Mike Hopkins is our next coach...

[721Comstock]

But it's not much of a difference at all. The chancellor is behind Hopkins and he has a contract. Wildhack knew the plan when he came in.

"For more than 25 years, Mike Hopkins has demonstrated the true meaning of Orange pride and loyalty," Syracuse chancellor Kent Syverud said in a statement. "He has contributed so much to the success of the Syracuse basketball program. I know Mike is ready to lead the program into the future and carry forward the success that has occurred under Coach Boeheim."

THIS.

It doesn't matter that the person who you "signed the contract with" is no longer with the institution. :bang:
It wasn't Gross or Coyle that Hop signed with - it was Syracuse University.

Now, IF he signed his contract with the University of Syracuse, then we might have some wiggle room...

 

[SoBeCuse]

Ditto--I keep getting sucked in, and playing devil's advocate to positions I'm not necessarily advocating. Was just sticking up for SoBe.

Haha. Thanks. I haven't truly meant to be a thorn in anyone's side. Contrary to some beliefs and to your point; a new AD, especially a cutting edge and progressive thinking one like Wildhack, is a MAMMOTH change since the contract was supposedly drawn up. From my knowledge at other schools such as USC (alum here) a powerful AD controls a chancellor, especially if he has support whether it is money or a 'gun to your head' bully approach.

Again, I'm just saying it is not unreasonable to think that Wildhack would put some feelers out there. That is his JOB. Of course if he is totally all in and married to the Hopkins takeover then my outlandish speculation is null and void. But, as far as I am concerned, all of this is pure speculation including the lords and nobility on this board who claim to know everything. I'm officially done with this. LGO!

 

[RF2044]

THIS.

It doesn't matter that the person who you "signed the contract with" is no longer with the institution. :bang:
It wasn't Gross or Coyle that Hop signed with - it was Syracuse University.

Now, IF he signed his contract with the University of Syracuse, then we might have some wiggle room...

Quick question for you , 721 -- who would Hopkins's boss be? And don't say "Syracuse University," because that would be the wrong answer.

What often happens when new leadership takes control of a company? People leave, things change, new people are brought in to replace them, and new leaders often bring in their own people. Happens every day, across all types of organizations.

Nobody is suggesting that Wildhack will clean house, or that he won't get behind Hopkins. But to not acknowledge the possibility that a new AD might opt to go in a different direction given the program's recent struggles isn't very intellectually honest. That's why it DOES matter who Hop signed the contract with -- if Hop isn't Wildhack's guy, then he's not going to be bound by that contract [within reason] -- he's going to seek to terminate it, pay a settlement, and then bring his guy in. Because Wildhack would be the ultimate decision maker here. Of course, he'd have to consult with the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, et al. but that's why they pay AD's big bucks, to make these type of decisions. Wildhack isn't going to have a hire forced upon him -- doesn't work that way.

Now, Wildhack could very possibly ascertain that Mike is his guy and get behind the hire, and that would be that. But to think that the AD would have their hands tied because a contract was signed years prior to their arrival -- no.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Agree to disagree on it not being a huge difference--it is a massive difference. This deal was struck two ADs ago. Maybe Wildhack will stick with the deal, maybe he'll opt to cast a broader net [and I'm not suggesting that there is evidence that he wouldn't stick with the deal].

All SoBe was suggesting is that [1] contracts are not ironclad, they are broken all the time--which I think we all agree on; and [2] that strategic priorities often change when new leadership takes the helm.

Again qualified by acknowledging that it doesn't mean that Wildhack will choose to put his own stamp on the hire. But I WOULD expect that he'd do due diligence to ensure that the future of the program is moving in a direction that matches his strategic vision--irrespective of whether a contract is in place with Hopkins or not. That's his job.

Don't think anything is different. So there's a new AD. The contract is with Syracuse University, not the AD. Boeheim and the chancellor and have publicly endorsed Hop as the guy on several occasions. The school has decided on Hop. Not sure why anyone thinks Wildhack would disagree.

SoBe was questioning if a contract even existed, and of course it does.

 

[pfister1]

Agree to disagree on it not being a huge difference--it is a massive difference. This deal was struck two ADs ago. Maybe Wildhack will stick with the deal, maybe he'll opt to cast a broader net [and I'm not suggesting that there is evidence that he wouldn't stick with the deal].

All SoBe was suggesting is that [1] contracts are not ironclad, they are broken all the time--which I think we all agree on; and [2] that strategic priorities often change when new leadership takes the helm.

Again qualified by acknowledging that it doesn't mean that Wildhack will choose to put his own stamp on the hire. But I WOULD expect that he'd do due diligence to ensure that the future of the program is moving in a direction that matches his strategic vision. That's his job.

This argument is ridiculous. If Hop has a written contract with SU and he had an attorney worth a damn negotiate it, the University will have an obligation to pay Hop the rate that was negotiated for the term of the contract. That is enforceable and probably relatively easily in the absence of some misconduct on Hopkins' part.

That said, if the University decided to move in a different direction, they most certainly could install another candidate as the next coach. Hopkins would never win a lawsuit against the University that attempted to require them to let him guide the team. The best he would likely do is to get the money he had coming to him if the contract were honored.

 

[RF2044]

This argument is ridiculous. If Hop has a written contract with SU and he had an attorney worth a damn negotiate it, the University will have an obligation to pay Hop the rate that was negotiated for the term of the contract. That is enforceable and probably relatively easily in the absence of some misconduct on Hopkins' part.

That said, if the University decided to move in a different direction, they most certainly could install another candidate as the next coach. Hopkins would never win a lawsuit against the University that attempted to require them to let him guide the team. The best he would likely do is to get the money he had coming to him if the contract were honored.

What "argument?" Are contracts not nullified all the time, for any of a variety of reasons? Very doubtful that the University would be on the hook to pay the full amount--which would be unusual--versus a smaller [but stills substantial], negotiated settlement.

Your second paragraph doesn't paint it as "ridiculous" at all.

 

[RF2044]

Don't think anything is different. So there's a new AD. The contract is with Syracuse University, not the AD. Boeheim and the chancellor and have publicly endorsed Hop as the guy on several occasions. The school has decided on Hop. Not sure why anyone thinks Wildhack would disagree.

SoBe was questioning if a contract even existed, and of course it does.

Because Wildhack is new, and he might have a different strategic vision. Boeheim and the Chancellor publically endorsed Hop as the guy on several occasions--before Wildhack came on board. Do you dispute that?

I don't "think" that Wildhack would disagree with having Hop as the next coach, but it certainly isn't outside of the realm of possibility.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Quick question for you , 721 -- who would Hopkins's boss be? And don't say "Syracuse University," because that would be the wrong answer.

What often happens when new leadership takes control of a company? People leave, things change, new people are brought in to replace them, and new leaders often bring in their own people. Happens every day, across all types of organizations.

Nobody is suggesting that Wildhack will clean house, or that he won't get behind Hopkins. But to not acknowledge the possibility that a new AD might opt to go in a different direction given the program's recent struggles isn't very intellectually honest. That's why it DOES matter who Hop signed the contract with -- if Hop isn't Wildhack's guy, then he's not going to be bound by that contract [within reason] -- he's going to seek to terminate it, pay a settlement, and then bring his guy in. Because Wildhack would be the ultimate decision maker here. Of course, he'd have to consult with the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, et al. but that's why they pay AD's big bucks, to make these type of decisions. Wildhack isn't going to have a hire forced upon him -- doesn't work that way.

Now, Wildhack could very possibly ascertain that Mike is his guy and get behind the hire, and that would be that. But to think that the AD would have their hands tied because a contract was signed years prior to their arrival -- no.

The hire wasn't forced upon him he agreed to take the job knowing the plan . I'm not sure he could get support to go in another direction anyway.

 

[RF2044]

The higher wasn't forced upon him he agreed to take the job knowing the plan . I'm not sure he could get support to go in another direction anyway.

Both of those conclusions are speculative on your part.

Regardless, not worth arguing over anymore. Go Hop!

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Because Wildhack is new, and he might have a different strategic vision. Boeheim and the Chancellor publically endorsed Hop as the guy on several occasions--before Wildhack came on board. Do you dispute that?

I don't "think" that Wildhack would disagree with having Hop as the next coach, but it certainly isn't outside of the realm of possibility.

I would think his strategic vision would've been part of his job interview. And given that he was aware of the plan when he took the job, I would have to think he's on board.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

What "argument?" Are contracts not nullified all the time, for any of a variety of reasons? Very doubtful that the University would be on the hook to pay the full amount--which would be unusual--versus a smaller [but stills substantial], negotiated settlement.

Your second paragraph doesn't paint it as "ridiculous" at all.

The school will be on the hook for the buyout which is negotiated in the HCIW contract. Jimbo Fisher's was $5 million.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Both of those conclusions are speculative on your part.

Regardless, not worth arguing over anymore. Go Hop!

I guess speculating that a new athletic director would mean a different head coach is also speculative.

 

[RF2044]

I guess speculating that a new athletic director would mean a different head coach is also speculative.

Except that nobody is saying that, so :noidea:

 

[RF2044]

The school will be on the hook for the buyout which is negotiated in the HCIW contract. Jimbo Fisher's was $5 million.

Hopkins's buyout would likely be nowhere near that high.

But here's hoping that if / when Hop gets the job, his career parallels Jimbo Fisher's.

 

[721Comstock]

Because Wildhack is new, and he might have a different strategic vision. Boeheim and the Chancellor publically endorsed Hop as the guy on several occasions--before Wildhack came on board. Do you dispute that?

I don't "think" that Wildhack would disagree with having Hop as the next coach, but it certainly isn't outside of the realm of possibility.

Listen - the point you keep making, ad nauseam - is theoretically possible.
So stipulated. Yay for you.

However - in this universe - IT. AIN'T. HAPPENING. :bang::bang::bang:

Wanna know why?

Money.

When was the last time Syracuse University Athletics "threw money at a problem"?
We'll wait here while you research this.



OK, in the interest of time, I'll provide the answer - NEVER.

In this timeline - the only one we live in - SU has a contract with Mike Hopkins.
Mike Hopkins hired a new, high-zoot agent a few years ago, before signing said contract.
It's probably a pretty solid contract.

In order to 'move in a new direction':
SU would have to pay Mike Hopkins some fairly large amount NOT TO COACH.
Then, they would have to lure a talented coach away from his current gig, by offering him a LOT of $.
(Probably hafta pay a premium, since they've just proven their contracts may not be honored anyway.)
And, also pay whatever buyout that coach had on his current contract with his current university.

In a world where they are trying to figure out how to pay for several hundred million $'s in Dome renovations, etc - the LAST thing that SU is going to do, is spend even more $ trying to 'fix" something that probably isn't even broken.

/end thread.

 

[RF2044]

Listen - the point you keep making, ad nauseam - is theoretically possible.
So stipulated. Yay for you.

However - in this universe - IT. AIN'T. HAPPENING. :bang::bang::bang:

Wanna know why?

Money.

When was the last time Syracuse University Athletics "threw money at a problem"?
We'll wait here while you research this.



OK, in the interest of time, I'll provide the answer - NEVER.

In this timeline - the only one we live in - SU has a contract with Mike Hopkins.
Mike Hopkins hired a new, high-zoot agent a few years ago, before signing said contract.
It's probably a pretty solid contract.

In order to 'move in a new direction':
SU would have to pay Mike Hopkins some fairly large amount NOT TO COACH.
Then, they would have to lure a talented coach away from his current gig, by offering him a LOT of $.
(Probably hafta pay a premium, since they've just proven their contracts may not be honored anyway.)
And, also pay whatever buyout that coach had on his current contract with his current university.

In a world where they are trying to figure out how to pay for several hundred million $'s in Dome renovations, etc - the LAST thing that SU is going to do, is spend even more $ trying to 'fix" something that probably isn't even broken.

/end thread.

At least I finally got you to diverge from the naïve perspective that a contract in and of itself being in place would preclude the new AD from going in a different direction. That's progress. It's beyond theoretically possible--it IS possible.

As for money, the last time I checked, we were now benefitting as an athletic department from the exponential increase to our revenue sharing from conference affiliation, as a function of being part of the ACC. No organization wants to squander money, but to claim that the money isn't or wouldn't be there is untrue. As is the notion that they would have to pay a premium to opt out of a contract. Complete and utter BS.

Lastly, you seem to fail to grasp that I am just being a devil's advocate, and want to make this a personal issue. I don't necessarily believe that Hopkins won't be the guy, or that someone else will be hired. I do, however, acknowledge the possibility that a new AD might go in a different direction, and that a contract being in place wouldn't stop them from going in a different direction if that's what the new AD chooses to do--even if in your estimation it is a "pretty solid contract."

Schools end up paying coaches to go away all the time. All. The. Time. I certainly hope that SU doesn't fall into this trap, and chase good money [new coach] with bad [a fired coach, or a non-hired coach]. But in this timeline - the one we live in - it happens, not altogether infrequently.

I think some of your are just so pro-Hopkins that you are misinterpreting what some of us are saying about contract law and what a new AD might [emphasis on MIGHT] portend. That's fine--it's been a fun discussion, for the most part.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Hopkins's buyout would likely be nowhere near that high.

But here's hoping that if / when Hop gets the job, his career parallels Jimbo Fisher's.

Agree.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Listen - the point you keep making, ad nauseam - is theoretically possible.
So stipulated. Yay for you.

However - in this universe - IT. AIN'T. HAPPENING. :bang::bang::bang:

Wanna know why?

Money.

When was the last time Syracuse University Athletics "threw money at a problem"?
We'll wait here while you research this.



OK, in the interest of time, I'll provide the answer - NEVER.

In this timeline - the only one we live in - SU has a contract with Mike Hopkins.
Mike Hopkins hired a new, high-zoot agent a few years ago, before signing said contract.
It's probably a pretty solid contract.

In order to 'move in a new direction':
SU would have to pay Mike Hopkins some fairly large amount NOT TO COACH.
Then, they would have to lure a talented coach away from his current gig, by offering him a LOT of $.
(Probably hafta pay a premium, since they've just proven their contracts may not be honored anyway.)
And, also pay whatever buyout that coach had on his current contract with his current university.

In a world where they are trying to figure out how to pay for several hundred million $'s in Dome renovations, etc - the LAST thing that SU is going to do, is spend even more $ trying to 'fix" something that probably isn't even broken.

/end thread.

Agree. Anything is theoretically possible, even if highly unlikely.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Aah, Bud. How does a person with such apparent contempt for sports and the people involved in sports end up as a career sports columnist?

Karma. LOL

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

At least I finally got you to diverge from the naïve perspective that a contract being in place would preclude the new AD from going in a different direction. That's progress. It's beyond theoretically possible--it IS possible.

As for money, the last time I checked, we were now benefitting as an athletic department from the exponential increase to our revenue sharing from conference affiliation, as a function of being part of the ACC. No organization wants to squander money, but to claim that the money isn't or wouldn't be there is untrue. As is the notion that they would have to pay a premium to opt out of a contract. Complete and utter BS.

Lastly, you seem to fail to grasp that I am just being a devil's advocate, and want to make this a personal issue. I don't necessarily believe that Hopkins won't be the guy, or that someone else will be hired. I do, however, acknowledge the possibility that a new AD might go in a different direction, and that a contract being in place wouldn't stop them from going in a different direction if that's what the new AD chooses to do--even if in your estimation it is a "pretty solid contract."

Schools end up paying coaches to go away all the time. All. The. Time. I certainly hope that SU doesn't fall into this trap, and chase good money [new coach] with bad [a fired coach, or a non-hired coach]. But in this timeline - the one we live in - it happens, not altogether infrequently.

I think some of your are just so pro-Hopkins that you are misinterpreting what some of us are saying about contract law and what a new AD might [emphasis on MIGHT] portend. That's fine--it's been a fun discussion, for the most part.

I don't think anyone is saying that because a contract is in place that Syracuse can't go in another direction. They can. I think most understand it's highly unlikely, based on the fact that that plan has been in place for 10 years, through 2 different chancellors and now 3 AD's. It's not just Wildhack's decision. He has a boss too. There's nothing to to suggest Wildhack is not on board anyways.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Except that nobody is saying that, so :noidea:

"You'll be asked this a number of times but do you have an open mind to him coaching past the next two years if that's something he wants to do? I know Jim well enough to know his focus is on this year's team. One of his great attributes is how focused he is, laser-focused. The university, a little over a year ago, made a decision and an announcement that he'd coach three years and Mike (Hopkins) would become head coach. I look forward to working with Jim for the next two years to achieve as much success as we can, and then to having a smooth transition to Mike, who is incredibly loyal to this university. Mike is seen as one of the very best at what he does. We want a smooth transition to continue the success that is Syracuse basketball."

Sounds like Wildhack is on board.

Q&A with new Syracuse AD John Wildhack: Jim Boeheim's future, Dino Babers' system

 

[CousCuse]

Marv Levy recently said he was interested in coaching the Bills. And he is serious, and he is 91.

 

[721Comstock]

At least I finally got you to diverge from the naïve perspective that a contract in and of itself being in place would preclude the new AD from going in a different direction. That's progress. It's beyond theoretically possible--it IS possible.

As for money, the last time I checked, we were now benefitting as an athletic department from the exponential increase to our revenue sharing from conference affiliation, as a function of being part of the ACC. No organization wants to squander money, but to claim that the money isn't or wouldn't be there is untrue. As is the notion that they would have to pay a premium to opt out of a contract. Complete and utter BS.

Lastly, you seem to fail to grasp that I am just being a devil's advocate, and want to make this a personal issue. I don't necessarily believe that Hopkins won't be the guy, or that someone else will be hired. I do, however, acknowledge the possibility that a new AD might go in a different direction, and that a contract being in place wouldn't stop them from going in a different direction if that's what the new AD chooses to do--even if in your estimation it is a "pretty solid contract."

Schools end up paying coaches to go away all the time. All. The. Time. I certainly hope that SU doesn't fall into this trap, and chase good money [new coach] with bad [a fired coach, or a non-hired coach]. But in this timeline - the one we live in - it happens, not altogether infrequently.

I think some of your are just so pro-Hopkins that you are misinterpreting what some of us are saying about contract law and what a new AD might [emphasis on MIGHT] portend. That's fine--it's been a fun discussion, for the most part.

I hold no naive perspectives regarding contracts, period.
As I said, it always comes down to money.

I DO know that SU is toight when it comes to $, for ANTHING -
so the very last thing they will ever, EVER, do, is throw $ at a coaching situation, when they already have something in place.

"Playing Devil's advocate" = being argumentative, for the sake of doing so.

Yes, programs like Bama or LSU can pay millions to make one coach go away, and millions more for the next guy - we can't.
And even if we could - we won't.

I'm still waiting for the gold-plated, diamond-encrusted pee trough upgrade in the Dome, with all this fat ACC ca$h everybody keeps saying we have so much of.

Frankly, I would have preferred we go after a guy like Shaka Smart, Jay Wright, or even Buzz Williams, and that is absolutely zero disrespect to Hop or his abilities -
It's just that he has nearly zero on-the-job experience as a HC.

I completely discount Hop's record filling in during JB's suspension, as I agree with those who said it was like being loaned the keys to your Dad's Porsche and told to keep an eye on it for a few weeks, rather than being given them outright.

 

[orangecuse]

I hold no naive perspectives regarding contracts, period.
As I said, it always comes down to money.

I DO know that SU is toight when it comes to $, for ANTHING -
so the very last thing they will ever, EVER, do, is throw $ at a coaching situation, when they already have something in place.

"Playing Devil's advocate" = being argumentative, for the sake of doing so.

Yes, programs like Bama or LSU can pay millions to make one coach go away, and millions more for the next guy - we can't.
And even if we could - we won't.

I'm still waiting for the gold-plated, diamond-encrusted pee trough upgrade in the Dome, with all this fat ACC ca$h everybody keeps saying we have so much of.

Frankly, I would have preferred we go after a guy like Shaka Smart, Jay Wright, or even Buzz Williams, and that is absolutely zero disrespect to Hop or his abilities -
It's just that he has nearly zero on-the-job experience as a HC.

I completely discount Hop's record filling in during JB's suspension, as I agree with those who said it was like being loaned the keys to your Dad's Porsche and told to keep an eye on it for a few weeks, rather than being given them outright.

 

[RF2044]

I hold no naive perspectives regarding contracts, period.
As I said, it always comes down to money.

I DO know that SU is toight when it comes to $, for ANTHING -
so the very last thing they will ever, EVER, do, is throw $ at a coaching situation, when they already have something in place.

"Playing Devil's advocate" = being argumentative, for the sake of doing so.

Yes, programs like Bama or LSU can pay millions to make one coach go away, and millions more for the next guy - we can't.
And even if we could - we won't.

I'm still waiting for the gold-plated, diamond-encrusted pee trough upgrade in the Dome, with all this fat ACC ca$h everybody keeps saying we have so much of.

Frankly, I would have preferred we go after a guy like Shaka Smart, Jay Wright, or even Buzz Williams, and that is absolutely zero disrespect to Hop or his abilities -
It's just that he has nearly zero on-the-job experience as a HC.

I completely discount Hop's record filling in during JB's suspension, as I agree with those who said it was like being loaned the keys to your Dad's Porsche and told to keep an eye on it for a few weeks, rather than being given them outright.

The funny thing is, I agree with almost all of your post except the highlighted sentence. That is a BS attribution for you to make. This is a bulletin board for discussions, and just because somebody doesn't share the same opinion you do doesn't make them argumentative. I'm under no obligation to go along with the party line, or the standard groupthink -- my opinion in this case was highly rational, sensible, and objective, in the face of a lot [from some, not all] of subjective emotion-laden backlash because people like Hopkins. For the record, so do I.

Which is why it is funny to me that you are so vociferously arguing with what I've stated, as we seem to be on the same page on the rest of the subject. Love Hop, would prefer to see us go for an established big name commensurate with the prestige of our program, because an unproven coach with virtually zero head coaching experience constitutes a bigger risk to the program. Also wouldn't be upset if Hop got the job. I also don't put much stock in his 9 game stint.

I also don't think that SU "can't" pay an out settlement. Our financial circumstances are different than they've been in the past. That doesn't mean that the University would want [nor should want] to go that route, but it is a false statement to say that they wouldn't be able to pay it. If we bought Hopkins out, I can't imagine that we'd end up paying him more than $2-$5M. That isn't chump change, but it wouldn't be an insurmountable deal breaker, either. There's no way we'd be on the hook for the full amount--which means that it wouldn't be the impediment you're blowing it out of proportion to be.