[SI.com] Texas (UT) upset with new recruiting rule

They should of kept their mouth's shut about him succeeding Mack Brown. I don't know whats the point of telling people that if its 4 or 5 years away. Its their own fault. Not really a UT fan by that way.

 

So now Muschamp can't walk into a recruit's home and say "In two years Ima gonna be headcoaching, and when I do you are gonna be the guy I build my offense/defense around". It's such crap because Muschamp is gonna stay in Austin for the next 5 years, grow disgruntled that Bown is still coaching, and settle for a lesser gig than the Tennessee job he passed upon.

 

New rule or not, I don't see why they didn't just keep that information among themselves if its 4 or 5 years away anyways, you get what I'm saying?Your argument is ridic.

 

Why exactly would they want to keep that kind of information to themselves before this moronic rule?

They wouldn't.

 

No, you would have an advantage because you could potentially have the head coach making as much recruiting trips as he wants - how is that hard to understand? Think of Jimbo Fisher being able to go into kids home last year, essentially as the head coach, and recruit.

Whether you want to admit it or not, it is an advantage in the recruiting process that the NCAA can control -- they can't control OU being in Oklahoma or Texas having a nice campus, as you tried to compare it to.

I understand it directly affects Texas and many Texas fans will be upset about this.. but it's not exactly a hard fix. Just drop the name off his position and you can recruit just like everyone else.

 

That's not how business is conducted. You think Muschamp would just be happy with a "handshake" agreement?

Regardless of how silly that part of the rule is (limiting a head coach's contact, but not other coaches), then why not make the rule go into effect if the head coach announces he will retire?

 

I'm an Aggie, but I think this is totally bogus. The fact that Texas can say Will Muschamp is going to be the head coach in 5 years, or whatever, is the advantage; and honestly, its one they've earned. They have a top rate coaching staff, and they should be able to use that as best they can. I don't see how this is unfair at all. Maybe if some other schools in the country actually focused on building a consistent program with a consistent staff, they would be able to do this too.

 

This. Kinda like Florida's DC not saying anything about the NFL until after signing day.

For the record, I think the rule sucks for Texas.. but I understand their reasoning in wanting to implement. Hopefully, teams like Texas would be able to easily remedy the situation by stripping the HC in waiting title -- but I understand Muschamp won't exactly be thrilled.

Interesting question.. would Muschamp be more inclined to take a head coaching job if he didn't have the "head coach in waiting" designation?

 

Well he can agree to disagree.

 

There is absolutely zero in Muschamp's contract that currently states he is the head coach in waiting. There is just a provision that if he is not by a certain date he gets a very large raise. So really the dumb thing is the whole "designation" is basically a handshake agreement already since there is no formal basis in his contract.

 

Actually, the opposite is true. There's no provision for a raise after a certain date (I guess UT learned from the Jumbo Fisher disaster). But it has been officially determined that he's the head-coach-in-waiting, though I have no idea how/if that's spelled out in the contract.

 

I have heard the exact opposite. Interesting, his contract should be an open record so it should be possible to find out. My only source is other message boards, where have you heard that is an official provision in the contract?

 

I'm not sure where to find it online, but back when Muschamp was being courted by Tennessee, either Mack or Deloss Dodds or someone in the admin said there was financial incentive or restriction to keep Muschamp here. There was no big buyout Muschamp would need to pay to leave, nor was there a guaranteed payraise if he were to stay. They basically were saying that if he stayed, it would be because he wants to and that UT wasn't going to provide a financial incentive to do so.

 

Umm - that should be "said there was NO financial..."

 

I think both you and Dylan are correct. IIRC...Dodds said there was no additional financial incentive given to Muschamp to stay after Tenn offered him. However, the contract he signed a while ago does give him a raise after a certain season (2012 I think).

As far as the HCIW provision, I assume that there has to be one since it would essentially be a "handshake" deal if there wasn't. Also, I don't think the NCAA could replace restrictions on a position that doesn't technically exist.

I bet the NCAA will modify the rule come April. You're essentially punishing a school for designating a HCIW and no school in their right mind will do so in the future, which is something I don't think the NCAA was trying to do.

 

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/football-muschamp-seals-future-in-texas-1.912058

Basically, Muschamp wouldn't owe anything to UT -- just like Brian Kelly or whoever else doesn't seem to owe anything to their former school when they jump at a better job. However, the HCIW title is significant because Muschamp seems to have a contract locked in as soon as Brown steps down. If the Longhorns wanted someone else to replace Mack when the time comes, I'd imagine they'd have to fire/buy him out of his 5-year contract. No word on what that would cost.