SMUFan wrote:Yes, he inherited talent at UM. He also got them to perform at a high level. The NCAA history books are filled with talented teams that underachieve, and the blame for many of those has to fall at least in part at the feet of their coaches.
The history books are also full of mediocre coaches who won championships because of overwhelming talent.
Coaching Miami with an NFL roster is a lot different from building a program at SMU. It takes energy and vision, and I don't see either in Coker. Nice guy, though.
crazy as it sounds, alot of people dont get it and think its all about game planning and game management at the college level. confusing high school ball and pro ball with college as if the dyanamics are similar at all. Bill Belechik would have probably been a poor college head coach, which goes for alot of NFL guys too. Obviously he has a name now, but if you dropped him in at UT or somewhere 15 years ago he probably would have failed.
It would be an SMU problem if they worked with Fran to develop a contract that would lessen SMU's payments and increase A&M's. I assure you SMU would get pulled into that mess as well.
SMU wants to be thought of as a big-time program, I don't think they would try and structure a contract to get more $$$ out of A&M and less for them to pay.
Also remember that Fran's staff at A&M is under contract through June, so A&M could play hardball and refuse to let them out of their contract early if SMU does try and structure the deal to maximize A&M's payments. These kind of things usually are two-way streets. Orsini is smart enough to know that.
I am an attorney and a contract attorney at that. IF (big if) SMU were to knowingly structure a contract with Fran to lessen their obligations and keep A&M's at the highest level it would violate his contract, and SMU would be brought in to the claim.
I deal with non-compete agreements all the time, the employee and his new employer are always brought in to actions to enforce the non-compete. While the SMU example above would be somewhat different, SMU would be a party to any claim.
I don't think it would ever come to thast, but just giving you the "what ifs".
that was a question on the a&m board, but they were questioning non-compete in texas, not just big-12. the buy-out doesnt mention a non-compete, however.
