• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Bret Bielema (HC Illinois)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jlb1705;2273991; said:
He gave birth to a 12-lb. pimento loaf.
Click to expand...
images
 
Upvote 0
Hearing Bert on the DP Show, talk about wanting to kill yourself.

1 - He's sticking with "I didn't have to opportunity to build a staff in Wisconsin."

2 - He didn't tell Alvarez until it was over because "I know how persuasive he is."

They were talking about what could be done to stop this bullshit job-hopping/coach firing. The issue clearly has 2 sides:

Side 1: coaches that aren't loyal.
Side 2: schools that aren't loyal.

So, you have to do something that is as much a disincentive to both, equally. That's why the "make a coach that breaks a contract sit out a year" doesn't work, because all that does is keeps coaches from quitting. It doesn't keep schools from firing them. Here's what I would propose:

If a coach breaks a contract, he has to sit out an entire year before taking another coaching position anywhere. Period. Like a "show-cause" penalty for 1 year.
If a school breaks a contract, they aren't allowed to hire from the outside for a year. They can promote from within, but can't go outside for 12 months.

So, coaches that break contracts still have to pay their buyout, but can't take a job for the next season, period. So, if you quit in week 1 or 16, you can't take a job for an entire season.
And schools that break contracts still have to pay their buyout, but can't hire from outside for the next season.

So, in the Bert case, he would have been unable to take the Arkansas job without sitting next season out.

In the ND case a couple years ago, they wouldn't have been able to hire Kelly for a season after letting Weis go.


What this would do is dissuade coaches/schools from signing long contracts, and then break those contracts.
 
Upvote 0
BlufftonBuckeye;2274065; said:
Hearing Bert on the DP Show, talk about wanting to kill yourself.

1 - He's sticking with "I didn't have to opportunity to build a staff in Wisconsin."

2 - He didn't tell Alvarez until it was over because "I know how persuasive he is."

They were talking about what could be done to stop this bullshit job-hopping/coach firing. The issue clearly has 2 sides:

Side 1: coaches that aren't loyal.
Side 2: schools that aren't loyal.

So, you have to do something that is as much a disincentive to both, equally. That's why the "make a coach that breaks a contract sit out a year" doesn't work, because all that does is keeps coaches from quitting. It doesn't keep schools from firing them. Here's what I would propose:

If a coach breaks a contract, he has to sit out an entire year before taking another coaching position anywhere. Period. Like a "show-cause" penalty for 1 year.
If a school breaks a contract, they aren't allowed to hire from the outside for a year. They can promote from within, but can't go outside for 12 months.

So, coaches that break contracts still have to pay their buyout, but can't take a job for the next season, period. So, if you quit in week 1 or 16, you can't take a job for an entire season.
And schools that break contracts still have to pay their buyout, but can't hire from outside for the next season.

So, in the Bert case, he would have been unable to take the Arkansas job without sitting next season out.

In the ND case a couple years ago, they wouldn't have been able to hire Kelly for a season after letting Weis go.


What this would do is dissuade coaches/schools from signing long contracts, and then break those contracts.
Click to expand...

And instead every coach in the country would have one year contracts, thus making any penalties moot.
 
Upvote 0
maximumblitz;2274120; said:
It sounds to me like Mr Bielema could not "deal with" with UW. If you cannot deal with it, you do not belong there.
Click to expand...
Which is funny, because Madison isn't exactly a tough media market. Again, I don't think Bret knows what he's gotten himself into. Not that I really give a shit.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye Maniac;2274095; said:
And instead every coach in the country would have one year contracts, thus making any penalties moot.
Click to expand...

Sure. Go for it. That's preferable to the system we have now, which are coaches that rarely live out their full contracts.

Eventually, the money/security would lead to top coaches signing longer term deals (Urban/Saban/Muschamp) and coaches yet to prove anything working on shorter term deals (likely 1-3 years) and guys like Hazell would have to earn longer term deals, or at least be comfortable with the penalties.
 
Upvote 0
just looked up his record.
since '06, he's 6-17 against conference opponents that won 9 or more games.

i would have thought he won more than that if I hadn't looked it up.

I think i'm gonna like having him around for a few years before he gets fired.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top