Bustle, UL agree to extension through 2011 season

Is it April 1st? Am I missing something? What in the F is going on here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Town Cajun

_ We should have done this 2 weeks ago when we made the decision to keep him. Maybe we land the 2 JUCO players (Walker and Alexander) if they knew or thought Bustle would be here for another 2 years instead of 1. _

---

J-Town, we never offered Alexander. He told someone with Scout that we offered him and they listed the Cajuns. Alexander is not the type of character we need in this program. Walker, wanted to play in a better conference and with a better program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbine

_ I don't get it, he already has clauses for extensions and hasn't met them since 2005. He could even meet them next year, why would he want to renegotiate?

The only logic I can find is <i>'give the guy an extension so we can sucker kids in.'</i> and I don't think a good recruiter needs that advantage. A poor recruiter perhaps.

I don't get the advantage (of renegotiating) from either side.

jmco _

---

Its not about "suckering kids in." Its about other teams' coaches telling recruits that our coach is out after this year so why commit to this program when you have no idea who your coach will be. This way Bustle can say that he'll be here this year and next and could be extended again depending on the success a kid can help to bring.

This is a no brainer. If he doesnt do a good job next year, the buyout is much less than it was previously. At the same time, you have the assurance from the admin to tell your recruits that the coach will be there for more than just next year.

For the record, Tyrunn Walker's JUCO coach told me that it came down to Tulsa and UL. He really liked Tulsa, especially the program's success (obviously not in 2009). Plus, his coach hinted that he kind of wanted to get away from home and experience new things, but that wasn't because the Cajuns did anything wrong. Tulsa was just a better fit.

igeaux.mobi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wcd35

_ Its not about "suckering kids in." Its about other teams' coaches telling recruits that our coach is out after this year so why commit to this program when you have no idea who your coach will be. This way Bustle can say that he'll be here this year and next and could be extended again depending on the success a kid can help to bring.

This is a no brainer. If he doesnt do a good job next year, the buyout is much less than it was previously. At the same time, you have the assurance from the admin to tell your recruits that the coach will be there for more than just next year. _

---

When Bustle was hired he was given a set of expectations/requirements. If you meet these you will keep your job through automatic extensions.

After 8 years and unmet agreed upon benchmark expectations (save 2005) an extension now says UL has lower expectations today than it did in the immediate aftermath of the Baldwin era.

The thing is Bustle still has the opportunity to "earn" extensions through the results of next season with the contract he has now (had yesterday). So if he recruits with a winning season attitude the recruit KNOWS he will be the coach for the long haul.

Why would Bustle negotiate that away unless he has no confidence in his system.

I am so confused thus I don't get it.

jmo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbine

_ When Bustle was hired he was given a set of expectations/requirements. If you meet these you will keep your job through automatic extensions.

After 8 years and unmet agreed upon benchmark expectations (save 2005) an extension now says UL has lower expectations today than it did in the immediate aftermath of the Baldwin era.

The thing is Bustle still has the opportunity to "earn" extensions through the results of next season with the contract he has now (had yesterday). So if he recruits with a winning season attitude the recruit KNOWS he will be the coach for the long haul.

Why would Bustle negotiate that away unless he has no confidence in his system.

I am so confused thus I don't get it.

jmo _

---

None of that matters. When a kid is getting recruited Dooley or Toledo says, why go to UL, Bustle has 1 year left on his contract, he'll be gone. This extension takes that threat/comment off the table.

You're way overthinking this. The contract means little in terms of lessening expectations or anything like that. Its just to shut other coaches up. There are few negatives to this other than the minimal price we will have to pay to buy him out should we not get to where we need to be. The recruiting aspects far outweigh any buyout or "diminishing expectations"

At the end of this year, the decision had to be either can him or extend him. The in between is worse than either of the extremes. If you though we should can him, this should not change your opinion much since it really isnt a huge deal in terms of firing him in the future possibly.

Our administration is retards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wcd35

Its not about "suckering kids in." Its about other teams' coaches telling recruits that our coach is out after this year so why commit to this program when you have no idea who your coach will be. This way Bustle can say that he'll be here this year and next and could be extended again depending on the success a kid can help to bring.

This is a no brainer. If he doesnt do a good job next year, the buyout is much less than it was previously. At the same time, you have the assurance from the admin to tell your recruits that the coach will be there for more than just next year.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wcd35

None of that matters. When a kid is getting recruited Dooley or Toledo says, why go to UL, Bustle has 1 year left on his contract, he'll be gone. This extension takes that threat/comment off the table.

---

This is rich.

So you must be of the opinion that all recruits and their parents, and every coach recruiting against UL, are either naive or dumb? If this logic is so apparent to you, then why do you think it won't be to everyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wcd35

You're way overthinking this.

---

That is true, imo its a reaction to others not thinking it through.

Under your scenario there is zero chance of any contract ever being fulfilled as written.

I do not see the slightest slight in "he is up for renewal after next seasons bowl appearance."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbine

_ That is true, imo its a reaction to others not thinking it through.

Under your scenario there is zero chance of any contract ever being fulfilled as written.

I do not see the slightest slight in "he is up for renewal after next seasons bowl appearance." _

---

I think its more about making sure everything is clarified and not leaving any sort of doubt in our recruits, which seems to be the impetus of this extension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wcd35

_ I think its more about making sure everything is clarified and not leaving any sort of doubt in our recruits, which seems to be the impetus of this extension. _

---

Its another example of this administration getting by with the least amount of effort and ruffled feathers as possible. Don't let anyone tell you any different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wcd35

_ I think its more about making sure everything is clarified and not leaving any sort of doubt in our recruits, which seems to be the impetus of this extension. _

---

At some point a program has to cross an uncomfortable threshold.

Sometimes it is that single offseason recruiting period that forces the coach to recruit like there is no tomorrow. You simply cannot continue give a coach artificial buffers and expect him to coach like his back is against the wall.

I understand Bustle using this line of reasoning I just don't see how anyone can buy it. He was not going to be a lame duck recruiter he recruits to winning ALWAYS and he was up for renewal after next season. What's wrong with that?