Bustle, UL agree to extension through 2011 season

[Parrott]

According to The Daily Advertiser, UL football coach Rickey Bustle and the university have tentatively agreed to a one-year contract extension through the 2011 season after reconfiguring the buyout clause.



Posted via Mobile Device

[Crackleton]

Any more insight on that buyout clause? I hope it's something like "if the team fails to get to a bowl, Bustle foregoes his 2011 salary."

[wcd35]

_ Any more insight on that buyout clause? I hope it's something like "if the team fails to get to a bowl, Bustle foregoes his 2011 salary." _

Yea, I'd assume they would have spent plenty of time negotiating the buyout should he not meet certain expectations next year. That way we wont be in this same position next year.

[ULGrad@HOU]

I'm just going off the top of my head here, but I don't recall ever hearing of 1-year extensions for D-1 football coaches anywhere else. Usually, it's either the guy is good, and they want to keep him for multiyears, or the guy is not who they want and they move on. What in the world or we doing?

[BeauCajun]

_ According to The Daily Advertiser, UL football coach Rickey Bustle and the university have tentatively agreed to a one-year contract extension through the 2011 season after reconfiguring the buyout clause.



Posted via http://igeaux.mobi _

That should help recruiting over the next year or so.

[cajun tom]

_ According to The Daily Advertiser, UL football coach Rickey Bustle and the university have tentatively agreed to a one-year contract extension through the 2011 season after reconfiguring the buyout clause.


Posted via http://igeaux.mobi _

I am glad they extended Bustle's contract. The schedule next year is very challenging.

[beaux66]

_ I'm just going off the top of my head here, but I don't recall ever hearing of 1-year extensions for D-1 football coaches anywhere else. Usually, it's either the guy is good, and they want to keep him for multiyears, or the guy is not who they want and they move on. What in the world or we doing? _

trying not to make the same mistake as ULM did and end up with worse than you already had.

[CajunT]

_ Any more insight on that buyout clause? I hope it's something like "if the team fails to get to a bowl, Bustle foregoes his 2011 salary." _

Much larger reduction in the buyout clause. It's a good deal for both parties.

[Parrott]

As I previously mentioned, the buyout was reconfigured. It was reduced, although final terms will not be available until all parties sign off and it gets approved by the state board.


igeaux.mobi

[ULGrad@HOU]

_ trying not to make the same mistake as ULM did and end up with worse than you already had. _

Yes, If our administration is committed to a winning program, then we should be able to tell by the hiring of the coach, when that time comes. I don't expect it to be anything close to what ULM is doing. Although, it's scary to think that it could be.

[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 'give the guy an extension so we can sucker kids in.' 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

[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.

[CajunProud]

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

[CajunT]

_ 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.

[wcd35]

_ 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 'give the guy an extension so we can sucker kids in.' 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.