RR's Contract
RR is in year 3 of 6 under his current contract, earning just under 2 million per year. What would it take this year for RR to get a contract extension? And if Michigan were to go to a New Year's Day Bowl and win, what amount of money would you be comfortable paying RR? I personally would like to see his contract extended as long as they go 4-4 in the Big Ten, and continually get better throughout the course of the season. The amount of money depends greatly on the upward projection of this team at the end of the season. Finish 9-3 or better, and I wouldn't mind upping the salary into the 3 million - 3.5 million range. Discuss.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:17 PM ^
I would wait until year 4 to be thinking about an extension personally.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
Most coaches contracts are renegotiated typically with two years remaining on their current contracts for two reasons. One being the body of work is there to conclude whether the team is heading in right direction or not. The second reason is if you are coaching in the final year of your contract without negotiations you are seen as a lame duck coach. In other words no recruit is signing with you.
The other approach is to go the ND route and sign him for the next millennium after one good season. Money well spent IME.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:35 PM ^
When/if he strings together 10 win seasons, I'll advocate for one. Until said time occurs any talk is foolish. He has not earned an extension.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^
It's very early yet to tell if ND's current coach is going to work out, but they signed Weiss to a long term deal worth a ton of dough, and that was definitely NOT money well spent. Although I enjoyed it greatly, if I were on the ND board of trustees, I would want a head to roll for that.
And you want Michigan to follow that example? After back to back losing seasons for the first time in almost 50 years?
I definitely hope RR works out and wins tons of Big Ten and National championships, but he's got to beat a team that's not in the MAC before I am ready to crown him the next Yost. I definitely agree with the post that says you extend with 2 years to go. I think that is very likely some of the reason for the 6 year deal. It gives him time to prove himself without ever becoming a lame duck coach and hurting recruiting.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
Psst, hey buddy, it was sarcasm. Thought the millennium thing might tip it off.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
All of the people jumping up to award a lifetime achievement award just because we beat a bad MAC team and scored a lot of points was making me crazy.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:27 PM ^
I agree. In this thread reality is missing in more than a few posts. If we keep winning and the recruits start pouring in then it is something a little more worthy of debate.
October 1st, 2010 at 12:29 AM ^
"The other approach is to go the ND route and sign him for the next millennium after one good season. Money well spent IME."
you, sir, are in error. such an outstanding move, the ultimate sign of brilliance, comes only from a clear beacon of leadership as our previous athletic director.
after all, it wasn't that long ago that our basketball program embodied medocrity. look at where we are now! thank you bill martin!
September 26th, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^
releases its findings.
September 26th, 2010 at 9:02 PM ^
has already released its findings. UM has determined what its punishment should be, its now up to the NCAA to determine if the punishment is adequete.
September 27th, 2010 at 12:44 AM ^
I love what I have seen so far. I do think the defense will be shaky the rest of the way, but I have seen some improvement. The offense is going to be flat out scary going forward. I have said all along, if RR gets through this year it is going to get fun. I fully expect to be at the top of the Big Ten competing for a championship next season. I actually like the way this year sets up now for a very good record.
This week has to be a win and then MSU is a huge, huge game. A win there and RR is safe imo. I could easily see a 9-3 or 10-2 type season IF we get past the next two.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:17 PM ^
It's way too early to talk about RR's contract status, either positively or negatively.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^
He will get his just reward in time, whatever that may be.
Let's wait until we get more results.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:24 PM ^
I clicked on this thread expecting a shitstorm. This is a nice change of pace, to be able to talk about a contract extension
September 26th, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^
I'm glad to see our fanbase constantly fast forwarding to futures of doom or glory depending on what happened last Saturday.... /s
September 26th, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^
September 26th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
Is it cloudy? Don't worry; it's Michigan. It'll change in five minutes.
Much faith in Dave Brandon to make the best move for the program and the University, not firing RR three games into the season or giving him an extension four games in. The team played a solid game Saturday, easing some unease from a poor performance the prior week, but any analysis of RR's security should wait until the season is over. Certainly, giving an extension based on a blowout over feeble BGSU would be a terrible idea. Brandon, as he said, will look at many factors including, but not limited, the team's record.
Let's just keep getting better and see how the year plays out.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
not asking for an extension now. Curious if you would give him an extension if the team went 9-3, which is what I proposed.
September 26th, 2010 at 8:00 PM ^
No. I wouldn't. Contract negotiations are a long-term, forward thinking beast. In this situation, we have a head coach whose value is lower with nearly any other program beside Michigan (even assuming 9 wins). He faces NCAA violations from his tenure at two separate programs. Even though we all know the specific violations to be rather "minor", they still mar his value. There just isn't a reason for any extension other than providing some comfort to recruits, who'll likely have that comfort anyway with a 9-win season and NCAA confirmation of our defense.
September 26th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^
Well of course you wouldn't. You don't want him to be the coach right now.
September 26th, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^
Look, a multi-million dollar contract is not a matter for a fan to handle. Things aren't as simple as you'd like. Contracts are negotiated by adults looking out for the best interest of their client. Coaches gain (or lose) value in many different ways. The University does best to maximize their own interests in any contract deal. There is no incentive for them to consider an extension...that's the realm of Bill Ford and Matt Millen.
While I've been extremely disappointed with RR, I've said all along that I'd rather win with him now than have to fire him and try again after another poor season. He's the coach. Dave Brandon is the AD. Both have jobs to do and neither does a service to the University if they act in the capacity of a fan. So, again, contract negotiations are done by those looking out for the best interest of the organization...not for those who may not see the forest or the trees.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:08 PM ^
Why must you talk down to everyone? "Adults", like I am not an adult.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:18 AM ^
September 26th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^
It seems in both cases the violations you talk about are a cause of the compliance departments misunderstanding of the rules. After all, WVU continued the same practices after RR left so it's not like it was his evil intention to "over practice" by having QC staffers help with stretching.
Is Calipari's value really marred by his "major violations" at two university which will in all likelyhood be three universities in the near future.
September 26th, 2010 at 8:51 PM ^
Of course he faces violations. Look, a discussion of compliance department misunderstanding isn't valuable here. WVU faces NCAA sanctions for activity under his watch (and maybe, as you say, beyond). Michigan faces NCAA sanction for activity under his watch. That lowers his value. That's not a debatable point. I'm merely talking about negotiating contracts...something that I do in my daily, professional life.
As to Calipari...If RR is Calipari (didn't you just say the violations aren't his fault?), I don't think anyone at Michigan wants him. He's not Calipari.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:33 PM ^
This is way too premature. Just a month ago he was on the hot seat. If something happens and we only go 7-5, or even 6-6, he would be back on the hot seat. We started out 4-0 last year. Let's not get too cocky-our 2nd half of the year is much tougher than the 1st.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
I understand the stance of it being early. We don't want to be Notre Dame ala Weis. But, I do think it would do 2 things for this program. Show confidence in RR, and help with recruiting. Kids want to play for one coach, not sign up for a program where they may or may not have the same coach throughout their career.
September 26th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
And it would also bind our hands legally should the NCAA come down harder on the program and/or RichRod. We'd be stuck having to pay out his contract even though we currently can void future payments. It would also make us look like a program that had never been here before. It's not like other schools are clamoring to steal RR from us (imagine a university president approving of the hire of a coach whose past two programs faced NCAA violations). We're in fine shape from a negotiating standpoint and will be in a fine position from a football standpoint whether it's RR winning now or another coach winning down the line.
September 26th, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^
you want into a contract. You want to make it contingent on him wearing a maize wristband or NCAA sanctions that are < losing scholarships or whatever, fine. You can't be rational on this topic and no one should listen to you.
September 26th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^
Huh? I can't be rational? Sorry, "Promote RichRod", but I think someone with that name might be the irrational one when discussing contracts for RichRod. Anyway, if you are operating under a contract that keeps your coach under contact for a series of additional years, pays him an amount you're comfortable with and allows you to terminate him without payment if the NCAA comes down on him (a ruling which will come, one way or the other, at some point this season), what "rational" reason would there be to re-write it?
September 26th, 2010 at 8:52 PM ^
I'm not arguing for him to get an extension right now. I don't care either way. So you can stop right there with the "you're not rational!" argument.
Anyways, my point stands. Giving him an extension wouldn't "bind our hands legally" unless we want it to. If DB loved him as a coach and his only concern was harsh violations, he would simply draft around it. I draft these exact sort of contracts for a living, so yes I know what the hell I'm talking about.
September 26th, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^
No offense, but you don't draft these contracts for a living. It's fairly clear from your writing that you don't. You might do something really interesting, but you don't negotiate performance contracts.
If you did, you'd understand that when you already have your required points of concern covered in an existing contract that there isn't value for you in renegotiating. Why would Brandon ever consider drafting around sanctions when he already has strong wording on that point? You think RR would gladly accept such language knowing that he's currently facing sanctions? Of course not. C'mon now...
September 26th, 2010 at 9:03 PM ^
and this is the type of thread we come up with
September 26th, 2010 at 9:10 PM ^
How is there no value? If DB thinks he's great for whatever reason he would give the extension and a pay raise. The value is in retaining an attractive employee and making his job easier re: recruiting and boost morale. It's not rocket science. Further, they are 95% of the way through the sanctions process and have a really good idea how they will end. If the issue still gave them heartburn they would draft around the risk - notwitstanding the foregoing, if employee is employed while the university experiences NCAA sanctions [THIS BIG] then employee may be terminated for Cause as defined in section [ ] of the Agreement and will not be eligible for any severance amounts.
The NCAA sanctions woudn't and shouldn't factor into the decision to extend his contract. That's all I've said and all I will say.
September 26th, 2010 at 9:31 PM ^
"Notwitstanding"? Are you Cousin VInny? "Actually, yer Honor, the two yuts..." Love it.
I appreciate your effort, but you either have no idea what you're talking about or you're terrible at your job. NCAA sanctions clearly are a large issue here and attorneys don't avoid an issue because they're 95% sure they know the outcome. Malpractice much?
By the way, what's the value in "retaining an employee" who is already under contract for multiple years? Isn't he already "retained"?
September 26th, 2010 at 10:13 PM ^
is an extremely common word in legal documents, especially employment contracts. It lets you say a bunch of stuff and promise things and then say yeah but if X happens then the above doesn't apply. I get the sense you haven't seen many transactional documents, merger agreements, severance agreements, employment agreements ERISA plans, etc. You are embarrassing yourself.
Yes, executives avoid issues in agreements all the time because the likelihood of a particular outcome is very remote. The goodwill lost in bringing up some issues and hostility it creates in negotiations is often not worth it for the company (here, the university). Lawyers bring up the risks (yes, all of them, no malpractice) and tell the client to make a business decision. Here, I agree sanctions are a big concern. They would use language similar to what I wrote above. It would be built into the definition of termination for Cause or inserted directly into the severance payments provisions. Just because you are a lawyer (if you are) doesn't mean you know anything about executive comp. It's obvious you don't.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
I hope I'm not the only one laughing at you.
Notwitstanding is an extremely common word in legal documents
September 26th, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
is that I forgot the h? You got me. Now, address the rest of the argument.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^
Yes. You misspelled the legal jargon you tried to flex. Then, you misspelled it again. Then, you misspelled it in the title of a post and said I was embarrassing myself. Yeah...
Now, this all comes after you said you were done. So, for you, back to being done.
September 26th, 2010 at 11:42 PM ^
You have been and continue to embarrass yourself in this thread. You made an idiotic point, I came back with a counterpoint from having, you know, actually drafted and negotiated these exact agreements.
Your counterpoint? "Nuh uh your probably not even a lawyer!"
My response is to offer up language I've used and seen used dozens of times to draft provisos and contingencies in employment agreements and to tell you the (blindingly obvious) benefits of providing highly compensated employees more money and giving them more job security (again, without debating whether this would be warranted by RR's performance).
Your counterpoint? "You misspelled notwithstanding."
Seriously, man. Don't you run a bar or something? I remember you saying that in the epic Michigan smoking ban thread. Maybe you have your law degree too but you don't appear to be a practicing executive compensation lawyer. Your performance in this exchange was utter fail.
September 27th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
1. The squiggly red line means "typo". You can't ignore that many times (especially on a board filled with grammar hounds) and call someone an embarrassment at the same time.
2. I made an "idiotic point"? Well, considering RR isn't sitting on a fat new contract, I guess our AD is an "idiot" as well.
3. Good memory. I do own bars and am an attorney who drafts performance contracts for entertainers on a regular basis.
4. To summarize, it is a very bad idea to re-open a contract when the employee under contract has no better offers elsewhere and may soon be in breach of his existing contract. The only potential benefit (other than the employee's "morale" you cited earlier) would be giving recruits a bit more comfort. That same comfort can be gained by RR winning a bunch of games. The AD needs to look out for the interests of the program, not just the fans excited over a good start. If you decided to add years and dollars to a contract for an "executive", sought after by none of your competitors and currently in breach of...say...a trade secrets restriction of his contract, you'd be making a huge mistake. Can it be written? Yes. Many terrible documents can be drafted. You could write a 50-year contract for a chicken at $12mil/year, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Good thing I can think in legal and business terms. Too often lawyers fail to think beyond the document and cause more problems than they cure.
September 27th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
3. Good memory. I do own bars and am an attorney who drafts performance contracts for entertainers on a regular basis.
Sitting in a fleabag bar he owns and drafting up contracts for strippers, local rap start wannabees and wedding bands/singers?
September 27th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
I'll let your imagination run wild. Whatever you think is exactly correct, but strippers don't have contracts...and they pay the house. Entertainers who pay to work? Ah, dare to dream.
At least you spell check, which puts you one step ahead of your amigo. I'll give it one last shot because, so recently, we had found a point of agreement. We were, dare I say, almost like candles in the wind. Alas...This thread is about a contract extension for the coach. You can think I'm a total retard who has a RichRod voodoo doll and writes contracts for hobo's but maybe, just maybe, I know what I'm talking about. The idea of re-opening talks with a contracted employee currently in breach just doesn't make legal or business sense. We will, hopefully, be crushing all competition soon and RR may eventually earn an extension. I think even he'd laugh at the suggestion now. William Clay Ford, however, will think an extension to be the ultimate drop of wisdom.
September 27th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
The only reason they don't have contracts is because they have you for an attorney ;) Sorry, I couldn't resist some fun little jabs. All in good fun, lawyer jokes are always funny right? We did find some common ground, because in that thread you were slingin' some sense my friend, no doubt. Here, not so much.... I am extremely familiar with contracts myself and typically handle my own negotiations for media and tech agreements working exclusively at start-ups and not having direct access to legal resources. Admittedly I'm not an attorney (did take classes at UM Law, but Real Estate Law and such doesn't really apply), but logic in this case doesn't necessarily warrant a degree. Please find the actual text in his contract that indicates Rich Rodriguez is currently in breech (kidding, had you going there, I know it is breach, you were going to jump all over that weren't you?) of his contract. Then please compare that to the actual charges, because, if I'm not mistaken, the only charge levied specifically at RR was disputed in the response from UM (failure to promote atmosphere of compliance, or something to that effect), which until ruled otherwise is still only a charge. Until the NCAA officially accepts or rejects M's response and self-imposed sanctions, he really cannot be in breach of his contract. Unless you think his contract reads that he is in breach merely because an accusation has been made, which no attorney anywhere would ever accept on either side. Would you?
Whatever clause may exist that could potentially result in RR's termination will certainly not be invoked no matter what the NCAA concludes. I would be fairly confident that the clause is worded in such a way as to leave it to the discretion of David Brandon and MSC in determining if any infraction is egregious enough to warrant dismissal. Even if they wanted to remove him 'for cause', which I doubt, they would find it tough sledding legally because they just participated in an in-depth investigation conducted by a third party and formulated a comprehensive response to the NCAA based on those findings that unquestionably characterized the infractions as minor, and specifically excepted the charges against the coach as inaccurate. To turn around and say, 'oh wait, we want to fire him, therefore we now think it IS is fault and he should be dismissed' is the legal equivalent to a witness stating, 'I know I said he was not guilty earlier, but now my goal has changed and I want to testify that he IS guilty.' I wouldn't want to be the attorney trying to make that case.
September 27th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
We actually do agree on that in some sense, but probably from different angles.
First off, no contract extension during this season makes sense. Though post-bowl game (assuming) 'discussions in earnest' would commence with some form of agreement reached with a variance based on the results of 2011. I agree RR would not want to enter negotiations now because he will be, Football Gods willing, in a much better position to negotiate after this year and/or next, assuming he gets the team where it needs to be. M, on the other hand, would be looking to open talks earlier rather than later and get some kind of MOU or something in place before RR completely 'arrives' just because he will be cheaper at that point. If RR were to win a MNC (again, purely conjecture for the sake of argument) before an extension, his stock goes through the roof and he will cost more to keep.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^
nope, but i am laughing at you.
September 27th, 2010 at 11:26 AM ^
lol, you really do like to flash your ignorance at every available opportunity don't you? How you can possibly think you are speaking from some position of authority in terms of contract negotiations and then react to the word 'notwithstanding' is beyond me. It is clear that you have never sniffed a real contract in your whole life. I guess it shouldn't surprise me at all, given that your utter lack of knowledge with regard to the game of football hasn't prevented you from attempting to debate that either. Let's face it, the only thing you contribute to this board, or will ever contribute to this board, is anti-RR vitriole. It is all you know. Things must be tough for you these days if you are still trying to hang your hat on him getting ousted by NCAA sanctions. Keep reaching.
Also, not surprising that you would be intimately familiar with a film like 'My Cousin vinny', which no doubt is one of your faves.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:07 PM ^
I am not sure what you mean and frankly your response sounds a bit arrogant. I think there always is a potential benefit or risk of negotiating a contract. Say RR wanted security and UM could sign him up for 5 more years at 1 mil per year. You might say "no way, too risky" for UM but another person could say "yes, much risk but huge upside of getting 5 more years on the cheap for taking a risk that RR will turn things around." And you can draft in any other provisions you want. There may not be a need for an extension right now but there is always a potential benefit if the terms are right. As Morpheus would say "free your mind." You need a creative side to your thinking.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:27 PM ^
It's not arrogant; it's factual. You don't reopen a deal when the deal is already favorable to you and the other party to the contract has no leverage. Now, if RR were the hottest coach in the nation, fielding calls from coast to coast, then we'd have an interest in reworking his deal. For the moment, he is facing NCAA violations at two schools and coming off the worst 2 year stretch in modern UofM history. He isn't a hot commodity for the time being.
Please don't take that as an analysis of his future potential. I'm just stating the facts to consider as part of a renegotiation. Just because people are excited about the season doesn't mean that RR would re-up at a fraction of his current contracted value for a ton of years. That just isn't a realistic scenario.
Business deals should be made with a look to all facts, cover all angles...and never be based upon a quote from a character in a science fiction movie.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:36 PM ^
clouds your "analysis." As someone mentioned downthread, re-negotiating college fb head coaching contracts years before they expire is standard and very common. If it doesn't come in the next 1.5 years, its as good as a vote of no confidence. As I mentioned earlier (and you conveniently ignored) there are many benefits to doing so, most obviously in recruiting. And recruiting allows RR to perform better.