[BostonCard]

Good stuff by StanfordMatt.  I agree that it would not make much sense for Dawkins to backload his UCF contract unless he believed that the offset clause was still in effect.  If there was an offset clause, I don't hold it against Dawkins to negotiate a contract that maximized his compensation.  If UCF said to him we can give you a 6-year contract worth $6 million, why not backload the contract to get most of that 6 million in the last four years.  Any money UCF pays in the first two would just go to the school that just fired you.

That being said, if he structured his contract that way, then it is not consistent with a belief that Stanford agreed to pay the entire $2.3 million without an offset.

Also, agree with Matt that unless Dawkins had dirt on Stanford, there was no reason to waive the offset.  Stanford had already agreed to pay him the entire amount owed for his last two years, so what would they have traded the offset for?

BC

[BostonCard]

Good stuff by StanfordMatt.  I agree that it would not make much sense for Dawkins to backload his UCF contract unless he believed that the offset clause was still in effect.  If there was an offset clause, I don't hold it against Dawkins to negotiate a contract that maximized his compensation.  If UCF said to him we can give you a 6-year contract worth $6 million, why not backload the contract to get most of that 6 million in the last four years.  Any money UCF pays in the first two would just go to the school that just fired you.

That being said, if he structured his contract that way, then it is not consistent with a belief that Stanford agreed to pay the entire $2.3 million without an offset.

Also, agree with Matt that unless Dawkins had dirt on Stanford, there was no reason to waive the offset.  Stanford had already agreed to pay him the entire amount owed for his last two years, so what would they have traded the offset for?

BC