Schools aren’t going to pay a coach in the above example liquidated damages of $20 million when the whole contract was $5 million and no coach wants to make himself impossible to hire due to a huge buyout so it’s usually some percentage of the remaining contract balance. It is also the case that courts look unfavorably on contracts with liquidated damages provisions that are effectively a penalty. In other words, does the buyout amount reflect the damage done to usu by Odom if he leaves or is it so high as to be a punishment should he leave far above any actual damage done to usu? This is another reason these are usually limited based on contract value.

If Odom were to say I will sign an extension if you remove the buyout so I’m easy to hire, usu could agree to that (which I think they did with Craig smith). We could also say we’ll give you a big raise but your buyout has to be higher so you’re harder to hire.

Usu also doesn’t want to be known as a school that makes it difficult on coaches since it’s a small circle and word gets around. For instance, the buyout for Odom drops by $400,000 in a week. We could make him wait to sign the deal with south Florida or agree he can leave now and pay the reduced price or take even less in exchange for a home and home series in football or basketball if both schools wanted to.

Edit: I’m a lawyer but I do high end tax and M&A deals not contract litigation so this is 1L law student stuff so others may have more detail to share but Google liquidated damages and college coaching and you’ll get some good articles

Thank you sir.!!

We need Tim Duryea to help interpret this stuff for us.

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

March 26th, 2023, 7:50 am

Yep, that’d be ideal. USU’s contracts usually favor the coaches because the coaches have nearly all the leverage. I recall that the coaches’ buyouts usually scale down over the years, but USU’s do not.

Buyouts for the school go down over the years just like the buyouts go down for the coaches. Like how money allegedly contributed to Matt Wells not being fired after the 2016 football season, but if the 2017 football season had been a disaster like the 2016 season, we would have had a lower penalty for firing Wells after 2017 than we would have for firing him after 2016.

How much leverage a coach has can depend on alot of variables. Like Tim Duryea badly wanting the job had minimal leverage, and we would have more leverage in negotiating terms of a contract for Nate Dixon if he wants the job, or an unemployed coach with no other options would also have minimal leverage. But any of the guys who have done enough at other schools, for us to want him, like Montana State's coach or Mark Madsen, would have more leverage in negotiating terms.

Also, schools and coaches can negotiate certain jobs that have lower penalties for leaving for than others. Like Dabo Swinney has a higher penalty for leaving Clemson for Alabama than he would have for leaving for anywhere else, and no penalty for leaving for an NFL job. Or back in the day when Urban Meyer was at Utah, he had a clause in his contract that he could have left for Michigan, Ohio State or Notre Dame without a penalty, but Florida had to pay a buyout that those three schools would not have. Or Kliff Kingsbury had a lower penalty for leaving for the NFL than he would have had for a college job. Mike Sherman with the Green Bay Packers had a clause that he could leave without penalty only if a team offered him the general manager position along with the head coach position.

So Mark Madsen could come and demand a lower or no penalty for leaving for Stanford which of course would be stupid with the situation of Stanford's coach on the hot seat. But we for instance could allow a clause of no penalty for an NBA job. Maybe we can bring in Madsen and take buyout money from Stanford next year, or if Stanford's coach can win enough to save his job, sign an extension with a lower penalty for Stanford in return for a higher penalty for anywhere else.

One thing I suggested at the time of hiring Odom and it is now looking like we definitely should have done was allowed Odom to have a lower penalty for an ACC job in return for a higher penalty for anywhere else.