The funniest part of that poll is that 6% of the population thinks Tom Herman will be given a 5 year cushion.
Thankful for what Herman has done in just 2 years for UH and he set up a good foundation for UH football in the future. It sucks he left but ultimately it's always the personal/competitive goal to win at the highest level and a national championship. At UH, it's just way too difficult to get them into a position to have a chance being outside a major conference because you have to be 100% perfect and that's nearly impossible. Outside of Alabama, every single team loses or gets upset at one point or another. Hopefully our next coach can still provide much of the same winning culture and bond that we've had the last couple of years
Its tremendous RELATIVE to what it was prior, in Houston - a poor college sports city, but still not relative to the rest of what other strong college football town receives. And even then, its a new-found/in its infancy movement to make UH college football great... thanks to newly dedicated funding, new facilities, and a renewed commitment by the school. Just because they finally woke up and gave a damn (in large part due to a coach who brought a breath of fresh air) doesn't entitle the school to be part of a major conference immediately. Had they been accepted by the big 12, I felt it was more an indictment of the tough times the conference is in (they'd take "anybody") rather than a validation of all the years of hard work that UH has done to attempt to elevate the program. You don't get there overnight, or even in 2-3 years. Takes a lot of consistency and financial resources over a significant amount of time to build a program that is worthy of being deemed a true quality program.
This exit definitely has a "Franchione to Texas A&M" stench to it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the results are very similar for TH in Austin. Oh, and don't even entertain Keeler from Sam Houston State. That's an FCS program and totally beneath you.
It should matter and people should care when student-athletes don't have the same options to bolt before the season is over without having to sit out a year. Let the players to the same thing and then it won't matter.
If players could leave then all hell would break loose. Programs like UH would suffer the most. There needs to be a some rules and regulations in place to prevent coaches from job hopping like this. Of course that would require a central governing body worth a crap. God I hate college athletics. It's the Somali warlord ruled wasteland of organized sports.
Agreed. I worded it incorrectly. I should've said "put the same limitations on the coaches and then it won't matter."
First, hope you guys don't feel like I'm trolling. I've been supportive since last season when posting in this thread. Complimented the team, kudos for that magazine cover and some other positive comments. The other threads in the football forum are a different story. Just called it like I saw it. So, I just mean to say I'm particular about what I say in other fan's threads so I hope this doesn't seem like I'm trying to attack or come down on the school. The narrative about UT having too high a standard is very silly. Other coaches have been fired in the same time span with better records or after 4 years but after having a lot more success than Charlie. Ohio St, USC, Alabama, LSU, Florida etc would not tolerate a 16-21 record after 3 years with only 1 bowl appearance. It's historically bad. UH fired Tony Levine after 3 years and a 21-17 record. I absolutely agree players can't be free to move schools without sitting out a year except in institutional cases like Penn St and Baylor. However, I disagree about stopping coaches from moving around. They will always have players that they recruited that will be hurt. I would be for tampering rules that prohibits dialog between coaches and other teams until the last regular season game. Schools should be able to make decisions on their current head coaches after the season and then move on to another coach. Again, I feel like I've been really fair to UH in terms of support since last season. All I said is that they have momentum and we'll see how the support is this year. If we are talking about Herman being the one to break a promise then I think it's worth bringing up that UH fans stopped showing up to games this year despite having a great season. I know the fans didn't all promise to come to games but Herman specially mentioned attendance twice last season. It's not hard to fill a 40,000 stadium and the 35k reported attendance for those two games didn't include season ticket holders who didn't show up. I know that doesn't outweigh everything with Herman but it's something worth considering when discussing what he asked for from the school and fans. Despite the hurt feelings, he has increased awareness and opinions of UH football by 1000 and forced the school to put money into facility improvements through his buyout negotiations. He even forced them to commit to green lighting basketball arena improvements. I know they wanted to do those upgrades but he forced them to greenlight it by a certain date. They are probably #1 on expansion talks next go around if we go to super conferences. I have no idea if Major is the right guy but I would love to see him get the job for obvious reasons. It makes sense to me if you want to continue the current performance but I really don't know. I don't think it would really energize the fanbase to hire him. It seems like its time for him to pursue any head coaching job that's offered to him. Maybe SMU?
What logical rationale is there for treating players on a different level than the coaches? If the idea is to prevent free market forces from taking over college football, why does that rationale apply ONLY to the young men who play? Why are the penalties only enforced for the players and not the coaches? If the idea is that kids should honor their commitment when they signed, a life lesson or whatever, why are coaches free to chase that paycheck regardless of their contract?
You don't kick players off the team if they aren't as good as you were hoping they would be. Coaches can get fired.
And when they terminate their coach's contract, they have to pay up. Charlie is getting paid. So, a player has to sit out a year if they end their commitment. A university has to pay buyouts. The coaches?
I get what you're saying. I just don't think what you are describing is legal. Coaches and Universities already mutually agree to buyout stipulations for the coach to where he would owe a university millions of dollars he if leaves before his contract is done but that tends not to matter since the university that is hiring him will usually pay it. I'm assuming UT will be sending UH a check or they'll pay Herman extra money for him to pay UH for that buyout or however it works. I guess you would be describing a limited non-compete clause in a contract? I think letting kids transfer wherever they want would create mass chaos and you would have year around posturing from schools to attract players from other schools. Imagine if every player in the NFL was a free agent every year.
Technically, its up to the coach to pay the buyout if they void their contract, no? Universities just tend to pony up the money for them as part of the cost of doing business.
Also worth noting that coordinators and lower-level coaches often do have non-compete clauses. They can generally take jobs that are a step up (position coach to coordinator; coordinator to Head Coach, etc), but there tend to be more restrictions on lateral moves. I think that was big lawsuit fiasco with the UT O-Line coach we got from OkieState and made into a fake "offensive co-coordinator" to make it work.
