JUB: Contract talks with Harbaugh are at an impasse over "what should be covered by immunity"
Presumably, Bacon is referring to disagreements over the the types of adverse NCAA findings that would entitle the University to fire Harbaugh for cause or perhaps withhold certain incentives.
Take it FWIW. I don't think any of the insiders has had a great track record lately, so 'no one knows anything until we all know something' is probably not a bad rule to live by. Having said that, John U. Bacon is among the few journalists whose reporting is worth paying attention to.
January 16th, 2024 at 9:39 AM ^
It’s like you don’t understand that that doesn’t mean Michigan can just unilaterally leave and keep the TV money to play their scout team every week because the NCAA blackballs them
January 16th, 2024 at 10:12 AM ^
No, I understand that well.
I also understand it means court action against the NCAA is almost always futile - because you agreed to, and voted for, those rules.
Michigan ain't leaving the NCAA... and almost no matter what the NCAA does to Harbaugh - Michigan is not winning a lawsuit about it. They will just have to eat whatever penalty is handed out.
January 16th, 2024 at 7:45 AM ^
I believe a year suspension is the worst case, and I don't even think that will happen. But even if it does, U-M can deal with funding his salary for one year while Moore is coaching the team. And there's this thing called insurance where U-M could take out a policy against whatever worst case scenario they envision (2 years, 3 years, whatever) to mitigate the salary payout issue. FFS, the guy won 3 consecutive outright Big Ten titles and a National Championship! Let's get it done.
January 16th, 2024 at 9:05 AM ^
^^^This
I have no problem paying Harbaugh to not coach and fight for athlete pay for multiple years if he gets multi-year show cause for whatever BS the NCAA tries to throw at him. The last three years have earned so much $$$. If A&M can weather $70M for Jimbo and Bama can pay a $12M buyout without thinking, we good.
January 16th, 2024 at 9:40 AM ^
Then give him a 1 year pay buyout guarantee if he’s fired over anything that happened in 2023. That way he gets paid and has a year to go find the NFL job he clearly desperately wants, and Michigan is protected in case of more absurd penalties.
Not blanket immunity.
January 16th, 2024 at 8:22 AM ^
If the NCAA drops an egregiously long suspension on Harbaugh, the university should just plan to fight that and then negotiate it back. The NCAA does not want a court case and considering the willy nilly application if it's rules had a good chance of losing outright.
January 16th, 2024 at 7:17 AM ^
The NCAA and B1G have already shown they’re willing to go full asshole, so Harbaugh would be stupid to sign a deal that allows the university to refuse to pay him if they continue to do so over supposed violations the university already knows about.
January 16th, 2024 at 9:43 AM ^
If he’s that selfish that he’d be willing to nuke the program if the NCAA, which Michigan can fight but absolutely cannot control, just so he can get paid, until he leaves for his first choice NFL job…
Do we really want to keep that man? I don’t think that’s Harbaugh, but that sounds like what you’re saying.
January 16th, 2024 at 8:56 AM ^
Okay so, can someone explain this to me...
If Harbaugh is already employed by the university, and the NCAA issues a show-cause...then...so what? Aren't show-causes only really an issue when trying to hire someone for the first time who has a show-cause? Why would it be an issue for Harbaugh simply remaining employed?
January 16th, 2024 at 9:03 AM ^
...because the university is not going to pay Harbaugh $12 million a year for an extended period of time while also having to hire and pay another head football coach.
January 16th, 2024 at 9:18 AM ^
This still doesn't explain anything.
If he's ALREADY under contract with the university, and THEN the NCAA issues a show-cause...why do we care? We're not trying to hire him again.
Do not show-causes simply create barriers to hiring an individual? Since when does a show-cause mean that individual is barred from continuing their existing duties?
This is a quote from Tallahassee.com regarding the recent FSU punishments for the one staffer who drove the kid to the meeting:
As part of the penalties, Atkins will be suspended the first three games of the 2024 regular season and is given a two-year show-cause. A show-cause requires schools who hire Atkins to explain the decision to NCAA officials. Atkins is expected to remain on FSU’s staff in his current role.
This clearly gives the impression that the show-cause would only be an issue for other schools who wished to hire Atkins for the two-year period and the article goes out of its way to state that he'll be remaining on staff in his existing role.
SO...
Translate that to the situation with Harbaugh.
He's currently our head coach. If the university signs him to an extension prior to any show-cause being issued, and the university chooses to retain him in his existing role, then...WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT A SHOW-CAUSE???
What nuance am I missing here?
January 16th, 2024 at 9:46 AM ^
It also means that any penalties like probation that are attached to the coach follow them around.
Basically, Harbaugh could get penalties that hurt the team beyond just his own suspension that would go away if Michigan lets him go, but this contract would mean Michigan basically has to accept whatever the NCAA decides to hang on Harbaugh with no out.
January 16th, 2024 at 1:48 PM ^
I understand having additional penalties that could hurt the team, but what does that have to do with a show-cause? It seems to be (I could clearly be missing something) that a show-cause is separate from any additional penalties that hurt the team.
If this is true, then I don't understand the hangwringing over a possible show-cause (which to my understanding only means that any penalties handed down on Harbaugh would follow him to any other NCAA job he tried to go to) when it seems like the real concern would be any "additional" penalties.
January 16th, 2024 at 10:14 AM ^
"If he's ALREADY under contract with the university, and THEN the NCAA issues a show-cause...why do we care?"
Because he won't be able to coach, and the NCAA can punish the team and University for continuing to employ him.
January 16th, 2024 at 10:17 AM ^
This is my understanding as well. They can't make Michigan fire Harbaugh. I don't think he's facing a significant suspension at this point, anyway, because he's already been suspended half a season for relatively minor infractions.
January 16th, 2024 at 10:44 AM ^
the NCAA hates this one simple trick…
January 16th, 2024 at 11:16 AM ^
For a currently employed coach, “both the school and coach are required to send letters to the NCAA agreeing to abide by any restrictions imposed.”
So the sticking point may be, what if the NCAA suspends him for a year (ridiculous, I know) severely fines UofM and takes away scholarships. Harbaugh would want to fight that. The university should want to fight that, but at what point do the financial burdens of fighting a war with the NCAA outweigh the benefits of having a world class coach?
I think another consideration is, and this would be coming from the university’s legal department, is this a precedence (supporting a coach who the NCAA claims violated regulations and issues a show cause against) that the AD should set?
Finally, these contracts do become public through FOIA. The wordsmithing going on to craft something that will stand up to public attention (not MGoAttention, but the wider community) has to be extreme.
January 16th, 2024 at 9:06 AM ^
So if the NCAA decides to go full asshole and give Harbaugh a year or more show-cause, Michigan should just go ahead and precommit to paying Harbaugh his full contract even though he won’t be able to coach the team?
Yes, because that won't happen
January 16th, 2024 at 9:47 AM ^
Then why does Harbs need the guarantee?
Is he willing to offer “I will never take an NFL interview again for the duration of the contract” in return?
January 16th, 2024 at 11:11 AM ^
Yes. This essentially aligns Harbaugh and Michigan in fighting the bullshit. Michigan doesn't want to pay $100 million for Jim not to coach? Great, fight for him.
January 16th, 2024 at 2:00 AM ^
Just give me full immunity for anything football related he may have done 2023 or earlier and be done with it. What's the big deal anyways?
January 16th, 2024 at 6:44 AM ^
The big deal is I think he's asking for immunity not just from the known violations, but future violations also.
January 16th, 2024 at 7:24 AM ^
Who tf cares? I think we’ve already fumbled the situation away with this type of insane paranoia but it’s shocking to see it regurgitated here
January 16th, 2024 at 6:53 AM ^
For anything he may have done??
Listen we all know there is likely zero JH did bad in 2023, but no way any lawyers sign off on that.
January 16th, 2024 at 8:49 AM ^
Because this isn't real--it's just JUB creating a media narrative to give Harbaugh cover when he signs with the Chargers
January 16th, 2024 at 2:09 AM ^
Michigan will not, and should not, sign a contract that financially paralyzes them in the unlikely event the NCAA severely punishes Harbaugh. Draconian punishment seems improbable in light of Baker's recent comments, and even if the NCAA were to opt for a heavy hand, I expect the University would pursue legal action. They did, after all, already sue the Big Ten. But if worst comes to worst, the University has to be able to move on. Especially if this contract is worth upwards of $100 million, as has been reported.
Every collegiate coach's contract -- including Harbaugh's current contract -- includes for-cause termination on the basis of NCAA violations. Immunity is not a reasonable demand; to the contrary, it is a deeply unserious one. If Harbaugh wants another run at the NFL, I'll root for him and be grateful for what he's accomplished at Michigan. But it is long past time to stop pretending that the holdup is Michigan's fault. The ball is in Harbaugh's court, and it has been for quite some time. He clearly has lingering NFL dreams, and if he leaves, it's because he wanted to leave, as simple as that.
January 16th, 2024 at 2:15 AM ^
This is right. Michigan can commit to defending Harbaugh, but ultimately they can’t control what the NCAA does, and the NCAA has the power to make keeping him untenable
If “immunity” means full contract value, no matter what, that’s totally unreasonable.
Maybe a 1 year salary buyout would be a fair compromise, but not “immunity”.
January 16th, 2024 at 8:27 AM ^
If the NCAA has gained the power to dictate to Michigan's AD who it's coach can be via inconsistent and egregious application of the NCAA's rules, then Michigan's AD should be rebuilt with people who will retake that power.
January 16th, 2024 at 9:05 AM ^
1) They didn't gain it. They've ALWAYS had it.
2) There is nothing Michigan's AD can do to "take back that power" in a an organization that they voluntarily joined and agreed to the rules (which they get to vote on). They could leave the NCAA.
January 16th, 2024 at 2:18 AM ^
If Michigan is worried about $100M, then Michigan Football is already dead, and we just don't know it yet.
January 16th, 2024 at 2:25 AM ^
There is not a single athletics department in the country that can casually set $100 million on fire. It's not monopoly money.
January 16th, 2024 at 2:53 AM ^
TAMU nearly paid that just to get rid of Jimbo. Stephen Ross donated $100M to UM Athletics in 2013 alone (and he's been rumored to be pushing for the retention of Harbaugh). Michigan athletics revenue was over $200M for a single year. They spent $41M on the damn scoreboards project. If they can't find $100M to roll the dice on a National Championship coach for the largest revenue generating sport, then we might as well join the MAC.
January 16th, 2024 at 6:55 AM ^
lol do you think Michigan wrote a check for scoreboards? Do you have any idea how financing and bonds work? Ross donated 100MM to help fund a campus complex. Again, that was part of broader financing. You think donors are going to line up to pay Harbaugh to sit on the couch chugging whole milk and playing with chickens?
January 16th, 2024 at 7:22 AM ^
C'mon, you know better than to look only at single-year revenue without considering expenses for that year. Noted on mgoblue, for FY 2023, "the athletic department projects a slight operating surplus of $0.2 million based on operating revenues of $215.1 million and operating expenses of $214.9 million."
January 16th, 2024 at 7:39 AM ^
The Athletic Department spending every single dollar they make is by design, my dude.
Because if they’re running a $50M (or whatev) operating surplus every year, the “But how would they pay the players?” pearl-clutching becomes way less effective.
January 16th, 2024 at 8:10 AM ^
It also opens up tax laws/rates that would be quite expensive...
January 16th, 2024 at 7:31 AM ^
Do you know the difference between revenue and profit? Lots of bankrupt companies had tons of revenue. I would not be in support of paying Harbaugh $100M to not coach.
January 16th, 2024 at 9:51 AM ^
Yeah, and everyone rightfully points and laughs because TAMU was really really profoundly stupid for guaranteeing a $100 million contract.
Shit happens, and the university shouldn’t be taking 100% of the risk.
January 16th, 2024 at 5:37 AM ^
Staee did
January 16th, 2024 at 6:31 AM ^
So is our goal to emulate.... Michigan State and Texas A&M? Two of the biggest clown show ADs in the country?
January 16th, 2024 at 7:26 AM ^
We’re not emulating them because we’d be retaining a title winning, legendary coach not paying to fire losers. I hate you people
January 16th, 2024 at 9:53 AM ^
You’re not talking about retention, you’re talking about precommitting to paying him to not coach if forced by the actions of a third party (the NCAA) that Michigan doesn’t control.
January 16th, 2024 at 7:25 AM ^
Funny, but false. MSU fired Tucker for cause, avoiding having to pay the buyout (pending Tucker's legal challenge).
January 16th, 2024 at 9:54 AM ^
And y’all are demanding that Michigan remove even that protection to give Harbaugh “immunity”. Which would make us even dumber than Staee.
January 16th, 2024 at 8:35 AM ^
Did you forget about TAMU and Jimbo already? If Michigan needs the money there's plenty of money to be had.
January 16th, 2024 at 10:18 AM ^
Fisher's contract was only guaranteed if he wasn't fired for cause.
January 16th, 2024 at 2:43 AM ^
+1 those blaming Warde specifically for this holdup simply don’t know ball - while Warde is in a position of power, he can’t just unilaterally give a coach a bulletproof $100M contract. If he hasn’t given Harbaugh a contract, it’s bc the BoR and Admin/legal simply hasn’t green lighted Harbaugh’s demands.
January 16th, 2024 at 7:23 AM ^
None of this has to do with ball, it's all political bullshit
January 16th, 2024 at 9:55 AM ^
Seems to me the guy that claims to love Michigan but is demanding a guaranteed $100 million to not coach while actively courting better offers is doing a bit of politicking himself.
January 16th, 2024 at 2:49 AM ^
Sam has mentioned this as sticking point on Thursday MGoBlog roundtable for a while now.
I do not see how the school can commit to maintain Harbaugh as coach if the NCAA goes crazy and gives him long suspension (especially if suspension extends beyond just game days but all team activities).
From Harbaugh's perspective, the school has already suspended him for the cheeseburger incident (i.e. the university believes Harbaugh committed some NCAA violation). Unless there are some limitations on the for-cause clause, Michigan would be able to (arguably) end his contract at any time in the future based on the cheeseburger violation. That makes any buyout provisions meaningless.
And that is how you end up at an impasse.
Harbaugh still has some years left on his current contract, and nothing he is going to sign would effectively limit his ability to leave for NFL job, so I no longer see new contract as accomplishing what most people want the new contract to accomplish.