Get ready for beefy non-competes being pushed down to assistants ...
- Thread starter Shmuley
- Start date
This doesn't have anything to do with salary. I'm suggesting that there has to be some disincentive put on programs to go rob valuable assistants, especially 2 weeks before NSD. With the non-compete and liquidated damages clause, it's just like it is with the head coach. If program A wants program B's DC bad enough, they pay the freight to get him and negotiate the non-compete out. It won't stop the carousel, but it will slow it down considerably. It's ******** what's happening around the league with assistant-robbing this year.
I think what he's saying is, it isn't fair to have a system in place that prohibits a coach from taking a better job.Shmuley said:
To the extent that it works with head coaches, it does so because they have multi-year contracts which are rare for assistants. The buyouts are also tricky from the standpoint of the consideration exchange involved. If you try to hold me to a buy out if I leave, I would ask for the same if you wanted to fire me. Imagine a coach who wanted to leave and you decided to enforce a "no compete with a buy out." So, he stays and performs his basic duties, but is essentially a cancer. If you fire him, you release him from the no compete AND you have to pay his buy out and probably any time remaining on his contract. I can see big buy out and non-competes as being disincentives to performance for a resource that is seldom valuable enough to keep around for more than a few years anyway.
These assistants are just taking advantage of the free market. They naturally gravitate to where the money is. You are suggesting a regulatory device be put in place so as to curb the free market system, so every team in the SEC is put on equal (aka, Socialist) footing.Shmuley said:
Ironic how Brutius get picked on here for being the token liberal, yet your suggestion is about as left wing as you can get.
The free market allows for this. No need for a regulatory device or tool. You have non-competes everywhere. I cannot work for a competitor for a certain period of time after my resignation (of course I get paid for that time). I think his point is that in new contracts we are going to see that more and more. A school can opt out of including a non-compete in future contracts but exposes itself to losing a coach in no time.
wait for a relevant topic to go apeshit Bob Barr, Ronald. I know you want to impress everyone with your command of laissez faire principles, but you're just going to have to pinch back your spooge until a topical thread appears. Just archive this one for a time when you have a better frame of reference on, hell I don't know, what the f'n thread is about maybe?
I'm not trying to impress anybody. This is just stuff you learn in high school Economics 101 class.Shmuley said:
I just think it's funny when conservatives feel the need to apply left wing principles to the SEC in order to level the playing field for "poor schools" like MSU.
That's what you are suggesting whether you realize it or not.