Andy Bitter, the Virginia Tech football beat writer for the Roanoke Times, broke the news.
Source w/knowledge of situation says Bud Foster has agreed to new five-year contract with VT that will pay him north of $756,500. #Hokies— Andy Bitter (@AndyBitterVT) December 22, 2014
Clearing up previous tweet, Foster's annual $$ will be more than $756K. Don't have exact #. Was just reference point to old contract— Andy Bitter (@AndyBitterVT) December 22, 2014
Bud Foster (reportedly) has agreed to a contract extension. Exhale and relax everyone. It comes about four months after head coach Frank Beamer was extended two years through January 1, 2019. Foster is due a one-time $800,000 annuity payment at the end of the 2014 football season from an agreement in December 2009.
This should put any rumors of Bud leaving Blacksburg to bed.
To put final kibosh to the Bud Foster-Tex A&M rumors that had no legs, I'm told #Hokies have been working on extension since middle of fall.— Hokies Journal (@HokiesJournal) December 22, 2014
The $800,000 bonus put Foster over the top as the highest paid college football assistant ($1,369,500) according to USA TODAY. The USA TODAY database (which isn't inclusive of every college football assistant private schools are not subject to the same public records disclosure) ranks defensive coordinators, including Foster, as 7 of the top 10 highest paid assistants.
| RANK | SCHOOL | ASSISTANT COACH | TOTAL PAY |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virginia Tech | Bud Foster | $1,369,500 |
| 2 | Alabama | Kirby Smart | $1,355,850 |
| 4 | LSU | John Chavis | $1,312,300 |
| 6 | Louisville | Todd Grantham | $975,000 |
| 7 | Michigan State | Pat Narduzzi | $907,033 |
| 9 | Baylor | Phil Bennett | $897,926 |
| 10 | Michigan | Greg Mattison | $888,333 |
| 11 | Clemson | Brent Venables | $875,000 |
| 12 | Oklahoma | Mike Stoops | $856,400 |
| 13 | Georgia | Jeremy Pruitt | $851,600 |
| 14 | Auburn | Ellis Johnson | $850,000 |
| 16 | Texas | Vance Bedford | $800,500 |
| 19 | South Carolina | Lorenzo Ward | $755,450 |
To further clarify, Bud Foster's deal will pay him $900,000 annually, source says. $600K base salary, $300K yearly retention bonus. #Hokies— Andy Bitter (@AndyBitterVT) December 22, 2014
If Bitter's salary is correct, Foster's new deal will make him one of the highest paid college football assistants, annually, and deservedly so.
By every conceivable statistic Bud Foster is one of the best defensive coordinators in college football. In 19 full seasons as the man in charge of the Lunchpail Defense, Foster's units have ranked in the top 15 nationally of total defense 12 times. Foster fielded elite units in 2014 and 2013. According to F/+, Football Outsiders' advanced and opponent adjusted college football ranking, the Hokies finished with the 3rd best defense in 2013, and is currently the 4th best nationally in 2014. The 2006 Broyles Award winner has earned a reputation as one of the best coaches at making in-game adjustments, and he may be second-to-none in terms of game planning and adapting his scheme over the years.
Comments
A wonderful Christmas gift for Hokie fans, if true.
Well that settles it, he's definitely going to A&M now.
Resisting all temptations to go to ATM site. Merry Christmas, Hokie fans. Christmas came early.
I thought he was headed to Pittsburg...
I know you guys won't believe me but I dance just like that.
On purpose?
Jealous?
You got me, I look like more like this on the dance floor...
http://giphy.com/gifs/seinfeld-jerry-sFuiQO7TuWSC4
Haha, we would make a good dance team.
Looks like:
+1 leg. "The Carlton" will always get one from me.
That salary is very reasonable. Wouldn't be surprised to see another annuity in addition either.
He gets a 300 hundred thousand retention bonus each year. I doubt an annuity.
It's the gift that keeps on giving the whole year...
FANTASTIC!
Now:
Re-work Gray's & Moorehead's salaries STAT.
Searels has a lot of quality beef to work with. If he gets these kids coached up, and we have anything approaching dependable O-line performance over the next few years, Moorehead's squad is going to break all the VT records.
Looks like Hokie Nation just added a second Fullwood to the roster...
TMI
Andy only rolls strikes, but for those of you who want more confirmation, Mike Barber is reporting it too.
5 year extension and Beamer possibly retiring after the Tenn match up in Bristol. So, either Bud sticks around at DC and we get a new coach that can focus on fixing our offense, or Bud gets promoted? Sounds great to me.
Maybe you missed this part:
That puts the two contracts within a year of each other.
The general consensus is that the extension was mainly for recruiting - but it is unlikely he doesn't retire after 2016 with a few years left on the contract.
Oh, I've heard all (maybe not ALL) of the rumors, but what are the sources on this besides speculation based on a few down years? Will people still be saying that he'll retire in 2016 if he wins 10 or 11 games next year and we're back in the Big Bowls? I'll get on here and goof around sometimes, but when it comes down to it rumors are just that until there's some tangible proof. And as of right now he is under contract until 2019. Is it possible that he retires before that? Yeah, it's possible, but have we heard from creditable sources that he is even planning his retirement date? Not that I'm aware of.
I may be wrong, but from everything I've heard, this "he's retiring in 2016" narrative was born in the fan base and that is where it has survived and grown. I know that he will retire sometime, but he will make that decision. He may want to coach for another 5 years or more. Or he may only want one more year. Either way we will have to replace him as best as we can (I say we, but 'we' will really have next to nothing to do with as 'we' won't be hiring anyone). I really don't like to deal in rumors, so until I see a statement saying that he has set a retirement date, I'm really not going to worry about it.
Maybe I'm just spoiled when it comes to football coaches, Beamer has been at Tech forever, and my pro team the Steelers, have had only 3 coaches since 1969...
If we get back to winning 10/11 games the next two years then I would think he would be more likely to retire after 2016, and I would love that. It would be perfect.
MORE likely to retire?? It'd be a better story, but two more years of barely hitting .500 and I seriously doubt he'd stick around for 2017.
You might have misunderstood me, I think he would be more likely to retire after 2016 if he continued winning as opposed to waiting until his contract expired.
With all due respect, that isn't a logical chain of events in college football. Coaches generally don't advertise a retirement date. That would be highly detrimental to their recruiting efforts. Even our current obfuscation of the subject is preferable to an actual date. Generally, coaches do what Troy's coach did this year: announce when they are starting their last year. Or retire right after a season so the best next coach can be brought in. Or retire after NSD if an in-house guy is getting the job. But you don't say, "I'm quitting in three years!"
Same for contracts. They exist in 5 year intervals for a reason, that's a kids eligibility. When it gets down to 2 or 3 years, you need an extension if you don't foresee firing the coach. In this case, we aren't firing Frank so he could have a 30 year contract. He will coach until he doesn't want to anymore and get a golden parachute, but we won't be on the hook for a 30 year deal anymore than we are on the hook for a five year deal right now if he does retire early.
So, I hear you. Rumors, facts, etc. But in this case, facts are very likely not forthcoming in the public, which would make them rumors. You can choose to not deal with them if you wish, but appreciate that this isn't a situation well suited for transparency.
My point. I wasn't saying that I was expecting any long-term statement, but rather that I would concern myself with his leaving when I heard something like your statement above. I understand the reasons not to advertise too early, and to keep contracts standardized. But I'm not going to sit here and worry myself over something that a) I have no factual basis to believe when it will happen (2016, '17, '18, ....) and b) I have absolutely no control of anyway. When Frank decides to retire someone else will be hired and he will be our Head Coach, if I like him or not. I will support the Hokies, no matter who is at the helm because they are my alma mater, and they are my team.
As a side note: All of this speculation and rumors could actually do more harm than good. Especially in recruiting circles. If you were an incoming freshman and all you saw on the internet and all you heard from friends was the rumor that Frank was going to retire after 2016 (after your sophomore year), would you want to come here? Not saying that their decision would be solely based on this, but I'm sure it would weigh in, especially the more they heard the same rumor.
That's fine if you don't want to worry about something you can't control, but try not to be so condescending about it. It's not like there is a bunch of hand wringing going on, especially here. TKP hosts considered conversations about the future of the program. You seem to want to opt out, that's fine. But don't act like the rest of us who want to discuss it are absurd and foolish.
I would also disagree that discussion about Frank's future has any real bearing on recruiting. It's widely known and speculated on throughout the industry. ESPN talks about it so certainly high school coaches are talking about it. I'm a transparency guy, let's put the cards on the table and discuss the options.
I meant on offense and I certainly didn't mean to come off as condescending. I apologize for that.
And speculation is fine, but what I get tired of seeing is when people take this speculation as fact.
My point was that Bud's contract expires after Frank's.
That's good news! It's also good news that we did it without breaking the bank for money we don't necessarily possess. SEC money can pay $1.3-1.6 mil, but that is out of our league. The $750-800K range is very generous and also very prudent by Whit.
On a slight tangent, I just read where Gary Patterson of TCU just signed an extension that will give him a large increase from his current salary of $4 mil annually. Thankfully, Whit is being prudent with VT athletic money while not being cheap. Congrats to Bud & Whit for getting this accomplished.
Also of note, the mention that Whit has been working on this since mid-season. Not because of media or fan pressure or because someone else was throwing money at Bud, but because Whit is quiet while he implements his vision.
I fully expect the final annual figure to be over $800K, and wouldn't be shocked if it was north of $1 million.
Taking that one step further, I'd be shocked if it was under $1 million. When Whit says "SEC money," he means SEC money.
That's fair. If I was a betting man, I'd certainly be going with the over as well.
Edit: And according to Andy Bitter, I (we) would have lost. Contract expected to be worth $900K annually.
Hm. Guess we're going Kentucky-SEC instead of Auburn-SEC.
$900k is more than all but three SEC assistant coaches- Alabama's DC and LSU's coordinators. So... it's definitely in the league (i.e. higher) than "Auburn-SEC."
Good call there. As you can probably see, I based my initial response on absolutely nothing. I just really want Bud to be paid a million bucks. Feel like there's some justice in there.
Can't spend money you don't have. Until the Hokie Club gets more money in paying assistants over a million will not happen. To fix that people need to donate to the Hokie Club, it's that simple a cause and effect.
Actually, two things need to happen. The first that needs to happen is the team needs to post a W-L record better than we've done in the last three years now. Then, the fan base will return and hopefully Whit's initiatives will help drive even better donations also.
But key is the winning, not just fans giving.
I'd say a third thing has to happen- other teams have to start sniffing around the coaches and make the attempt to pry them away.
If you ( or whomever) wish to use that as your criteria in order to donate that's your right. But those same fans can not complain about: coaching hires, recruiting or coaching stability.
No, those fans can absolutely complain about the above, because those fans are the ones that spent the money when the results weren't there.
You're going down a different path, and not the best one with that dismissal of fan rights. Yes, fan donations will need to increase in the future. Team performance will also need to increase. Expecting fans to increase donations while also ordering them to remain silent with input is completely absurd. This is not the time for that misguided tactic.
There is something wrong with literally every sentence in this post. SWVADON. A very poor argument indeed. You need to move past the fact that VT is not 10-wins immortal. Whats done is done. The mistakes Frank Beamer made were keeping several guys on staff for about 4 years past their expiration date. That changed less than 2 seasons ago. That time has passed. We're not good....we will be again. In the meantime, I am breaking this comment down cause this shit is whack.
"No, those fans can asbolutely complain because they are the ones that spent the money when the results weren't there?" That sounds like a huge generalization to me. Understood that people will gripe for on the field results, but you're talking about discontinuing your donations essentially to the face of an AD who is telling you "if you want big results, you have to hire badass coaches, they cost a lot of fucking money" If you don't believe, then don't give your money, and no, you don't get to complain about great people leaving and/or not making great new hires.
"You're going down a different path, and not the best one with that dismissal of fan rights" Lets get something straight, fan rights is a made-up term....there are no VT specific fan rights and there is no general FAN RIGHTS. It is not a fucking thing and has not place in any real discussion.
"Yes, fan donations will need to increase in the future. Team performance will also need to increase." Yes....you almost got back to reality here, it's a little contradictory to your general attitude which from where I am standing is: 'I dont think its reasonable to ask for more because the results sucked?' Did I get that right?
"Expecting fans to increase donations while also ordering them to remain silent with input is completely absurd." That IS absurd, and what might be more absurd is you asserting that this ever actually happened. Who the ordered you to remain silent? Tell me and I'll report that jerk.
"This is not the time for that misguided tactic." Here we have another term being thrown around and is based off the assertion that fans were asked to increase $ and shutup about performance? Meh.
Look, Don, I am pretty sure WB is not asking you to make good on your DEBT from the 2012-2014. He's trying to move all athletic programs forward. You should support his efforts by opening your wallet a bit. If you think we're not starting to siphon off cash for a FB replacement in the next 5 years, you're crazy. The program needs the money badly...unless you want to end up with a Nebraska-esque hire.
Just as in the post above, you responded emotionally and misinterpreted my post. Since you like to dissect my comments quote by quote, go ahead and link the part where you claim I said I would discontinue my donations. I'll wait...
Yep, you couldn't do it because I didn't post it. See, you're reading something entirely different into my post. Something entirely wrong. I posted that fans will need to donate more (meaning - as a group), and that the team will also need to perform better. And THAT was the part that upset you. The thought that the team should be held to expectations.
As for who you might report for telling me that fans have no right to complain if they do not donate more? The post I responded to will do just fine. Perhaps if you dissected his comments as eagerly as mine you would have noticed that.
Now, if you could calm down and think logically for just a few moments, you could see the reasoning. We aren't selling out our games any longer, and we all know (though some might refuse to admit) it is because of the performance of the team. Fans aren't coming to see us lose at home with a horrible performance. No big surprise there.
The problem with that is the lost revenue. We had a game where we only drew about 50K, and that attendance cost Whit's AD over half a million in revenue. That's half a million dollars lost by one game. Why was it lost? Because fans had begun to give up on the team due to the team's bad performance. So, if you can stop being emotional, it is easy to see that just as I said - fans need to give more, but the team also needs to perform better. Because when the team performs better, fans will give more without being requested to do so.
The problem occurs when people emotionally demand that unless you give more regardless of team performance, you have no right to complain. THAT is where fan's rights come into play - when being told you have no right to complain or voice concern or talk about the team. I never brought up discontinuing donations. I did bring up people who have been donors who have already seen the good & bad. Not giving less, merely that they've given in the past and continue to do so.
You also need some lessons on how Hokie Club donations work as you don't seem to understand that Whit won't be asking me about my 'debt' from 2012-2014, since Hokie Club benefits only come the year after payment is made. So what I paid in 2011 got me the season tickets I earned in 2012. See, that is the way that works. There is not a 'debt' when payment is made in advance.
As for Whit asking me to 'open your wallet a little bit', Whit knows that my wallet has been open for over three decades now. How about you? Oh, that's right. I've already been donating to VT sports for as long as you've been alive. Thus the reason I don't tolerate misininformed lectures about giving without the right to voice my opinion.
I could also go into how a program that is performing well is a more attractive candidate for a new head coach to replace Beamer than one that is performing poorly, but that seems like it would also go unheard like my original post. So, stay angry if you like. I've donated for essentially your entire life, held season tickets that long, am comfortable in the amount I give, and will continue to voice my opinion, as is my right. Perhaps if you tried listening instead of just hearing, you could see the other side of the discussion. Enjoy your holidays!
That sounds more like Weaver thinking than Whit thinking. By that mindset, we never would have gotten Buzz. Whit has no problem spending money he doesn't have and then going to the donors and saying, "Look, I ponied up. How bout you do the same?" He's consistently found the money throughout his career.
Whit has said over and over the reason he has that money to spend is because of Weaver. But to expect Whit to start throwing out SEC budgets with ACC intake is a delusion. Expecting results for money given is a normal reaction to refuse to give money until results happen does not work.
Oh, no question Weaver's the reason Whit took over an athletic department in such great shape, and why it was such a good job to begin with. Still, the way things work in college athletics is often a "if you build it, they will come" type of deal. It's on the AD to get things rolling instead of just waiting and hoping for donations based on the promise of better hires once we have the money. So no, we aren't going to see Whit throwing money around to the tune of 7 mil a year any time soon, but he proved with the Buzz hire that he isn't afraid to open up the checkbook and then use that hire as a fundraising tool.
If it is indeed $900K, that is still reasonable. To me, even $1 mil would be reasonable for Bud. not for Loeffler, just for Bud. Even with Bud, there comes a price that is not responsible for us, and that price is trying to match SEC elite money. If Bud gets $900K, that still puts him in top ten nationally. We just can't afford to pay like the SEC, regardless. But the amount reported is both generous and reasonable.
Did I miss where Whit said "SEC money"?
No. He may have said "SEC" or "money" at some point during his life, but he has never strung that phrase together in the public forum while discussing coaching contracts.
I want to say it was a tweet from Barber or Bitter, but don't quote me on that. I definitely didn't make up that phrase by myself.
Keep an eye on this.
Huge mistake if true, bud should have made that part of the stipulation of him signing the extension. You have to take care of your peeps!
To all those lovely people who were so sure Bud was gone (to A&M, Pitt, whatever), I don't wanna say I toldja so.... but yeah.
Like Mark Giannotto, I heard an extension has been in the works for some time. Bud didn't have interest in a lateral move—he told me as much over the summer. However, I still believe a head coach offer from a Power 5 school (like Pitt) would have changed the conversation.
Ehhh... A Wisconsin or Michigan, maybe. Maybe even a Cal or Arkansas-type job. I didn't see him going to Pitt simply because of what can only be described as utter turmoil in the athletic department.
If offered the Pitt head coaching job, Bud would leave in less than a second.
He hasn't been offered that type of job, though.
Andy, you're supposed to reassure us, not make it worse!
The truth is better than false promises. At least we know the parameters when we know the truth. Fake promises keep us guessing about everything. I wouldn't have thought Bud would take the Pitt job now, but knowing he would have at least puts things in better perspective. That is FAR better than a false sense of denial.
Pitt's not considering him this time, from what I understand. Has flirted with him twice before but never offered.
What he wants is a Power 5 HC job. And if offered one that's not the dregs (Iowa State, Wake, etc.), I'd guess that he'd jump at it. What he doesn't want is to take a job like UConn and struggle to gain a foothold.
Is perennial 6-6 Pitt with no AD and a revolving door of coaches really all that much better than UConn? Gotta compete with Big10 schools and VT for recruits, not a great place to live (personal preference there, admittedly), NFL team to compete with for (uninspiring, to say the least) fan support. I just don't see the Pitt job being all that great, as compared to a Clemson, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, etc.
Maybe Arkansas? Really? Come on, dude. That's simply delusional to say Bud Foster wouldn't leave to become the head coach at Arkansas.
.... But I said he'd be more likely to leave for Arkansas than Pitt. I'm not really sure what your point is.
This still doesn't resolve the most likely situation, the elephant in the room.
Yes, Bud signed on for five more years. But 99% chance in those 5 years, Beamer retires. And if TSL is to be believed, Whit has already told Bud he won't be the HC. And if that's the case, will Bud stay on as DC for the next HC, assuming he is invited to stay? (I personally think he will, he doesn't want to make a lateral move and I expect we land a HC who wants Bud and who Bud respects)
So, yay. Bud isn't leaving this January. But we are only marginally more secure than before.
Stop right there. TSL was where the whole "Bud Foster is going to Texas A&M" started, which turned out to be completely fabricated. Did you hear this from either Will or Chris? No? Then it holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CC is the one who reported that Whit told (intimated?) to Bud that he won't be the next HC. That's in a TSL insider article from 12/5, I believe.
You're smart enough to sort through TSL message board rumor and Chris/Will TSL rumor. That said, I would guess this issue falls in between. Bud may have interpreted Whit's response to his pitch (widely reported last summer that Bud went to Whit this summer to pitch himself as HC) was not well received and Whit may have said something like "We're looking for HC experience." But it makes no sense for Whit to say, "It wont be you!"
Yes you are correct. He may have also mentioned it on the J.D. Howell show that same week.
It was heard from Will and/or Chris throughout the past few weeks. Leave your irrational hate of TSL at the door, it just makes you look like an idiot.
The rumor was all over /r/CFB also. It didn't just appear in one place.
Let's say Beamer retires in 2 years and Bud isn't named head coach. I'd say his decision to stay or leave is very much dependent on who comes in. Say Chad Morris accepts the head coaching job, or Jim Mora; someone who's gonna come in and get a flashy, up-tempo offense to compliment Bud's defenses. I think Bud would stay here drooling.
I really can't see Chad Morris coming back east of the Mississippi again, let alone leaving his home state of Texas. Not that we can't hope and dream!
I'm thinkin Whit may give him (or whoever else he chooses) 3 or 4 million good reasons to come on back this way.
Sounds like we better get on those Hokie Club donations.
Bingo!
You're assuming that Bud Foster thinks as highly of Chad Morris or Jim Mora as head coaches/bosses as message board people do...
He's said before he's a big fan of Morris' offense and would love for VT to run something similar.
So it looks like the VT experts who have connections inside the Athletic Dept (Will Stewart at TSL) were more correct than the first time commenter on TSL who started the whole thing.
Color me shocked
I'm also shocked, I mean, other coaches have already signed contracts, how could this be?
but but but but the commenter has to pay money to make his comment on TSL, so isn't he automatically more credible than anything we're saying here for free??!? /s
Frank doesn't care about people that pay subscriptions for supposedly better information at other sites.
He's lost the media.
Fire CFB.
Man, you guys can't look a gift horse in the mouth. He signed a 5yr contract! Be happy!
Something to note:
Which is as it should be. HCIW deals are almost disastrous. Jimbo Fisher won a championship, but Bobby Bowden will always be bitter about how he had to leave. Whit also understands that there is always more than one successful option in securing a head coach.
I dunno, it worked great for UMd a few years back /sarcastica
I mean it would have had the new AD not come in and basically told James franklin to shove it. That guy is one heck of a coach
Yeah, like actually going out and doing a thorough search of legitimate candidates you may not have considered two or three years ago.
Bobby Bowden and HCIW further proves though that it was a good idea. Bowden was told to retire. He was told he was running out of time to coach.
He was told to wrap it up
He ignored all the writing on the wall but FSU was already preparing for the football program to continue. Bowden didn't accept change and lost a Lifetime Mentor, a boss that supported him, and a lifetime best friend. (the relationship between the AD and Bowden was very deep) But FSU was ready and prepared to move on
Great news and the best early Christmas present The Hokie Nation could ask for.
Crap!
Wonder if that $600K base has performance bonuses that can be earned? (Bowl game, defensive rankings, etc.)
If so, that coupled with the retention bonus could push him over the $1mil mark annually.
I wonder the reason for Pitt holding back on bud. don't get me wrong I love that he is staying at tech and hope he retires from tech when he does. However I just read a short blurb on ESPN that Pitt is going after Pat Narduzzi from MI St pretty hard. To me Narduzzi seems pretty similar to Bud in that they both field tough blue-collar defenses. Just curious I guess.
Based on opinions by some analysts regarding Bud's chances for a HC job over the years, the fact that he has only worked for one coach his entire career is perceived as a hindrance. Setting aside the loyalty, dedication factors, many AD's look for a breadth of experience under differing coaching philosophies.
That could explain the interest in Narduzzi, but not Bud, of that is the case. Age might also be a factor - Bud is 55, Narduzzi is 48 yrs old. Bud's age is in the upper range for someone to get their first HC job, while Narduzzi's is in the middle.
Those are two possibilites, there could be other reasons. It's never as simple as it seems.
You guys want to read some good ol' fashioned denial in the morning?
http://texags.com/forums/5/topics/2579134/1
Namely, read anything by that CentexAg.... I'll post an example
Sorry, Aggies, that door was slammed shut by Whit Babcock!
Yes, for a while, for the first time ever, it seemed like Bud might have reasons (millions of them) to go be a DC elsewhere, something I never previously thought possible. But whatever A&M thought they had 'in the bag' obviously wasn't the slam dunk they expected. Bud has an uncommon affinity for his head coach, and combined with the generous offer by Whit, stayed right here. Who knows what the future holds whenever Frank steps away, but Bud will be here until then, at the minimum. And THAT makes another reason this is a merry Christmas for Hokies!
why they put their faith so heavily in this guy is beyond me...
CentexAg In reply to fredfredunderscorefred 9:03p, 12/22/14 A
Honestly- I have no source. I've looked at all the information on the boards and the internet and made assumptions based on what I believe to be credible data and by doing my own interpretation of reading between the lines. If Foster doesn't come, it's all on me- not any source. I'm guessing the only difference between me and these "sources close to the situation" is that I admit I don't have a source.
I can't think of a more worthy post for you to earn your first TL
Welcome!
Been rolling this around in my mind since this story broke. We're paying this man half his base salary as a bonus for staying at VT each year. This is a really smart way to structure the contract and makes me like Whit even that much more.
I wonder what the implications are for structuring it like that. It's not like there's a salary cap for college coaches.
My guess is that if Foster is "let go" before the contract is up, he's only owed the base salary. That saves the department a good deal of money to spend on whoever is next. Plus it sets a lower salary floor for the next guy as well. It always looks bad when the pay for a position drops like a rock when someone new comes in. This way they can honestly say, "Our previous DC's salary was $600k, you can expect to make around that much starting out."
That's correct on the base salary being what would be considered for the payout, and for future coaches. For example, if Bud were named head coach and he promoted either Gray or Wiles to DC, they wouldn't be coming in at a huge salary, of course, they would be looking at - 'Bud's base was $600K with 20+ years experience, you'll get $400K (or whatever)'
Also, the continual retention bonus is much better than an annuity, because you don't have to swallow the whole thing at once.
The non-lump sum is probably better for Bud's taxes, too.
I wonder what the cutoff date for retention is. End of the season? Halfway through the season? I heard of one NFL player whose retention bonus kicked in after only 6 days into the season.
Are you sure that wasn't the retention bonus from the previous year? That would make more sense.
Nope, it was the current year. It was mentioned in a Grantland article. Something about spreading around the cap hit for his salary.
The relevant passage:
It's done a little differently in the pro's. There are all sorts of negotiated contract status issues, etc. as a result of collective bargaining. I heard a few months ago about Kobe Bryant's contract. The way it is set up, he is paid almost 80% of his salary at the beginning of the season.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/9911541/los-angeles-lakers...
First things first...
Now that that's out of the way...
In retrospect, I'm actually surprised bean counter Jim Weaver came up with a lump sum retention annuity rather than yearly retention bonuses like Whit has enacted, because the lump sum put us in such a financial bind for one season. The yearly retention bonus will be easier on the budget.
No, Weaver's way makes sense, too. You know what the lump sum is going to be and when it comes due, so you set aside the annuity amount each year. Shoot, they probably put it into a special account to gain a little interest for them while it sat there. Plus, Bud HAS to stay at VT the whole time or he gets none of it. The whole "you can have dessert AFTER you finish your dinner, young man" mentality.
This new structure gives a bit more flexibility. Bud can skip town more easily since he's getting his bonus every year but Whit is hoping that the pay raise and increased trust shown make him WANT to stay instead of feeling like he HAS to stay to get his bonus.
Devil's advocate leg for you, sir.
Thank you, good sir. Even though I have an engineering degree, I ended up working in accounting for a year and a half. I was shocked at the amount of leeway for getting...creative...with the numbers. Whenever the company got hit with a large unexpected charge, they'd just spread around the numbers so the hit on the books was only a few grand a month for the whole year. Apparently as long as it all adds up in the end, you can rearrange the numbers however you want.
The market has more to do with that than precedence.
Tech is very lucky (financially) in that in lives in it's own eco-system. But that same eco-system has slowed down tech's evolving to the next level of football. It now seems Foster was never leaving so there was no market to effect his salary, same with Beamer's salary. Once Bud and Beamer are gone from Tech the market will set what the salary is. In the next 5 years at the time of true change, cost will have risen for salaries 50% as Tech has to pay true to market average for what the Coach is worth
Read this quote in Andy Bitter's article on Foster's extention
This was after he had alread signed. Any thoughts on what he might be talking about?
Probably the official announcement
Actually I'm pretty sure that was before he signed.
IDK, it is also on Andy's youtube video of yesterdays (Dec 22) practice, which I think would put it in the afternoon, after we found out. I mean it sounded like the reporters had let CBF know that they already knew he signed.
The video does say it was before news broke about that.
Ok. I was hoping that he was implying that assistance were going to get theirs soon too. Thanks!
I think that was after the contract was drawn up, but before it was signed and made public
Holy ressurected (spelling?) thread Batman, I know. But any updates on Fosters contract status? If my math is correct, his current contract expires after this season and I haven't read anything saying he's signed an extension. Thoughts?
Two down votes for asking a question about Buds contract status. Wow the off season has been hard on you guys. Guess I should have just started a new thread...
I'm pretty sure his contract now auto renews every year. So he has a 5 year contract.
Thanks. Didn't realize that. Have a leg.
Resurrecting this thread to make everybody think Bud just agreed to a new contract this year should be a ban-able offense
#banme
Yikes. Still not outside of guidelines.
Technically very much within community guidelines.
It probably just warrants its own thread
No win situation because just below this comment are people saying it doesn't require its own thread.
It's a valid question.
Did you post an image? I see an icon with a question mark on it.
It's a GIF of Cheri Oteri doing "Simma down now."
Strange. It's not showing up for me. I wonder if it's a problem with Safari.
Your image is actually in webp format.
I was able to see it when I opened the comment in Chrome.
I just copied and pasted the link to the image. Didn't pay attention to the format and thought it was a GIF.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Was the perfect image, though.
Leg.
Upvoted. It's a valid question that didn't require its own thread. Good use of the tracker to find the appropriate post. People need to the chill the fuck out with the downvotes, but what else is new.
Edited spelling mistakes. Posting while walking will get after you.
If it's worth asking, it's worth starting a new thread with the question in the title, instead of the old announcement.
Fewer heart attacks, lower anxiety, more accurate. We can afford the extra electrons needed to do it.
For the record, it's a good question.
Normally I agree. But per my post below, the original topic had a five year timeline. I figured I'd not clutter the tracker with another thread which would have garnered one response, the only response in this entire subthread relating to my original inquiry.
Agree to disagree. Have a leg.
Or you know. Read the comment first before jumping to an assumption.
Hard disagree.
I'm not sure I understand what you think is conserved by resurrecting a 5 year old thread. It's not so hard to jot down a title in a relevant, meaningful way.
If only one person comments, what is lost, really? Doesn't disrupt the Force, or anything.
It's really not so complicated, either way, so I don't really have a hard disagreement, was just making a suggestion on how not freak anyone out.
I mean, we could be spending this valuable time making fun of a billionaire who was pinching pennies on cheap prostitutes.
[insert audibly loud fart noise]
Why is it always the butt stuff????????????
Also, can you ever have something be inaudibly loud?
Have you read any of my other stuff?? Why do you only read the 'butt stuff'? /s
Allison Brie butt stuff is different than other butt stuff.
Thanks. That's what I thought. Kinda just wanted an update on a topic. Considering that specific topic had an original 5 year shelf life with one year to go, I figured a post on that topics original thread was a valid approach. Little did I know...oh well. When Fuente leads us to a perfect 15-0 this year there will be no more wanton down voting lol.
I wouldn't count on that.
I'm a fan(atic). I count on it every year. The pain of disappointment hurts so good...
If there is a flaming bag of dog poop on your office Monday, it wasn't me.
Haha, sure. Maybe you should. Burn it to the ground and ensure the plague is gone from the premises.
No big deal, but preferably, start a new thread and reference / link to the old one.
Will do next time. Sorry for the communal uproar Joe.
It's not a big deal. There's not a rule for when to consider a thread "dead". Perhaps they should automatically close six months after they're posted. And based on what you wrote above, I understand why you resurrected this story / thread.
surely any experienced TKPer checks the date of a thread and maybe even reads the comment before jumping to conclusions ......
How dare you post in a 5 year old thread?! Lol
Mods, PLEASE lock this thread. Every time I see more comments, I check for news. Please do something about it!
Some of the TKPers in this thread be like
When you say "some"...
ssssssss///////