02-15-2013, 12:34 PM
This Rule of Tree post back in 2011 references Jon Wilner's speculation that the extension has some sort of clause that allows Stanford to cut ties with Dawkins before the extension kicks in next year.
http://www.ruleoftree.com/2011/7/7/22642...-extension
What Wilner actually wrote, among other musings on the extension, was:
Like much of Wilner's speculations, though, this makes no sense to me. Why would Dawkins sign a meaningless extension with a buyout that wouldn't kick in if Stanford decided to fire him at the end of the original contract?
http://www.ruleoftree.com/2011/7/7/22642...-extension
What Wilner actually wrote, among other musings on the extension, was:
Quote:Action: Stanford coach Johnny Dawkins signs two-year contract extension which, when combined with the three years remaining on his original deal, will keep him on The Farm through the 2015-16 season.http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...r-problem/
Reaction I: The financial terms were not disclosed, and Stanford, as a private university, is not subject to an open records request. But I cannot fathom that athletic director Bob Bowlsby would have put the school on the hook for two more years at close to $1 million/yr. (That would be a fireable offense, even with the influx of Pac-12 TV revenue.) Most likely, the deal includes some sort of school option allowing Stanford to cut ties with Dawkins at no additional cost before the extension years kick in in other words: at the end of Dawkins original six-year deal.
Like much of Wilner's speculations, though, this makes no sense to me. Why would Dawkins sign a meaningless extension with a buyout that wouldn't kick in if Stanford decided to fire him at the end of the original contract?
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison