SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,339
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Mar 23, 2017 10:56:49 GMT -5
This is a joke. It's a shame they are the most public face of program news by virtue of being on SB Nation. They are an opinion blog masquerading as a semi-news site. They don't even try to disguise it - it's not even like he posted this somewhere, and had someone from Casual pick it up and report on it. He posted it from his own account. Just to make sure I understand this--TC and 2003 are upset because CH is not hiding the fact that an opinion piece is an opinion piece?
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 23, 2017 10:57:59 GMT -5
This is a joke. It's a shame they are the most public face of program news by virtue of being on SB Nation. They are an opinion blog masquerading as a semi-news site. You should stop posting there and driving up their traffic then
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Mar 23, 2017 10:59:48 GMT -5
They don't even try to disguise it - it's not even like he posted this somewhere, and had someone from Casual pick it up and report on it. He posted it from his own account. Just to make sure I understand this--TC and 2003 are upset because CH is not hiding the fact that an opinion piece is an opinion piece? It's a full-blown advertisement. It's not in any way an opinion piece.
|
|
|
Post by hoya10 on Mar 23, 2017 11:00:04 GMT -5
Firing JT3 is a gating item to having any meaningful discussion about Georgetown basketball. It's completely reasonable that this is all CH focuses on.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 23, 2017 11:00:56 GMT -5
This is a joke. It's a shame they are the most public face of program news by virtue of being on SB Nation. They are an opinion blog masquerading as a semi-news site. You should stop posting there and driving up their traffic then I think I've posted there less than 20 times ever. But thanks for the advice.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 23, 2017 11:02:07 GMT -5
They don't even try to disguise it - it's not even like he posted this somewhere, and had someone from Casual pick it up and report on it. He posted it from his own account. Just to make sure I understand this--TC and 2003 are upset because CH is not hiding the fact that an opinion piece is an opinion piece? They are desperate. "Let's turn the focus away from the dumpster fire of a program and toward a web site opining on said dumpster fire. Yes! That should do it!" It's an opinion site. It's not masquerading as anything.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 23, 2017 11:03:46 GMT -5
Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and read this: Â scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=sportslawTo summarize: Â almost every long term contract with a head coach contains a buyout provision that allows a university to terminate the coach (that would be a unilateral decision, fyi.) Â Additionally, the terms of buyouts are all over the map. Â Â I'm not talking about renegotiating .. the buyout was already negotiated before his current contract was signed. Â You really know nothing. practice, I never took issue with anything you said. I was responding to someone else. There could be a buyout. There may not be. We don't know. My other posts were directed at another poster who said something entirely different. I am not sure what your problem is, but I am not sure we are even disagreeing here. A buyout is not a "unilateral decision." It would be a contractual provision both parties agreed to when they signed the contract (similarly, coaches often have a buyout if they want to leave early). That's not what the original poster was saying. He wasn't saying the university should buy out JT3, he was saying the contract should be renegotiated, and if JT3 didn't like it, to tell him to go somewhere else. So before you tell me I know nothing, maybe you should try brushing up on reading comprehension. You really don't know anything about contract law, and you certainly don't know anything about this specific contract, and yet you. Can't. Stop. Posting. About. It.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 23, 2017 11:04:46 GMT -5
You should stop posting there and driving up their traffic then I think I've posted there less than 20 times ever. But thanks for the advice. Just pointing out that you are supporting the very site you are trashing here. Control yourself.
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,402
|
Post by iowa80 on Mar 23, 2017 11:06:01 GMT -5
Why not go a bit further and take on Reggie and Michael? If they had remained silent, it would not have ended up in CH or WaPo. Here's the difference between Casual and Reggie/Michael: - one is an advocacy website (fire the coach) masquerading as news. They've had problems throughout their history on sticking to news (interacting with players through twitter, etc). They're a fullblown advocacy site now, emailing their stuff to news outlets for them to pick the narrative up, only focusing on firing JT3. When I blame Waters decommitting partially on them, it's because media is reporting ground up now as you see in the DC Sports Bog piece. Casual, whether they know it or not, is the feeder for most of the other media pickups of JT3 reporting. - LJ Peak released a statement yesterday. It's been out for 24 hours now. It was linked here by DanMcQ, it's positive about JT3. Guess what site didn't tweet it, didn't report, didn't add it to their post about Peak leaving? They post literally everything possible about firing JT3, down to turning a deleted retweet of some Grant Hill take into an outrage point. One of the reasons they have gotten to where they are is nothing public escapes them - so it's not like this slipped through their hands. - the other is two guys giving their opinion on a radio show Really? Reggie and Michael are just "two guys " giving their opinion? I stand by my point. At least as far as this incident, going after Casual is simply an easier route to criticizing what R & M had to say. No word from R & M, no "reporting" from Casual and WaPo. And while you want to tag Casual as "advocacy," this was actually news--which presumably is why the Post picked it up. My point is: go after everyone involved including the two Hoyas who spoke on the record or consider that this example isn't the best for an attack on Casual only.
|
|
miamihoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 698
|
Post by miamihoya on Mar 23, 2017 11:07:50 GMT -5
Just to make sure I understand this--TC and 2003 are upset because CH is not hiding the fact that an opinion piece is an opinion piece? They are desperate. "Let's turn the focus away from the dumpster fire of a program and toward a web site opining on said dumpster fire. Yes! That should do it!" It's an opinion site. It's not masquerading as anything. The real story here is leaks. That is what they should be reporting about.
|
|
bigskyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,094
|
Post by bigskyhoya on Mar 23, 2017 11:09:36 GMT -5
LOL - that's one of many possible scenarios, that's for sure! I don't think even this administration is tone deaf to the point where they'd announce a 5-8 year extension though. I like your moxie, however. I wrote virtually the same thing as Cambridge earlier this AM in a different thread. 8 years may be a bit much, but I wouldn't be surprised by a four to five year extension with the same sorts of parameters that Cambridge mentioned (reduced base pay, possible incentives, reduced buyout, etc.). If you've made the decision to stick with him this coming year, to me, that's the best way to go. Reading the tarot cards I think both of you are right. A big middle finger to most of the fan base.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Mar 23, 2017 11:11:02 GMT -5
They don't even try to disguise it - it's not even like he posted this somewhere, and had someone from Casual pick it up and report on it. He posted it from his own account. Just to make sure I understand this--TC and 2003 are upset because CH is not hiding the fact that an opinion piece is an opinion piece? They are upset that a student writer for the blog Casual Hoya is using his position to advertise an event he is organizing. Just to clarify, there are two different types of posts on Casual Hoya. Official front page posts that are written by official contributors to the blog, and fan posts written by people like you and me. Fan posts are posted on the blog for people to read and comment on, but are not put on the front page unless a moderator decides to put it there. Fan posts also don't automatically generate a Facebook post (3,255 followers) and a Twitter post (10,706 followers). The author specifically stated "The author is acting in his role as a student fan and organizer of Students Concerned About Georgetown Basketball, and not in his role as a news writer for Casual Hoya". Given that statement, I would think he should have written this as a fan post as opposed to as an official front page post.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 23, 2017 11:19:47 GMT -5
You really don't know anything about contract law, and you certainly don't know anything about this specific contract, and yet you. Can't. Stop. Posting. About. It. I am not sure why this is difficult. The ONLY thing I was responding to was this comment by joey0403p: "the "it's a contract" folks. Sorry this seems easy - you tell him you are renegotiating and his new salary is xxx and if. He doesn't like it then he can find new employment. Sure - this could lead to separation, but then you would have a way to positively spin it in the public." My point, which is very much in line with valid contract law, is that you cannot simply renegotiate a salary like that. What joey0403p is describing is breaching JT3's contract. Not a buyout. This also has nothing to do with the terms of JT3's contract. You don't need to know the terms to be able to say that what joey0403p is suggesting would violate the contract - that's exactly what he's advocating! joey0403p said nothing about a buyout; this has nothing to do with a buyout. A buyout is a completely different concept, and I never said anything about a buyout until another poster (practice) brought it up. So before you tell me that I don't know anything about contract law, maybe you should try responding to what I actually said, rather than making up another point and responding to it (ironic, since you always cry about straw men).
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Mar 23, 2017 11:22:49 GMT -5
I wrote virtually the same thing as Cambridge earlier this AM in a different thread. 8 years may be a bit much, but I wouldn't be surprised by a four to five year extension with the same sorts of parameters that Cambridge mentioned (reduced base pay, possible incentives, reduced buyout, etc.). If you've made the decision to stick with him this coming year, to me, that's the best way to go. Reading the tarot cards I think both of you are right. A big middle finger to most of the fan base. I agree that it will likely be interpreted as such, but an extension that restructures the contract so as to allow the University to terminate it in the near future without financially hobbling its efforts to hire a replacement may be the best response we can ask for from a long term strategic point of view. It's certainly not going to be emotionally satisfying, but it may be the most prudent. This also allows the University to start a more formal period where it's preparing to move on (i.e. thinking about and even possibly reaching out to potential replacements) while providing JTIII with just enough of a vote of confidence that he can recruit in the short term. This seems like a more prudent move than just firing JTIII and signing up whatever coaches happen to be available right now. I understand that most people here want to make a change, but making a change right now for change's sake may not be the smartest play. Taking time to make sure the school is able to mitigate as much of the financial pain as possible and doing the proper diligence on finding the right replacement candidate are very reasonable and responsible considerations.
|
|
bigskyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,094
|
Post by bigskyhoya on Mar 23, 2017 11:31:29 GMT -5
Reading the tarot cards I think both of you are right. A big middle finger to most of the fan base. I agree that it will likely be interpreted as such, but an extension that restructures the contract so as to allow the University to terminate it in the near future without financially hobbling its efforts to hire a replacement may be the best response we can ask for from a long term strategic point of view. It's certainly not going to be emotionally satisfying, but it may be the most prudent. This also allows the University to start a more formal period where it's preparing to move on (i.e. thinking about and even possibly reaching out to potential replacements) while providing JTIII with just enough of a vote of confidence that he can recruit in the short term. This seems like a more prudent move than just firing JTIII and signing up whatever coaches happen to be available right now. I understand that most people here want to make a change, but making a change right now for change's sake may not be the smartest play. Taking time to make sure the school is able to mitigate as much of the financial pain as possible and doing the proper diligence on finding the right replacement candidate are very reasonable and responsible considerations. I would say it is safe rather than prudent. Unless there is a full throated endorsement of III--which would alienate most of the fan base--there will continue to be a cloud over him. That will hinder recruitment and just kick the can down the road, when they eventually exercise the early termination clause you reference. Then we start the rebuilding process that should start now.
|
|
|
Post by practice on Mar 23, 2017 11:34:15 GMT -5
Is there any way JT3 or really any other coach can take the current team -- Campbell, Mulmore, Mosely, Hines, Govan, Muresan, Agau, Derrickson and Johnson (assuming no one else leaves) -- and have a winning record in the Big East and make the NCAAs? How about if one or two key players leave? Are there enough JUCO and 5th year Seniors and 2+ recruits out there to fix things immediately?
I think not. I think it is insane to bring back JT3 if there's little chance of turning things around in the near term. Is he automatically fired after three miserable seasons? What is the upside besides only paying one head coach salary next year?
Does anyone think it is in JT3's best interest to finish his career at with another losing season? I just don't see the logic in bringing him back to what is almost certainly a losing proposition. Right now he has the resume to get another high major job -- new place, new start. He's a lot less marketable/attractive in 12 months if he's in this same position again.
Again: is it possible to win with this team next year? I don't see it. I see 15-20 losses heading our way. Do JT3 backers think he should leave after a 3rd season? Do JT3 backers see a path to the NCAAs next year with JT3 at the helm?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Mar 23, 2017 11:36:25 GMT -5
With the sheer number of attorneys in the Georgetown community, people would figure out that contract law, not wins and losses, drives this discussion. Yet, too many people think that existing contracts don't matter. I'm not suggesting the contract doesn't matter. And I know that if jt iii and the university parted ways, the university would be on the hook to pay him his salary or buyout fee. What I am suggesting is that it's all a negotiation. Jt iii could agree to keep his job at a reduced rate. Or lose his job but keep his money / buyout. Everyone keeps saying why would he resign (I get it and agree no one would leave money on the table) but when faced with getting fired or restructuring he contract I think that is more nuanced and may find a more willing jt iii. Listen - maybe not. But then we are no worse off and r we him the buyout fee. But don't claim that contracts are written and no restructuring is ever attempted. As I (and Aleutian) have described in previous posts, I think that the negotiation which you are describing (which actually seems rather likely) is occuring and when it is concluded it will be publicly framed as a contract extension. I would guess that the University will try to reduce base pay and the buyout hit, but in consideration for that, will offer JTIII an extension in years and higher incentive bonuses. The extra years would probably be pretty easy things to give up from the University's perspective, as a lower buyout would make early termination more affordable. Similarly, the bonus payments would only be paid out if JTIII rights the ship. If he does that, the school would be happy to make him whole. My point is I bet you are on the right track, but don't be surprised if it gets get announced as a contract extension and vote of confidence.
|
|
|
Post by augustusfinknottle on Mar 23, 2017 11:36:54 GMT -5
Under the scenario that is being painted here, what would be the earliest he is out? Two, three years? Two, three years too late. If we are locked in to one more year so be it but no more. Certainly no extension of any kind.
|
|
alleninxis
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,216
|
Post by alleninxis on Mar 23, 2017 11:38:58 GMT -5
Get ready.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,339
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Mar 23, 2017 11:40:01 GMT -5
You really don't know anything about contract law, and you certainly don't know anything about this specific contract, and yet you. Can't. Stop. Posting. About. It. I am not sure why this is difficult. The ONLY thing I was responding to was this comment by joey0403p: "the "it's a contract" folks. Sorry this seems easy - you tell him you are renegotiating and his new salary is xxx and if. He doesn't like it then he can find new employment. Sure - this could lead to separation, but then you would have a way to positively spin it in the public." My point, which is very much in line with valid contract law, is that you cannot simply renegotiate a salary like that. What joey0403p is describing is breaching JT3's contract. Not a buyout. This also has nothing to do with the terms of JT3's contract. You don't need to know the terms to be able to say that what joey0403p is suggesting would violate the contract - that's exactly what he's advocating! joey0403p said nothing about a buyout; this has nothing to do with a buyout. A buyout is a completely different concept, and I never said anything about a buyout. So before you tell me that I don't know anything about contract law, maybe you should try responding to what I actually said, rather than making up another point and responding to it (ironic, since you always cry about straw men). Contracts are breached all the time--indeed its an expected part of any agreement and in any agreement drafted/reviewed by attorneys there will be contract provisions regarding how to deal with a breach. However, a termination is not necessarily a breach. More likely, and as discussed in this thread a zillion time, there is some provision in the contract which states how the each party can unilaterally, or jointly, terminate the agreement. That clause probably discusses misconduct, notice, payout, etc. I can guarantee that there is a clause(s) which deals with this. What we don't know is how easily such a termination clause is to trigger. A breach would only occur if the parties failed to abide by the terms of the termination clause--i.e. JTIII is fired and the school refuses to pay him a buy out. A renegotiation of a contract is simply a new contract which amends the first. In order for a contract to be valid, there must be something of value exchanged ("consideration" for those who have been to law school). So, an invalid renegotiation would be if the school said, "you have a 3 year contract for $3 million/year. Accept $1.5 million/year for the remainder or we won't pay you a cent." in that scenario JTIII receives no consideration for his agreement to alter the previous contract. On the other hand, a perfectly valid renegotiation could be "you have a 3 year contract for $3 million a year, which we can terminate for a payout of $4 million right now. We will trigger that buyout, unless you agree to reduce your salary to $1.5 million/year ($4.5 million total)." In this scenario, JTIII would receive consideration for the renegotiated contract (the new contract is worth more than the buyout which is all that was actually promised in the original).
|
|