Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ateamstupid
You just negated your own point. Why does the school have an 'out' but the coach doesn't? You coach badly, you get fired. You coach great, you get to consider other opportunities. If coaches need to be held to contracts, so do schools, but that doesn't stop a million programs a year from firing coaches in the middle of contracts. Point is that this may be Jagodzinksi's best shot at a pro job. What should he do, according to Colin Coward? Not interview, then maybe have a crappy season or two and get fired while still under contract and then never get a chance at a pro job again? That's real fair. Like I said, this is petty, shortsighted nonsense, and to call it anything else is moronic.
|
i don't know if either or both have an out...
i think both sides should be held to a contract, but most usually do have outs regarding buyouts, poor performance, etc. look at tuberville, i'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank about losing that job. or nolan ryan, how many years did he get paid not to coach? schools go out on a limb and hire you, hoping you fit and can lift up the program. of course they're going to give themselves outs, and coaches will sign-a coach wanted by many can get more stuff in a contract than a 'no name'. like cowherd said, if he has an out to interview, you can't complain. but if he doesn't, he shouldn't interview.
like i said , i thought it was a bit over the top when the guy threatened to fire him...but by the same token, if i professed to want to stay in my job, while interviewing with a competitor, how do you suppose my boss would like it?
yeah, loyalty goes both ways. but a coach showing disloyalty is no better or worse than a school doing a search while having a current coach. i really think this mentality should change-from both sides.