Texas Tech Saturday Morning Notes - Mike Leach Watch Day 4
Double-T Nation News:
Last night I went to watch my alma mater Kaufman High School take on the Celina Bobcats. It didn't turn out well for my Lions, but I was intrigued by a certain player, Andy James, spitting image of his brother, Adam James who caught a nice touchdown pass. It appears that Andy is set on following his father's footsteps to the Hilltop at SMU, but I wonder if he could be talked into greyshirting like his brother did and continue the pass-catching tight end position that Leach is developing at Texas Tech. Andy caught at least one touchdown pass and looked pretty good doing it.
Mike Leach Watch:
As Tech92 linked yesterday, Texas Tech head coach Mike Leach was offered a 5-year $12.1 million contract proposal. Here's the breakdown according to LAJ's Don Williams:
The proposal keeps in place contract-completion bonuses of $800,000 for Leach if he stays through 2009 and $200,000 if he stays through 2010.Leach would make at least $2.7 million next season, $2.4 million in 2010 and $7 million over the last three years, Myers said, though he was reciting the figures off the top of his head and did not have the proposal in front of him.
The $2.7 million in 2009 breaks down as $1.9 million in base salary and guaranteed outside income, plus the $800,000 bonus. The $2.4 million in 2010 includes the $200,000 bonus, Myers said.
And here's AD Myers on why $3 million a year is just not an option:
"We just feel 15 million (dollars) over that period is a little stretch for us,’’ Myers said. "For us to be able to be fiscally responsible with all of our other obligations, that was just a stretch for us to go to three million a year.’’
And on the buyout:
Myers said a buy-out clause in Leach’s contract remains unchanged: Leach would have to pay Tech $500,000 to leave early. For Tech to terminate Leach would cost the university 40 percent of the money that remained on his contract.
As easy as it would be to say that the ball is squarely in Leach's court, I think there's still probably some negotiating room both ways, so I think this will still be somewhat of a process.
Personally, I think this falls on both of them now. The tone of the negotiations seems to be that Leach's agent wishes something could have been done sooner, and Myers felt that waiting was in the best interest of the university. If a deal is struck, I'm hopeful that both parties can co-exist, which is somewhat sad, but I have to believe that both Leach and Myers realize that each of them have different interests with different priorities.
I think to Myers is to blame somewhat for not having an offer immediately ready and I think Leach is to blame for wanting to look elsewhere.

Here's some video from KAMC28 on Myers and the extension.
Texas Tech Football:
Hat-tip to The Dagger, Bob Knight asks Dr. Lou hos to fix the college football bowl season:
lou knight.mpg (via billygrayson)
0 recs |
30 comments
Comments
That video of Myers....
He just doesn’t seem very convincing.
Go Tech!!!
by jwhitettu on Dec 6, 2008 9:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Hance looks much more comfortable.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Dec 6, 2008 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Myers
I graduated from Tech in 1988, and I thought Gerald was ‘losing it’ then. Years later we would see him at the SWC Basketball tourney in Dallas, and I swore he lost it. I am thankful that he was non-linear thinking enough to hire Mike (a major 180 from Spike) and I am thankful that he knew Bobby K and that was enough to bring him here.
It is now time to throw a nice party for Gerald, and give him a gold watch. Bring in a young (think Theo Epstein) AD and add whatever you save from having this new AD to Leach’s offer.
by oldschoolraider on Dec 6, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Blame?
I think Myers is to blame somewhat for not having an offer immediately ready and I think Leach is to blame for wanting to look elsewhere.
I don’t think blame is the right word here.
This is just hard ball million dollar negotiating.
There are no villians just men looking out for their own best interest.
If coach Leach turns down 12.1 mill during our current economic times he can expect his
public image to take a hit, which in the long run could in up costing him.
VIVA LA FIGA!
by bmaxw on Dec 6, 2008 10:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I originally wanted to use
the word “credit”, but blame seemed more appropriate. Should have busted out the thesaurus.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Dec 6, 2008 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Unrelated to anything
but Turner Gill is a fantastic coach. Anyone see what his Buffalo (BUFFALO??) team did to Ball State last night?
by Tech92 on Dec 6, 2008 12:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, hes completely transformed that program in just 3 yrs
It will be interesting to see how far he goes in coaching…He seems like a great guy!…I enjoy rooting for coaches like that…but to be honest, I had no idea what he was doing until last night.
by TT4EVER on Dec 6, 2008 1:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Lou Holtz
I’m a big fan of Lou Holtz…He’s my favorite espn personality…I wanna have a sense of humor when I’m his age
by TT4EVER on Dec 6, 2008 1:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He does, however,
remind one of Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies
by Red Raider in South GA on Dec 6, 2008 5:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Leach watch
Losing Leach will cost big. Tech will lose the cream of a great recruiting class, program continuity and momentum, and tens of millions of dollars. Leach made Tech football relevant to people outside the Tech family and that is why we are expanding Jones Stadium. Take him away and those seats go empty. I also wonder at the silence of the Lubbock business community. It was reported that the UT and OSU games alone pumped $18M into the Lubbock economy. Myers is basically telling the world that Tech is a second-rate school that lacks the means to compete with the big boys, so why have Lubbock business owners not stepped up to sweeten the pot? Has Myers taken any initiative to raise funds outside of Tech’s apparently meager athletic budget? This is not just about keeping Leach. This is about showing the world that Tech is the destination and not just a second-rate stepping stone. And on a final note, if these negotiations reveal a growing rift between Myers and Leach, we all know which one has to go. (Whew! Thanks, I feel better now.)
by Blackbeard'sGhost on Dec 6, 2008 2:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
ACC
The ACC interest is a joke. Watching their championship game, it looks like maybe 20,000 people are there on a perfect Tampa afternoon to see VaTech and BC. Tonight in a frozed Kansas City, there won’t be an available seat.
by Tech92 on Dec 6, 2008 2:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yup, we've got it pretty good in the BIG12...
Our conference is in the NC conversation every year
by TT4EVER on Dec 6, 2008 2:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Just thought I’d check in to see if Leach has signed the contract. I read that ESPN is reporting he will sign the deal before Sunday. I was wondering if any of you heard if Leach’s daughter’s hairdresser’s brother confirmed that Leach signed today or not.
Lou Holtz looks like a troll and I can’t wait for him to leave ESPN.
by WreckerRaider on Dec 6, 2008 3:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The tone of the negotiations seems to be that Leach’s agent wishes something could have been done sooner, and Myers felt that waiting was in the best interest of the university.
That might be what coach wishes but it’s hard to imagine one way or the other that O’Hagan cares whether the deal was done sooner or later. That’s a talking point he’s going to use but not the kind that should have much weight against a University. It is an ego issue and that’s what bothers me about it. It’s like coming into a negotiation and demanding a higher price because the contract was signed in blue, not red, ink. You know how much I hate blue ink!
How are Mike Leach’s BUSINESS interests negatively affected by delayed negotiations? Hasn’t he used the time helpfully to ramp up the contract by visiting Washington and putting feelers out for other jobs? If the delay hurt anyone it wasn’t Leach, it was the school, as they’re now having to pay a 12.1M deal that might’ve been wroth 10M at season’s beginning or 11.5M had they grabbed Leach immediately after the Baylor game and said look at this shiny thing we’ve got, Coach. We students, alumnus, etc. are the ones who should feel wronged, not Leach and O’Hagan.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 6, 2008 4:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Skin, I think maybe the reason O'Hagan wanted something done sooner was...
cause the pay he was asking for, before the season, was higher than what he wound up getting offered yesterday. He may have been asking for 2.6mil a yr or even more.(I don’t know!)
That, or maybe Leach is as insecure as he looks, and got offended by Myers letting him come so close to the end of his contract.
Either way, I’m with you, it shouldn’t have been an issue for Leach or Myers. Even if they had signed him for less, Leach probably would have come asking for more after this season.
Let’s just get this over with, so we can get ready for the Cotton Bowl already! I wanna see some Slobberknockin!, Big Body Bangin!, Snot Slingin!, and Pound a Mudhole in Ole’ Miss! The patty cake I saw the last two games has left a bad taste in my mouth! And these seniors deserve better than to go out like that!!
by TT4EVER on Dec 6, 2008 5:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If it’s the first case, then Leach/O’Hagan aren’t upset they didn’t come to him sooner, they’re just upset they didn’t come to the right contract amount sooner. If a 2.6M per year contract isn’t happening, it shouldn’t matter when the deal doesn’t get made. He would be pissed at the alleged short changing regardless of the timing.
My worry is that it is or could be the case regarding the “Leach… got offended” part. That’s ego and this is simply too much money and too serious (and consequential) a negotiation for egos to be involved. The entire point of having sports agents in this insanely costly multi-million dollar business is to avoid precisely that kind of thing. It is a business that happens to involve a publicly funded University. Tens of thousands of kids are paying large tuitions that will ultimately fund large parts of this salary. The Board of Regents has a responsibility to negotiate on their behalf, and Leach has a responsibility to himself and his family to get the bets deal possible. There is ZERO room in this for ego, in my opinion, and I really hope it isn’t the case that this thing was slowed down by it.
I agree that Myers should’ve had an agreement ready sooner, but I disagree that O’Hagan or Leach should be upset that it wasn’t there. Had there been the contract currently offered, would Leach have signed it? I doubt it, as he’d still have tested the waters.
The only thing I can think of, from O’Hagan’s perspective — and I’m back tracking — is that Tech didn’t have a contract offer in place early and let Leach test the waters. Those waters turned out to not be very accepting, and that gave Tech a relative advantage in bargaining. That seems far fetched to me (why gamble on a marginal bargaining advantage of the speculative hope that your coach won’t be as sought after as he thinks with the accompanying risk that he… is and thus you either lose your coach or are in a worse position than you originally were in?) but it’s a possibility.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 6, 2008 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed and agreed.
Egos should not have become a part of the process, but I really believe that they did.
Evidence:
Myers not dealing with O’Hagan (allegedly putting the contract on Leach’s desk).
Myers being told that he will not deal with Leach directly, only through his agent.
The first comment came from Hance and not from Myers.
I think there were some real power-plays being made.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Dec 7, 2008 6:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is evidence.
And it concerns me. I guess it’s easy for me, sitting here in total irrelevance, to critcize the emotional procession of the negotiation, but I just find it baffling that two entities with so little to gain from and so much to lose from acting like children will do so anyways.
In my opinion, the students, the alumnus, the University, THE STATE, TAX PAYERS, etc. are all entitled to emotionally neutral negotiations. That’s probably naive of me.
by Skin Patrol on Dec 7, 2008 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
question
So… does anyone think the admin might have been looking to fire Leach or otherwise expecting him to leave after this season. OR really expected that we were SUPPOSED to make the BCS this year (and I mean thought that back in the summer). Because I don’t see how you tell Mike Leach we’re going to re-negotiate your contract after the year (so that it truly reflects your accomplishments) and then after a year that while slightly disappointing is STILL arguably the best year the program has had, you basically extend the current deal with (considering market position) a small raise.
Now I am in no way advocating mortgaging the whole school for our coach, if we CAN’T afford him, then we can’t (altho, I agree with Blackbeard, if that is the issue then it is the JOB of the admin to make money to finance it so that we CAN afford him). But all I’m saying is that I in NO WAY blame our coach (or, much as it galls me to say it, his agent) if they’re not impressed with our admin right now. And we should probably look into a new AD in the offseason.
by HeeroTX on Dec 7, 2008 1:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 
















