I think JS is the deer in the headlight's on this one. He got tea bagged by the 4-8, which, more so than the 4-8 alone, was the cherry on top of an already melting turd sundae.
He is smart enough to manipulate, deflect, and avoid situation's which expose his accountability regarding the football team. After all, it was Brian Kelly who was actually coaching the team, not Jack.
I think this was Jack's "oh shit" moment. And he flinched.
They are content to endure Kelly for as long as it takes rather than write checks for years as they did with Weis and Willingham. SEE is correct in saying that Kelly refused to negotiate his buyout cost. Unfortunately Kelly has no other job prospects that might mitigate this problem.
The university is trying to put lipstick on this pig while we suffer along.
Because all other forms of logic to explain why Brian Kelly is still our coach fail miserbly.
I didn't realize it but I read this morning that he was given a 5 year extension after the "success" of 2015. Just like Charlie before he cratered.
It made me think that it was too tough for the BOT to swallow that nut right after paying off Charlie, if he's even finished gorging at the ND trough now.
Cheaper to keep him and just fire all the assistants to see if that props him up for another year or three. Kick the can down the road and hope that it all turns out OK.
They're just dressing up the princess, and in their eyes they made fugly look great.
In 2011, there were 15 coaches with buyouts of more than $8M. In 2016, there were 33 coaches with buyouts that high, and that data only applies to the coaches at public universities. I imagine that Shaw, Helton, and Richt have buyouts exceeding that amount, and we already know that Kelly does. From what I can gather, some of the clauses are less "buyout" and more "you're gonna pay me the rest of the money owed on my contract." The coaches and, especially, their agents have really had the upper hand in contract negotiations of late. Harbaugh is getting paid $6M/year AND has a buyout of ~$25M.
Statistics and common sense indicate that there cannot possibly be ~40 coaches that deserve these buyout; there will be less turnover of head coaches in the coming years due to this development.
That Notre Dame snookered itself on a buyout clause after the Weis and Willingham fiascos beggars imagination.
counsel's responsibility in all this?
Mike Frank said that the terms of Kelly's buyout were onerous; he had heard that the "buyout" was basically equivalent to the remaining amount left on his contract.
Obviously that is hearsay but given the trend among contracts that have been negotiated in the past five years, there is little reason for me to question the veracity of the information.
whoever negotiated and approved that contract on Notre Dame's behalf.
Isn't going 4-8 embarrassing?
malfeasance. To the contrary, it should make them want to make great hires and use the university's advantages to build the program back to what it should be.
again after what transpired with Weis. How is THAT not a terminable offense for Swarbrick? And what about the GC's office?
Kelly out? How could that possibly be?
who went to what I presume is a top flight law school (all you lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong about Stanford) before he made that insanely stupid 'unremarkable' speech. I'll bet in his mind's eye he thinks he's super competent at everything he does.
I think one of the things we forget is that he had just given dickhead a big extension (I'll bet Kelly can use all the extra length he can get but I digress...). So it wasn't just a matter of losing face on his hire and his 2016 pre-season evaluation, it would have also cost the University some money - perhaps serious money if he did as shitty a job negotiating the contract buy-out language as he's done at every other aspect of his job.
Swarbrick is very proud of how he handled the Sullivan situation.
He and ND appear to be extremely lucky that the Sullivans aren't vindictive people. Or they gave them a shitload of incentive not to be vindictive.
I think ND is at a "crossroads" in that they are transitioning into the Notre Dame of the future and are enduring the pains of that transition as we type and speak.
It is my opinion, that the measurement of success for the AD position at Notre Dame is currently not aligned with the performance of the teams, per se, versus the revenue and perception that matters.
The board is chalk full of successful people who didn't go to ND. They are interested in KPIs and performance metrics around giving, etc, that drive rankings, reputation, and enrollment.
The revenue is still coming in, and even with our absurd pricing and shitastic list of opponents, the revenue will still come in. That is the top of the list for football, and as long as that happens, it doesn't matter if we're 4-8 or 12-1 (although 12-1 is preferred because it means more revenue, but even the revenue at 4-8 is good enough, as long as Malpass can and will earn a great return on it).
It's clear in speaking to other fans and reading other boards, that the fanbase is pretty disparate in their views on what ND should and shouldn't be. ND realizes, with that fractured nature (which they have helped to create) they can continue to focus on revenue without ever defining and clearly articulating championship goals for the program.
Jack isn't making a change because the most important measure of his success is still doing well. We're making money. It all starts and ends there. If they have to piss off a few older alumni to get that revenue, they don't care. The Notre Dame and alumni of the future won't care about that in about 15 years, so they are holding on until then, making a profit.
will stop, and I'm sure they are seeing effects now. Ticket demand is down considerably.
I must assume that FB success would only add to the money and the prestige. Certainly they would love being a BofT member if we won a NC. I certainly would.
it was cheaper to sign a bunch of assistants for a few million. The fact that he admitted that he had to make decision (hidden clue in the interview) means that Kelly was on the blocks. The fact that he clearly forced changes upon Kelly, means that he's not satisfied. There was a rumor that Kelly balked at a reduced buyout.
That said, hiring any new coach would come with significant risk no matter who does the hiring. I don't see any coaches (outside of the big 4) that have less risk than Kelly did. It could be a combination factors... firing a coach is not a solution, it just gets rid of the immediate source of angst.
end of the 2016 season conversation:
JS: Holy crap, Brian! 4 and 8? When I gave you that extension you told me I could count on a playoff run.
BK: Well, the players just didn't execute. . .
JS: Didn't execute. When I told you told you that Van Gorder had to go, I also said execution didn't look like the problem, and passing in a hurricane sure isn't an execution problem. Look, I need you to step down. People are beginning to question my own job security.
BK: Where would I go? No one in the NFL is going to hire me to save a franchise after 4-8. Hell, even ESPN isn't hiring. You will just have to buy me out.
JS: If I go to the BOT with a full buyout only a year after an extension, they will have my head. So, I will give you 1 more year, but you are going to have to agree to resign no matter what and you are going to have agree to some changes to your assistants and your approach. If you can pull off 9-4 or 10-3, maybe you can find an NFL or a lateral college job for a new "CEO Brian Kelly."
BK; Actually, my agent has been saying something similar, but how am I going to find quality assistants, if I have to tell them I will be gone at the end of the year?
JS: Maybe you can find some "up and comers" and we can offer them a 2 or 3 year package with a buyouts that total less than yours.
BK; Worth a shot.
Hired today, with an interest toward proving capable of taking over from Kelly?
If what you have said is true about Kelly balking at a buy-out, it will be interesting to see if he continues to put forth effort (any effort) this season.
Will he just let the assistant coaches run the show? Will he really become a "CEO"? OR will he show up 15 minutes before each game with a Starbucks and the Saturday newspaper under his arm?
That most head coaches that spent time coaching at a top tier football school, whether as an assistant or head coach, would have had less risk than hiring Kelly.
all gone, so I'm not sure your assumption is true.
on the shore of a lake saying "I can't jump in the water, there's a risk I could drown."
...have far greater potential reward. Kelly's ceiling is known at this point. A whole bunch of 5 loss seasons with a rate 6-8 loss season thrown in for a particularly bad year and a rare 1-3 loss season thrown in for a particularly good (for him) year. Oh plus he's a complete dickhead. In the probably quite likely event that we are not able to poach one of the greats, we should absolutely be willing to accept someone with as much or greater risk than Kelly who has the demonstrated potential to actually achieve success.
In my mind there are very few coaches who would be a clear downgrade from Kelly. Maybe a Ty Willingham-type who decimates the program for years to come through non-recruitment. But otherwise a guy who averages 5 losses a year and a guy who averages 6 losses a year are the same as far as I'm concerned. If we're really holding off on firing Kelly because whoever we get next might be worst, we're even more incompetently led than I thought.
BVG, Longo and Booker seemed almost purposeful in intent.
He went full Costanza trying to get fired and get his buyout, and Jenkins, Swarbrick, and the BOT are dumber than Steinbrenner as played by Larry David.
Certainly, the buyout for the baseball coach can't be that crushing.
It's not the buy out.
It's Swarbrick's arrogance at work here.
I certainly wouldn't assume both cases have the same attributes.
The baseball program is a total joke at this time. There is no reason to allow Aoki to remain. And yet he will come back next year. Why?
Because firing Aoki is an admission that Swarbrick made a mistake. And one thing that has become obvious with Swarbrick, he struggles to admit big mistakes.
different set of circumstances that have nothing in common.
I'm not sure about the assumption that he has trouble admitting big mistakes. That could be the case, but it could be a zillion other things.
It could also be that he's a shitty AD.
Frankly, that's the most likely answer.
He hasn't made a change because he thinks he's smarter than everyone else and that it is an impossibility that he hired a mediocre football coach.
Further, firing Kelly would be a sure sign that he was wrong. And Swarbrick appears to be the type that struggles to admit he made a mistake.