CoxBizGrad wrote:You are partially correct. Orsini needs to shoulder a large part of the blame since he structured the contract and was responsible for hiring Doherty and granting the extension. It is unheard of that incentives were not tied to performance on the court. You have got to give Doherty credit for outsmarting Orsini. Doherty is after all a good businessman and his Wall Street skills came into play. The program is now paying dearly for Orsini's decision as are the donors who will have to step up to fund Doherty's buyout. I'm happy (as his he) that he got the football hire (Jones) right. "Top 25 in everything we do." Yes, I'm tired of hearing it too.
You're not grasping how all these contracts are structured. Of course there were incentives tied to success on the court, as well as off the court. That's standard. He didn't reach hardly any of those incentives. B/c he lost so much, he was compensated down every year. He makes 450k or something now, but was making closer to 600k when he started. You fire a coach for poor results/performance etc. You give him incentives for wins & on court success.
Any coach would have asked for the facility upgrades. Doh was savvy in that his contract got him a rollover if Moody wasn't being renovated almost 3 years ago. Orsini was wrong for not getting that rebuild underway earlier. If you want to say Doh outsmarted Orsini there, fine. No argument. That said, his contract was maybe one year longer than standard.
For years, all you heard people talk about was how much money Doh was making, when the reality is that he's always been compensated w/low commitment numbers. Schools like Northern Iowa and UNT pay as much as we do, as an example