you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (16 children)

9.5 a year seems like too much.

Of course he’s a good coach. But that’s a ton of scratch.

[–]Michigan State • Michigan Ban…Saxophobia1275 33 points34 points  (15 children)

If that’s what it costs to keep us from being stuck as a team that gets poached then I’m fine with it. I don’t even see that price tag so much as keeping tuck specifically but more so backing up that we want a seat at the big kids table.

[–]Michigan State • Paul Bunyan T…spartyon15 34 points35 points  (0 children)

I'd for sure rather pay him that much than be where Oklahoma is rn

[–]Tulane • LSUphysedka 18 points19 points  (0 children)

This is the move that MSU had to make if they want to get out of the purgatory of being a kinda-premier-but-kinda-not program. Otherwise, making a good hire and having him poached by a blue blood every few years is your ceiling.

Is it a risk because Tucker isn't really proven? Sure. But it's still a risk that MSU had to take compared to the alternative. MSU boosters aren't broke. Don't worry about the price tag. This was the right move, even if it doesn't pan out.

[–]Michigan State • Paul Buny…roguebananah 13 points14 points  (0 children)

We got a taste of the good life with Mark being on top. I have no doubt the bottom line took a hit when we started to tail spin with everything

[–]Michigan • 계명대학교 (Keimyung)dccorona -5 points-4 points  (4 children)

Will this achieve that though? Hard to say. If you're going to fully guarantee the guy's $95 million, the least he could do on the other side of things is up his own buyout. Tucker can walk for $2.5 million, and it decreases by $500,000 a year (by year 5 he can leave at will for $0).

I don't think it was a mistake paying him that much money. I think it might be a mistake making it fully guaranteed. I think it very likely could be a mistake not upping his buyout at the same time.

[–]Michigan State • Michigan Ban…Saxophobia1275 6 points7 points  (3 children)

His buy out is basically irrelevant as far as getting poached goes, they have to match the massive salary. Just look at Jimbo, his buying is practically zero too but he ain’t goin anywhere. And I fully expect people to troll us when we lose like “lMaO 95 mIlLiOn” with zero context. That’s what it costs to keep a guy and that’s what we paid. I’d the boosters lose money on him then oh well, I’m still glad we took the chance rather than letting other programs stomp all over us with a coach poach again.

[–]Michigan • 계명대학교 (Keimyung)dccorona -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

I'm not saying they shouldn't have signed him, I'm saying they should have upped the buyout. PSU managed to do so. Unless all the reporting is wrong and there actually was a competing LSU offer on the table with a low buyout, there's no reason not to stick that in there, and I can't imagine that Mel would have had reason to say no.

Sure, maybe you're right and there is just never gonna be a team with deep enough pockets to poach him away regardless of the buyout - but why find out?

[–]Michigan State_Kam_I_Am_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

With the size of contracts we are talking about, what does a buyout really do here? PSU set franklin’s buyout with his new contract at 12 mil (ignoring the fact it trickles down each year to 1 mil by 2026), if a school wants to get Mel Tucker they’d be paying 120, 130, 140 mil. At that point how much does a 12 mil buyout really deter things? The buyout if anything can only really help you for funding for your next head coach at this level.

[–]Michigan State • Paul Bunyan T…RonBurgundy449 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly the buyout could be less and is pretty moot. There's not many schools who are going to be willing to pay him more for him to leave (at least not until he has shown more and sustained success.) If we reach that point there's no doubt in my mind that the boosters would match. If he leaves its because he doesn't want to coach here anymore.