Hudspeth and Grasshopper

[aTotal360]

Do you think SS has preemptively contacted Hud to let him know we would be interested in his services when Dan leaves? <div>Certainly Stricklin (or some MSU rep) and Hud (or his agent) have had this convo. Atleast dropped the bug in his ear. (Even though it might be a violation, not sure)<div>
</div><div>Some people are saying Scott is out in front of the situation. Do you think this means a new contract for Dan or he's got a good coach in the waiting?</div> </div>

 

[weblow]

If Mullen leaves before then and we quickly offer him, that is a different story. Hud is not going to pass on the bear job without an offer on the table from us.

 

[Bobby Ricigliano]

...other than the usual 1-yr extension to keep it at 4. Mullens got the big raise last year; he didn't earn another one this year. If somebody offers him more at this point, let him go. Otherwise, we might be giving him a raise every year, regardless of results, and we can't afford to do that.

 

[shsdawg]

1 year is all we CAN give him, by law. I think he fully deserves it too. Some of you people are just donright delusional.

 

[Thick]

You don't have to give an extension until next year, especially if he is still here and takes to another bowl. If that happens, extend him 2 years.

 

[Bobby Ricigliano]

nm

 

[shsdawg]

The usual 1 year extension is all we can do. There is no other. You post implied that we could give him a longer one, whether it was intended to or not. </p>

 

[State82]

Just give him the one year extension to the maximum of four. But at the same yearly salary. He did not imply that we could increase the years beyond four.

 

[Bobby Ricigliano]

I would bet you exceeded a 24 on the English portion of the ACT.

 

[shsdawg]

and I made a 32 on the reading comprehension section, which would be more applicable. As I said, your writing skills need work. We won't even talk about you college football judgement.

 

[Bobby Ricigliano]

Truthfully, though, I think we can chalk this up as an example of the flaws associated with standardized testing. I guess you slipped through the cracks.<div>
</div><div>Now, regarding my "college football judgement", are you implying that you would be in favor of giving Mullen a larger contract (i.e. one for a larger sum of money per year) to keep him here at this point in time?</div>

 

[shsdawg]

to keep him. When we hired him if I had said we should have extended his contract and give him a raise if he went 6-6 and had us bowling in the third year you would have agreed with me. Truth is we are about the same as we were last year. Mullen did a better job THIS year than he did last year to get us there.

As for slipping thought the cracks, maybe you are right. Then again maybe you aren't. </p>

 

[Bobby Ricigliano]

...after year two.

 

[shsdawg]

It may have actually been a better job. </p>

 

[Bobby Ricigliano]

If we had not given him a raise after last year, then, yes, I would be in favor of giving him one now after becoming bowl eligible for the second straight year.<div>
</div><div>But, to your point, if he in fact did a better job this year than last, should we more than double his salary again?</div><div>
</div><div>If you need to have the last word in this thread, go ahead. I'm done with this. You're making up points to argue now.</div>

 

[shsdawg]

last word.

 

[Joe Schmedlap]

The man is paid handsomely already. His job performance does not warrant any additional raise over that which is already built in to the new contract he signed last year. I seem to recall that his salary would increase year over year for four years. No need exists to bump that any further based on his job performance in 2011. If MSU and it's supporters have money to burn, it should be spent on retaining and upgrading the assistant coaching staff.