Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ImAZipFan

Well, this is going to sting a bit... Loeffler saying no..

30 posts in this topic

I just got a twitter update that Loeffler said no.

FootballScoop Staff @footballscoop Close

More re: Loeffler to Akron...per sources, he did not accept on the spot. Looking at NFL position coach options. Told he'll decide soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got a twitter update that Loeffler said no.

FootballScoop Staff @footballscoop Close

More re: Loeffler to Akron...per sources, he did not accept on the spot. Looking at NFL position coach options. Told he'll decide soon.

Yeah, that came across last night. I take it as a "maybe if I can't find something better." We can't even get a MAC OC to accept a job? Maybe no one wants to work for the leadership in Athletics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got a twitter update that Loeffler said no.

FootballScoop Staff @footballscoop Close

More re: Loeffler to Akron...per sources, he did not accept on the spot. Looking at NFL position coach options. Told he'll decide soon.

Yeah, that came across last night. I take it as a "maybe if I can't find something better." We can't even get a MAC OC to accept a job? Maybe no one wants to work for the leadership in Athletics?

It's at the very least certainly starting to *seem* that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Point... about the "Something better"..... I guess the question becomes... how long to we wait?

I just got a twitter update that Loeffler said no.

FootballScoop Staff @footballscoop Close

More re: Loeffler to Akron...per sources, he did not accept on the spot. Looking at NFL position coach options. Told he'll decide soon.

Yeah, that came across last night. I take it as a "maybe if I can't find something better." We can't even get a MAC OC to accept a job? Maybe no one wants to work for the leadership in Athletics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this signal to Proenza he has a bigger problem on his hands than getting a coach in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this signal to Proenza he has a bigger problem on his hands than getting a coach in here?

Hey, look at the bright side....he nabbed a great baseball coach. confetti.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a suspicion as to why we’re having a hard time get anyone to sign on the dotted line. How many 1st time D-1 head coaches would agree to a 5-year contract that has a 2-year “out” clause? This clause, hypothetically of course, stipulates that if after 2 years the school determines the program is not going in the right direction this coach may be reassigned within the University at half of his salary.

I’m certainly no expert. I'm not even a novice. But I wonder if such a performance clause is common or not. I know we’ve had some discussion on the board about this (regarding Ianello).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a suspicion as to why we’re having a hard time get anyone to sign on the dotted line. How many 1st time D-1 head coaches would agree to a 5-year contract that has a 2-year “out” clause? This clause, hypothetically of course, stipulates that if after 2 years the school determines the program is not going in the right direction this coach may be reassigned within the University at half of his salary.

I’m certainly no expert. I'm not even a novice. But I wonder if such a performance clause is common or not. I know we’ve had some discussion on the board about this (regarding Ianello).

You can't include such a clause in this Zips' contract. The aforementioned Jesus isn't going to be sniffing .500 at UA for at least 3 seasons.

No more banking on "mulligans," hire a good coach!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a suspicion as to why we’re having a hard time get anyone to sign on the dotted line. How many 1st time D-1 head coaches would agree to a 5-year contract that has a 2-year “out” clause? This clause, hypothetically of course, stipulates that if after 2 years the school determines the program is not going in the right direction this coach may be reassigned within the University at half of his salary.

I’m certainly no expert. I'm not even a novice. But I wonder if such a performance clause is common or not. I know we’ve had some discussion on the board about this (regarding Ianello).

There is no clause about 2 years. There is statement common in all coaching contracts, that if you are deamed to not be meeting certain criteria (failure to perform) the university can move you to another position. It just so happened that Ianello failed so badly that they had to exercise this after only 2 years. Its the only way schools can protect themselves from a bad coach. All contracts have buy outs and out clauses.

If anything Loeffler is waiting to see how bad we want him (counter offer) and wheter Addazio moves on from Temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe UA has erred in not floating the names of potential candidates, so as to gauge the fans' support. For instance, if Ianello's name had been tossed out two years ago before the hiring, I believe Zip Nation would've egged the AD's office. This hiring goes far beyond Xs and Os. This new coach will be charged with re-uniting a fractured fanbase, an apathetic student body, a highly discouraged group of alumni donors...not to mention coaching up a group of young men who've just endured the berating of a non-respected employee (I dare not call him a "coach") for two years.

It's a tough assignment, and this new guy better have the charm and charisma of.....well, I don't know who....but *somebody* impressive. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a suspicion as to why we’re having a hard time get anyone to sign on the dotted line. How many 1st time D-1 head coaches would agree to a 5-year contract that has a 2-year “out” clause? This clause, hypothetically of course, stipulates that if after 2 years the school determines the program is not going in the right direction this coach may be reassigned within the University at half of his salary.

I’m certainly no expert. I'm not even a novice. But I wonder if such a performance clause is common or not. I know we’ve had some discussion on the board about this (regarding Ianello).

You can't include such a clause in this Zips' contract. The aforementioned Jesus isn't going to be sniffing .500 at UA for at least 3 seasons.

No more banking on "mulligans," hire a good coach!!

I agree 100% that you shouldn't, in this particular case especially. But I've heard some talk that such a clause was part of the contract offered to PW. I sure hope not, or we'll never get a decent coach in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a suspicion as to why we’re having a hard time get anyone to sign on the dotted line. How many 1st time D-1 head coaches would agree to a 5-year contract that has a 2-year “out” clause? This clause, hypothetically of course, stipulates that if after 2 years the school determines the program is not going in the right direction this coach may be reassigned within the University at half of his salary.

I’m certainly no expert. I'm not even a novice. But I wonder if such a performance clause is common or not. I know we’ve had some discussion on the board about this (regarding Ianello).

You can't include such a clause in this Zips' contract. The aforementioned Jesus isn't going to be sniffing .500 at UA for at least 3 seasons.

No more banking on "mulligans," hire a good coach!!

I agree 100% that you shouldn't, in this particular case especially. But I've heard some talk that such a clause was part of the contract offered to PW. I sure hope not, or we'll never get a decent coach in here.

I, too, believe this to have been the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a suspicion as to why we’re having a hard time get anyone to sign on the dotted line. How many 1st time D-1 head coaches would agree to a 5-year contract that has a 2-year “out” clause? This clause, hypothetically of course, stipulates that if after 2 years the school determines the program is not going in the right direction this coach may be reassigned within the University at half of his salary.

I’m certainly no expert. I'm not even a novice. But I wonder if such a performance clause is common or not. I know we’ve had some discussion on the board about this (regarding Ianello).

You can't include such a clause in this Zips' contract. The aforementioned Jesus isn't going to be sniffing .500 at UA for at least 3 seasons.

No more banking on "mulligans," hire a good coach!!

I agree 100% that you shouldn't, in this particular case especially. But I've heard some talk that such a clause was part of the contract offered to PW. I sure hope not, or we'll never get a decent coach in here.

Bingo! Why would a successful head coach take a job with only a 2 year guarantee. Especially since the AD has to be on shaky ground himself and might not be here in 2 years. A new AD could come in & use the clause to bring in his own guy. It would effectively banish him from being a head coach for 3 more years - at half pay! Why should a new coach have to pay for the previous mistakes of this administration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to believe that getting a bright, young coach, like a Campbell or a Loeffler, has it's own distinct challenge right now. If you fail as a HC coach in D-1A, even at a bad school, at a young age, you're road back could be blocked forever. That has to be a risk they have to consider, knowing that other better opportunities should surface in due time. And they have plenty of time to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to imagine that UA is offering coaching candidates contract terms that are more onerous than what other, similar universities offer. We may not like how TW has run the program, but he is not stupid. He and the search committee must know that Akron doesn't have the coaching attraction of Alabama or LSU. I hope they wouldn't think they could dictate silly contract terms. I'm really having a hard time believing that is the problem.

Winters has a pretty good gig at Wayne. He is almost god-like there right now. If Loeffler is reall talking about an NFL postion, that is a big attraction in the way he manages his career. He's probably better off going to the NFL if his eventual ambitions are there.

So these guys had/have viable options and reasons for saying no to Akron. I doubt we are getting turned down due to some crazy clause in a contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd have to believe that getting a bright, young coach, like a Campbell or a Loeffler, has it's own distinct challenge right now. If you fail as a HC coach in D-1A, even at a bad school, at a young age, you're road back could be blocked forever. That has to be a risk they have to consider, knowing that other better opportunities should surface in due time. And they have plenty of time to wait.

I agree with your logic. Particularly for someone who feels like they are close to an opportunity better than UA.

However, one thing that gets attention in coaching (and in business) is IMPROVEMENT. The next Akron coach does not necessarily have to win the MAC in three years to get further attention. If they turn things around in a significant way other programs are going to notice them.

Alternatively, taking over a winning program comes with big risk too. What if you don't sustain the previous level of success? Think Michigan with Rich Rod.

There has to be some coach and their agent who believe that Akron can be turned around and used to propel their career. The impediments are not institutional. It can be done here. It just hasn't been done here before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a suspicion as to why we’re having a hard time get anyone to sign on the dotted line. How many 1st time D-1 head coaches would agree to a 5-year contract that has a 2-year “out” clause? This clause, hypothetically of course, stipulates that if after 2 years the school determines the program is not going in the right direction this coach may be reassigned within the University at half of his salary.

I’m certainly no expert. I'm not even a novice. But I wonder if such a performance clause is common or not. I know we’ve had some discussion on the board about this (regarding Ianello).

You can't include such a clause in this Zips' contract. The aforementioned Jesus isn't going to be sniffing .500 at UA for at least 3 seasons.

No more banking on "mulligans," hire a good coach!!

I agree 100% that you shouldn't, in this particular case especially. But I've heard some talk that such a clause was part of the contract offered to PW. I sure hope not, or we'll never get a decent coach in here.

I, too, believe this to have been the case.

After confirming there was no confidentially agreement in place, I’m going to throw out part of a text from Paul, “…Bad contract, two years review and possible reassignment and reduction in pay….” (Reassignment could have come at any time, not after 2 years, and with no cause.)

Plus, get this, TW came to Detroit alone! Paul doesn’t trust him. TW blew it in many, many ways. I can’t imagine anyone in Paul’s position accepting that offer.

Someone somewhere mentioned TW going to Detroit with some lame offer to say he did. Akron couldn’t match WSU offer, stability through 2016 being a primary component. It was a no-brainer, but a very sad loss for the university and the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a suspicion as to why we’re having a hard time get anyone to sign on the dotted line. How many 1st time D-1 head coaches would agree to a 5-year contract that has a 2-year “out” clause? This clause, hypothetically of course, stipulates that if after 2 years the school determines the program is not going in the right direction this coach may be reassigned within the University at half of his salary.

I’m certainly no expert. I'm not even a novice. But I wonder if such a performance clause is common or not. I know we’ve had some discussion on the board about this (regarding Ianello).

You can't include such a clause in this Zips' contract. The aforementioned Jesus isn't going to be sniffing .500 at UA for at least 3 seasons.

No more banking on "mulligans," hire a good coach!!

I agree 100% that you shouldn't, in this particular case especially. But I've heard some talk that such a clause was part of the contract offered to PW. I sure hope not, or we'll never get a decent coach in here.

I, too, believe this to have been the case.

After confirming there was no confidentially agreement in place, I’m going to throw out part of a text from Paul, “…Bad contract, two years review and possible reassignment and reduction in pay….” (Reassignment could have come at any time, not after 2 years, and with no cause.)

Plus, get this, TW came to Detroit alone! Paul doesn’t trust him. TW blew it in many, many ways. I can’t imagine anyone in Paul’s position accepting that offer.

Someone somewhere mentioned TW going to Detroit with some lame offer to say he did. Akron couldn’t match WSU offer, stability through 2016 being a primary component. It was a no-brainer, but a very sad loss for the university and the city.

Is there anyone out there who is familiar with FBS HC contracts that can comment on how rare this type of a clause is?

It sounds bad on the surface, but do other FBS schools have similar language in their contracts.

I ask not to defend TW, but to try and figure out if this is outrageous, or more common.

If Akron is making crazy contract demands that no other schools do, then we have a real problem with, ...... well, with a bunch of people and not limited to TW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“…Bad contract, two years review and possible reassignment and reduction in pay….”

Paul doesn’t trust him. I can’t imagine anyone in Paul’s position accepting that offer.

Since this post is about trust, I'm going to go out on a limb and trust every word of WNN's post is good. Thanks for the effort.

I left only these three parts in for a reason. It's one thing to not trust someone and still be able to negotiate a contract, as the contract is a form of protection. Paul could have done some negotiating, yet he decided not to. Goes directly to trust and the belief TW is someone he can't trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“…Bad contract, two years review and possible reassignment and reduction in pay….”

Paul doesn’t trust him. I can’t imagine anyone in Paul’s position accepting that offer.

Since this post is about trust, I'm going to go out on a limb and trust every word of WNN's post is good. Thanks for the effort.

I left only these three parts in for a reason. It's one thing to not trust someone and still be able to negotiate a contract, as the contract is a form of protection. Paul could have done some negotiating, yet he decided not to. Goes directly to trust and the belief TW is someone he can't trust.

I can't speak to what negotiating did or did not take place, I don't know who ended the conversation, I'm sharing what was shared with me. Certainly not everything that took place was shared with me, nor was everything shared with me shared with you. GP1, I'm not trying to knock what you've said, I just take exception to 'yet he decided not to.' Again, I'm not certain how it all shook out. For the record, Paul doesn't have an agent or a lawyer on retainer, he's never needed one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“…Bad contract, two years review and possible reassignment and reduction in pay….”

Paul doesn’t trust him. I can’t imagine anyone in Paul’s position accepting that offer.

Since this post is about trust, I'm going to go out on a limb and trust every word of WNN's post is good. Thanks for the effort.

I left only these three parts in for a reason. It's one thing to not trust someone and still be able to negotiate a contract, as the contract is a form of protection. Paul could have done some negotiating, yet he decided not to. Goes directly to trust and the belief TW is someone he can't trust.

I can't speak to what negotiating did or did not take place, I don't know who ended the conversation, I'm sharing what was shared with me. Certainly not everything that took place was shared with me, nor was everything shared with me shared with you. GP1, I'm not trying to knock what you've said, I just take exception to 'yet he decided not to.' Again, I'm not certain how it all shook out. For the record, Paul doesn't have an agent or a lawyer on retainer, he's never needed one.

If this went down as you have laid out it was amateur hour all the way around.

From PW's side if he is talking with someone about a job and does not have representation then he was acting like a D2 coach with no intent on taking the offer seriously. Given that Akron had just bought out a coach after two years that was a pretty good indication that you may need someone to help navigate the waters.

From Akron's side if Proenza and Wistricil did not go to meet with their top guy this late in the search then they are both amateurs. If you want the coach then you pull out all the stops. This is the CEO of a multimillion dollar part of the university and the gas of the 70 million dollar football stadium. This program has already been screwed to the hilt and now we are playing games with sending 1 person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a coach doesnt want to come here because of some "out clause" (which every single coach at every single program is subject to termination if the administration feels he isnt holding up his end of the bargain), then it doesnt sound like any coach we want. He obviously lacks confidence in himself and his coaching abilities if he doesnt think he can improve a 1-11 team in 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer, but I just did some searching and it seems that "reassignement" of a coach is not an uncommon contract term. I assume that is exactly what we did with Ianello.

I'd prefer a lawyer step in and give us their opinion, but I'm not so sure UA is seeking terms that are considered terribly onerous or unusual.

I'm not trying to disprove anything other posters have said. I just wanted to find out if the UA AD, search committe and their lawyers are asking for outlandish terms in a contract. I'm not so sure they are.

However, I didn't notice that the contracts I saw reduced the pay when a reassignment took place, and I don't think UA was able to do that with Ianello. I'm curious if, as suggested, that was actually part of the contract Winters was offered.

Lawyers, care to comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a coach doesnt want to come here because of some "out clause" (which every single coach at every single program is subject to termination if the administration feels he isnt holding up his end of the bargain), then it doesnt sound like any coach we want. He obviously lacks confidence in himself and his coaching abilities if he doesnt think he can improve a 1-11 team in 2 years.

How about if you were told about JuCo and other committments you had no hand in picking, evaluating, recruiting, and were told who on the current staff you had to retain? Wouldn't common sense tell you if that's the case then the 2 year plan needs to be extended? Just saying. I really don't want to pick this apart, Paul's still dealing with quite a bit of emotion from quite a few things, but as I said before, he wasn't offered a great deal and said, "That's a great deal, no thanks." If Akron wanted him they should have been willing to match the WSU offer, they didn't. I'm signing off before any more points need counterpoints. I agree Paul's not 100% blameless, he probably should have been better prepared for the insults. Someone else posted on another thread how TW should start off with an apology... not so much. It couldn't have been a comfortable, friendly, safe exchange. Who would want to come to work (and do THAT job) in an atmosphere like that without some level of safety equal to what he would be leaving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0