|
|
Post by coyotega on Nov 28, 2012 22:03:22 GMT -6
At some point, we will be signing a coaching successor. If our AD and Pres cannot get multiyear contracts for coaches approved by the Regents, they will do the U a huge disservice. I know State has survived, but hiring a good new coach who is worth his salt will require a multiyear deal. Every state that surrounds us has multiyear coaching contracts including North Dakota. New deans get tenure, I believe, meaning they get "continuing appointments" guaranteed unless there is cause or they quit. Offering football coaches multiyear contracts is less onerous than an offer of tenure, as in the case of a contract, a coach can't just quit in the term of his contract, while in the case of tenure, a professor can do just that. I see this as a very important issue in attracting the successor to Glenn, whenever that happens, and whoever that is. If the Presidents of sdsu and USD can agree on a strategy, I think they can get this done. To me, it's darn important they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Nov 28, 2012 23:53:10 GMT -6
I do not see the board of regents passing this in the next few years unless they get bribed. Come on, it's South Dakota, the least progressive state in the union.
|
|
|
|
Post by coyotega on Nov 30, 2012 9:27:47 GMT -6
I do not see the board of regents passing this in the next few years unless they get bribed. Come on, it's South Dakota, the least progressive state in the union. I certainly don't consider North Dakota, Alabama, or Mississippi more progressive in any sense of the word but they are all smart enough to know better. But, until this happens, and given the multiyear deals offered by everyone else, I really don't see us able to hire any good coach on the rise unless they are an alum and retired. |
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Nov 30, 2012 10:16:25 GMT -6
North Dakota usually has a surplus of money in its budget, something very few states can say, so you have to give them props.
In terms of attracting a coach, totally agree and I think it goes further to coordinators.
|
|
|
|
Post by redwhiteandyote on Nov 30, 2012 11:02:04 GMT -6
You're going to have teachers raising hell on that issue, if coaches are allowed multi-year contracts in South Dakota. Regents need to have some sort of athletic-related exception put through, so that schools can offer long-term deals.
|
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Nov 30, 2012 14:51:04 GMT -6
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by coyote70 on Nov 30, 2012 22:53:49 GMT -6
This is a thorny issue for sure and all the pros and yes, cons, of multi-year contracts need to be thoroughly explored and understood. Contracts have become somewhat of a political football in recent years as many have pushed for open government. I'm not sure USD, SDSU or the Board of Regents wants to get into that political arena. If you know the power structure in our state, it is the two (House/Senate) appropriations committees who hold sway on the issue, even if the BOR governs contracting at institutions of higher ed.
I don't see this as something USD/SDSU would push for right now. Likely they both have larger fish to fry. Will there ever be a right time for this issue? I don't know. One way to affect change would be for a coalition of sorts (e.g. alumni, legislators, citizens) to push for some type of study at the state level to see if a change in current policy is needed.
If that doesn't sound appealing, my next suggestion is to get a large group of grandmothers together on the issue and push for change during the next legislative session/Board of Regents meeting. They can get anything done!
|
|
