Rebel10 wrote:The only coach that would agree to a 50 million dollar buyout is a coach that isn’t any good imo. Sure SMU could hire a high school,position coach that would agree to that but we would probably not have a very good team and it would cost whatever the buyout is to fire him which would be 50 million.
Wrong. You see, SMU has what is called leverage (i.e. $2,000,000) not the high school coach. Hence, SMU would contract to have zero penalty in the contract if SMU decided to fire the coach but could have a buyout penalty for the coach if he decides to leave. There is such a thing called a one sided contract. They used to be in vogue back in the day. Why would SMU not want a one sided contract if it's a possibility to have one (which it is)? Does SMU have some ethical duty I am unaware of to look out for the other party? Moreover, it's not like there are only 5 CMs in the making out there that we could sign if we wanted to go the CM Part 2 route. My favorite though is when SMU goes the "lets pay an outside firm to figure out who our next coach should be route and how much we should pay them". That's the ultimate waste. SMU is run worse than a government agency.
Lastly, the word is SMU is going to spend a truck load of money on an indoor facility etc.... Why not just use that money instead to hire are ridiculous splash type coach (not June Jones Circa 2008 level but like 4 levels up). Seems obvious we would get a much better return on investment going that route.