[philcski]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

Says in the article if BC were to fire him he'd still get paid all 5 years.

Personally I think all ACC football jobs are terrible these days. Somehow every school in that league (except maybe Duke) thinks they're better than they really are, like they're actually in the picture for national championships.