Bret’s big buyout
Dead money doesn’t make it less real
SO WE think we understand exactly how this works. First, you get a chalkboard and a math major. Then you create a chart with several formulas, or one really long one, that pays a football coach—that is, a former football coach—millions of dollars, depending on “all other text, terms and conditions” that remain unmodified after the First Amendment (?), then take the amount listed as the guaranty payment identified in the chart and divide by the number of months in the term of employment. Then take that amount and multiply by the number of months remaining in the contract. And carry the two.
The joke is, that language is closer to the truth than you’d be comfortable in knowing, Gentle Reader. Just read Friday’s news article on Bret Bielema’s buyout. If you can. Hint: Bring your pocket calculator.
Our brave reporters did their best. But how simplify that contract to make it even readable? It could have been written by Rube Goldberg in one of his more generous moods.
And we’re not the only ones confused. Will Bret Bielema get $5.9 million not to coach football at the UofA, or $15.4 million? The papers say the negotiations are ongoing, as the coach and the Razorback Foundation work toward a “release agreement” that would finalize things. Finally.
Our considered editorial opinion: This is ridiculous.
It’s ridiculous that: 1. The attorney general of the state of Arkansas had to get involved to allow the public to know what’s going on at a public university. Leslie Rutledge determined that the open-records law applied to the coach’s contract with the Razorback Foundation, and the details of his contract had to be released so the mere people could be let in on the secrets. Now if the foundation would answer other FOI requests as well.
It’s ridiculous that: 2. This contract is so confusing that it’s taken more than a month of negotiations—and the players involved still haven’t agreed to a number.
Speaking of numbers, it’s ridiculous that: 3. This kind of money is spent on football coaches. Remember back over the last month: What was Kevin Sumlin’s buyout at A&M? More than $10 million?
Arizona State fired its football coach Todd Graham, and the papers said the university owes him more than $12 million. Tennessee is supposed to pay Butch Jones more than $8 million soon enough. Florida is supposed to pay Jim McElwain $7.5 million. And Bret Bielema’s range—as of this writing—is between $5.9 and $15.4 million. We think.
Are these football coaches or lottery winners? And why not both with these kinds of contracts?
But take heart, all of you who aren’t owed tens of millions of dollars: For there appears to be sanity on the horizon.
REMEMBER Hunter Yurachek’s first press conference when he was introduced as the new athletic director at Arkansas? It was only a few weeks ago. And what did he say that had everybody talking? Contracts for coaches:
“For someone the likes of Kevin Sumlin to get paid 100 percent of his contract, $10 million, I think that was a mistake,” AD Yurachek said. “Now, I’m not at Texas A&M. I know they’re in this conference and we compete with them . . . But that’s a mistake in our industry. It’s not a sustainable model moving forward.”
“We’ve got to get a handle on coaches’ contracts and the buyouts,” he added. “To me, losing football games [should mean] being terminated with cause. The protection sometimes that coaches are provided within their contracts to me is ludicrous. I want to be a leader in this industry in how we write our coaches’ contracts moving forward so that there’s not 100 percent guaranteed protection for their contracts.”
And the people of Arkansas would like him to be that leader in the industry. And what an industry college football has become. A profitable one for coaches, for sure.
Here’s another way the new AD could be a leader in this industry: Take the necessary steps so that the school, the foundation, and all new coaches sign contracts that can be understood on the first reading. Without the pocket calculator and that math major.