Chizzed again???

**dunar** · 01-31-2009, 07:48 AM

The DMReg has an article today about ISU's athletic budget shortfall, specifically related to the coaching change. What stood out to me was:

Chizik's former assistants must be paid by ISU at least until the end of the fiscal year, unless they find equally compensated employment elsewhere. Bolt and McFarland, who receive annual salaries of $250,000 and $275,000, respectively, are in the first year of two-year contracts that ISU must honor.

Since both were demoted before GC left, do we have to cover the full $525k?

Oh and since no one has started the DC thread in over 24 hours (what???), I would make this my official declaration of that thread which shall no longer be named...

**MontyBurns** · 01-31-2009, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by dunar

Since both were demoted before GC left, do we have to cover the full $525k?

Yes, we do. When ISU signed the contract it was a committment to pay them that salary for 2 years, and we have to honor it even if we demote them (just like we do when we fire coaches with time left on their contract). Left unexplained by the article is why they had 2 year contracts instead of the 1 year contract that is typical for all assistant coaches -- another great move by Pollard!

**nj829** · 01-31-2009, 08:15 AM

I would venture to guess that 99% of coordinators at BCS schools have 2 year contracts at a minimum. This seems to be the norm for the top positions.

**CyKosys** · 01-31-2009, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by dunar

The DMReg has an article today about ISU's athletic budget shortfall, specifically related to the coaching change. What stood out to me was:

Since both were demoted before GC left, do we have to cover the full $525k?

Oh and since no one has started the DC thread in over 24 hours (what???), I would make this my official declaration of that thread which shall no longer be named...

Isn't this a stinker. This lying son-of-a-gun bolts and we get the bill.

**JDDCy** · 01-31-2009, 08:24 AM

Monty, we get it, you don't like Pollard. You can tell Bruce at dinner tonight that you stood up for him again on Cyclonefanatic. I'm sure your Dad will appreciate that.

**CyBobby** · 01-31-2009, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

Yes, we do. When ISU signed the contract it was a committment to pay them that salary for 2 years, and we have to honor it even if we demote them (just like we do when we fire coaches with time left on their contract). Left unexplained by the article is why they had 2 year contracts instead of the 1 year contract that is typical for all assistant coaches -- another great move by Pollard!

I think old Pollard got Chizzed in the two year contracts...No AD that I know would ever give any asst more than a one year contract ..just in case there is a coaching change!!!

Yeah ISU is gonna be paying for the Cheese-Dip hiring fiasco for a long long time!!!!

**zach** · 01-31-2009, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

Yes, we do. When ISU signed the contract it was a committment to pay them that salary for 2 years, and we have to honor it even if we demote them (just like we do when we fire coaches with time left on their contract). Left unexplained by the article is why they had 2 year contracts instead of the 1 year contract that is typical for all assistant coaches -- another great move by Pollard!

**Clonehomer** · 01-31-2009, 08:53 AM

I thought it was typical for assistant coaches to get a two-year deal initially then go year to year after that. Otherwise how many of them do you think would move their families for a one year contract?

BTW, Auburn will be paying for a majority of these contracts with Chizik's buyout. Because of this fact we might as well keep them here as position coaches or some capacity.

**Istate** · 01-31-2009, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by JDDCy

Monty, we get it, you don't like Pollard. You can tell Bruce at dinner tonight that you stood up for him again on Cyclonefanatic. I'm sure your Dad will appreciate that.

Although being on the same side as Monty isn't necessarily a good thing, he has been consistent and correct on Pollard. Jamie has been a borderline unmitigated disaster for ISU. This financial situation is just the tip of the iceberg right now in Ames. Jamie has done some good things like raise donations and ticket sales for football, but he has also raised expenses at a greater rate and had no success hiring coaches. There is real concern in the athletic department right now about the financial situation at ISU. So much so that in the next three years some prominent sports at ISU may be in trouble. If coach Rhoads doesn't win and win very quickly, it's going to get real ugly at ISU.

Jamie's A plan is that Alvarez retires before it hits the fan at ISU.

**psycln11** · 01-31-2009, 08:58 AM

Didn't we get $750,000 from Auburn for Cheezwiz breaking his contract?

Why can't this money go to buying out McFarland and Bolt. On a side note, if we're paying them, why not force them to work, coach, etc. in some manner this Spring.

**Klonz** · 01-31-2009, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

Yes, we do. ... we have to honor it even if we demote them

Actually - Pollard was asked by reports when the demotions were announced if they would be taking pay cuts and he said "Yes".

So - there is some discrepancy in what actually may be owed. The Register doesn't go out of its way to ensure accuracy of its stories.

**MontyBurns** · 01-31-2009, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Klonz

Actually - Pollard was asked by reports when the demotions were announced if they would be taking pay cuts and he said "Yes".

What Jamie did not say is that the pay cuts were not going to occur for one year -- when their current contracts ran out, and they got new contracts reflecting their demoted positions and corresponding lower salaries.

**ripvdub** · 01-31-2009, 09:16 AM

Yup, its all Pollard's fault. He makes our coaches sign contracts! WTF!

**hoosman** · 01-31-2009, 09:16 AM

Could we offer them sub pay if they accept a lower paying position? Otherwise, aren't they obligated to help the team if they are under contract? Could there be temporary assignments for recruiting, opponent scouting, training, or grading?
I understand that PR should not be obligated to an ad-hoc staff just to save expenses, but if everyone were true professionals (GC,PR, assistants), there may not need to be so much housecleaning.
On the other hand, we have had 7 general managers in the last 3 years at my company, and each time there have been staffing changes.

**CyAggie** · 01-31-2009, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

What Jamie did not say is that the pay cuts were not going to occur for one year -- when their current contracts ran out, and they got new contracts reflecting their demoted positions and corresponding lower salaries.

Leaving JP out of the discussion for a moment, if the negotiations were completed prior to the whole Chiz heading south fiasco, then the contracts were pretty reasonable in terms of being standard contracts.

The coach changed their positions but still wanted them for other coaching responsibilities. So, in return for less pay and the demotion publicity, gave them a longer contract.

Taking aside emotion, anyone on a similar situation may very well do, or ask for the same.

Bottom line, I do not think we should really direct our frustrations a the assistant coaches left behind. Yes they are getting paid, but they are also going through a lote as well.

Just my opinion.