All "Gripes" with Greg McDermott

**alarson** · 03-16-2010, 09:28 PM

It *should* have just been one year. As the contract says 'per year' affected, not 'per scholarship'. (we lost 2 due to APR issues - can find that many places- and apparently lost a scholarship for the jiri thing as well, as ive been told someone in the AD told paul clark today)

Apparently the extension was given in april 07, though I certainly cant find any press release from the AD about this back then. Probably because people wouldve gone nuts if they saw the AD signed an unproven (at ISU) coach to a 3 year extension 1 year in, when he already had 5 years remaining on his contract.

**alarson** · 03-16-2010, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

How many years have we been short scholarships while McDermott has been at ISU. The way I read it, for each year he was short a scholarship, that is one additional year on the contract.

One. 06-07. We were apparently down 3 that year, as its been explained to me. But that still only justifies only one year extension. Also, given that mcdermott wouldve had to recruit for those spots on short notice anyways, of any year to take that scholarship hit, we might as well have taken them upfront instead of spreading them out when we have all the time to recruit and get the best possible players.

**khaal53** · 03-16-2010, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by alarson

It *should* have just been one year. As the contract says 'per year' affected, not 'per scholarship'. (we lost 2 due to APR issues - can find that many places- and apparently lost a scholarship for the jiri thing as well, as ive been told someone in the AD told paul clark today)

Apparently the extension was given in april 07, though I certainly cant find any press release from the AD about this back then. Probably because people wouldve gone nuts if they saw the AD signed an unproven (at ISU) coach to a 3 year extension 1 year in, when he already had 5 years remaining on his contract.

I agree with your first paragraph, but the penalty was supposed to be over two years that was expedited for convenience. I can see where logically where that would still be given two years.

I believe the extension was first known about publicly in 08. I think...

**chuckd4735** · 03-16-2010, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by alarson

One. 06-07. We were apparently down 3 that year, as its been explained to me. But that still only justifies only one year extension. Also, given that mcdermott wouldve had to recruit for those spots on short notice anyways, of any year to take that scholarship hit, we might as well have taken them upfront instead of spreading them out when we have all the time to recruit and get the best possible players.

Interesting. I'd like to see where the "3 year extension" is coming from...

**Wesley** · 03-16-2010, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by yaman3

OK, so are we sure the contract is actually running as long as it has been said(2015)? Or is that something created on here and in fact maybe he is done in 2013 or 14? I don't know, I have never heard Pollard say anything in that regard.

Or will it go to infinity if he keeps losing players?

**khaal53** · 03-16-2010, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley

Or will it go to infinity if he keeps losing players?

It's only from lost scholarships from reasons that he inherited from the previous coaching regime.

**alarson** · 03-16-2010, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by khaal53

I agree with your first paragraph, but the penalty was supposed to be over two years that was expedited for convenience. I can see where logically where that would still be given two years.

I believe the extension was first known about publicly in 08. I think...

I can't find a single press release about it in 08 on the internet. Only mention i can find is an article written a month ago by Eric Peterson.

Also- he decided to take that in the first year. That makes it easier to do his job. Thats his decision. By the contract, however, that means he shouldnt get an extra year extension. If it was his choice to take them in one year, thats his choice to forgo the extension.

**cy1010** · 03-16-2010, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by khaal53

I agree with your first paragraph, but the penalty was supposed to be over two years that was expedited for convenience. I can see where logically where that would still be given two years.

I believe the extension was first known about publicly in 08. I think...

I actually dont think that makes sense, in that it doesn't comport with the purpose of the clause, which was to not unfarily judge McDermott for missing the tourney in years he was short on scholarships. If he's not short on scholarships in a given year, then it's not unfairly judging him to hold him accountable for the end result of that season.

**Wesley** · 03-16-2010, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Jack & Hilton

He gets an extra year because the NCAA suspendeded Jiri Hubalek for a few games because he borrowed a car once from his 2nd family who were Hawk fans but bought season tickets once 30 years ago. Its only fair right?

That was a very expensive mistake from the standpoint of One More Year.

**vmbplayer** · 03-16-2010, 09:37 PM

cy1010, I looked at this this past weekend and drew the same conclusions you did. However, as alarson pointed out, an associate AD told Paul Clark he was given the 3 year extension to 2015.

I read the contract as being through May 2013. The original date plus 1 year for the lost scholarships from 06-07. I understand and agree with what khaal is getting at about it having been our option to take the 2 year penalty all at once in 06-07. However, I read the whole clause as McD being at a competitive disadvantage for the years he didn't have 13 scholarships available so it gave him a year for every year he didn't have the full compliment. The idea being that he would get another year to turn it around because a year where you're handicapped is a poor measure of your ability to do well. I think since he only had to deal with that 1 year he should only get 1 more year.

**khaal53** · 03-16-2010, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by cy1010

I actually dont think that makes sense, in that it doesn't comport with the purpose of the clause, which was to not unfarily judge McDermott for missing the tourney in years he was short on scholarships. If he's not short on scholarships in a given year, then it's not unfairly judging him to hold him accountable for the end result of that season.

Understood. I agree that the scenario that is laid out in the contract and the scenario that played out are different. I think that it could be considered logical to still trigger the clause because the scholarship losses would've been spread out over 2 years had they not been expedited. I don't know how that "logic" is upheld by the contract, unless an agreement was reached before expediting that the clause would still be triggered. I'm just guessing here with the understanding that the 3 year extension was granted.

**vmbplayer** · 03-16-2010, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by cy1010

I actually dont think that makes sense, in that it doesn't comport with the purpose of the clause, which was to not unfarily judge McDermott for missing the tourney in years he was short on scholarships. If he's not short on scholarships in a given year, then it's not unfairly judging him to hold him accountable for the end result of that season.

Exactly, especially since we elected to take them all at once because we didn't have anyone worth using the scholies on. If you can't recruit enough guys worth a scholarship the penalty of not having them doesn't really hurt your ability to get things going.

**khaal53** · 03-16-2010, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by vmbplayer

Exactly, especially since we elected to take them all at once because we didn't have anyone worth using the scholies on. If you can't recruit enough guys worth a scholarship the penalty of not having them doesn't really hurt your ability to get things going.

Agreed.

**deadeyededric** · 03-16-2010, 09:42 PM

I think Pollard read III completely during the press conf.

**alarson** · 03-16-2010, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by vmbplayer

Exactly, especially since we elected to take them all at once because we didn't have anyone worth using the scholies on. If you can't recruit enough guys worth a scholarship the penalty of not having them doesn't really hurt your ability to get things going.

Agreed.

Even so, even if we gave him 2 yr for a scholarship hit that was 'supposed to go over 2 years' that still doesnt explain why we'd give him the third year, since the loss from Jiri was going to be in that one year no matter what. That doesnt justify a 3rd year.

I'm a big fan of Jamie and what he's done, but giving this extension basically gives McDermott an extra $500,000 to 1Mil and 1-2 years that he really isnt entitled to by the original contract. Thats a good chunk of the buyout we'll probably end up paying.