Butch Jones

#2
#2
Who do you think would have offered him? Central Michigan seems most likely followed by Akron, Temple, and UMass.
 
#4
#4
sweatpants said:
Who do you think would have offered him? Central Michigan seems most likely followed by Akron, Temple, and UMass.
Click to expand...
I'd be stunned if Central Michigan didn't at least seriously consider him given he's coached there before and is from the area. I wonder if they actually offered Butch and he said no thanks before getting McElwain, or if they just kicked the tires on Butch before offering McElwain. It isn't saying all that much, but McElwain has the more impressive resume so perhaps they chose him over Butch.

Butch reportedly did say thanks but no thanks to the Oregon St job a couple years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile
#8
#8
05_never_again said:
I'd be stunned if Central Michigan didn't at least seriously consider him given he's coached there before and is from the area. I wonder if they actually offered Butch and he said no thanks before getting McElwain, or if they just kicked the tires on Butch before offering McElwain. It isn't saying all that much, but McElwain has the more impressive resume so perhaps they chose him over Butch.

Butch reportedly did say thanks but no thanks to the Oregon St job a couple years ago.
Click to expand...

This. My guess is he pursued by some mid-major teams and honestly it would probably be a good fit for that level of job; maybe even a lower P5 job like Indiana. I think his coaching ability tops out around that level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile
#9
#9
It is very strange that UTK has not taken some action alleging willful underemployment. This was one of the key clauses in Butch's contract. In fact, few if any of the superagents will sign off on mitigation clauses anymore. Either Butch has major dirt on some very important Vols, or the school is overly concerned about the perception of litigating a buyout which is something they really shouldn't be worried about unless they think they'll be trying to make a hire sometime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OG.V83 and VolNExile
#10
#10
VolsSportsFan said:
This. My guess is he pursued by some mid-major teams and honestly it would probably be a good fit for that level of job; maybe even a lower P5 job like Indiana. I think his coaching ability tops out around that level.
Click to expand...
I know it's heresy to say anything good about Butch now here on these boards, but you're right, he's a great fit for that level of job. He actually won 4 mid-major conference titles in 6 years at Central Michigan/Cincinnati. Only lost 3 conference games in 3 years at Central Michigan. Yes, I know he followed Brian Kelly, but if he was merely coattail riding then his 3rd year team wouldn't have gone 11-2 (8-0) and finish the season ranked. He would have played that season predominantly with guys he recruited. Butch is a good recruiter on paper, and given the wider talent differentials between the haves and have-nots in the mid-majors he can have good teams purely on account that he's got more talented players. That fact masks his in-game coaching and talent development deficiencies.
VolunteerHillbilly said:
It is very strange that UTK has not taken some action alleging willful underemployment. This was one of the key clauses in Butch's contract. In fact, few if any of the superagents will sign off on mitigation clauses anymore. Either Butch has major dirt on some very important Vols, or the school is overly concerned about the perception of litigating a buyout which is something they really shouldn't be worried about unless they think they'll be trying to make a hire sometime soon.
Click to expand...
Butch's contract didn't say he had to actually secure comparable employment, rather make a "good faith effort" to obtain it. You can't force him to accept a job. From a legal perspective, that kind of language requires the coach make an honest effort to get his name out there/land some interviews, which he reportedly has done. Does Butch want a comparable job at the moment? I think the answer to that is absolutely not, but he doesn't actually have to take another job.

If UT doesn't think he made a good faith effort to obtain a comparable job, they could claim breach of contract and not pay the buyout, but then Butch would likely sue them. The legal expenses involved probably make it not worth it. Supposedly Butch actually turned down the Oregon St job a couple years ago, right after he was fired from Tennessee. If you were offered a comparable job by someone else and willingly turned it down, I suppose UT could argue he didn't make a good faith effort to secure it. However, Butch could argue he did make a good faith effort to secure it (by virtue of throwing his name in the hat for it, interviewing, etc.), but simply decided he didn't want it. Butch would probably win such a case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boca Vol
#12
#12
05_never_again said:
I know it's heresy to say anything good about Butch now here on these boards, but you're right, he's a great fit for that level of job. He actually won 4 mid-major conference titles in 6 years at Central Michigan/Cincinnati. Only lost 3 conference games in 3 years at Central Michigan. Yes, I know he followed Brian Kelly, but if he was merely coattail riding then his 3rd year team wouldn't have gone 11-2 (8-0) and finish the season ranked. He would have played that season predominantly with guys he recruited. Butch is a good recruiter on paper, and given the wider talent differentials between the haves and have-nots in the mid-majors he can have good teams purely on account that he's got more talented players. That fact masks his in-game coaching and talent development deficiencies.

Butch's contract didn't say he had to actually secure comparable employment, rather make a "good faith effort" to obtain it. You can't force him to accept a job. From a legal perspective, that kind of language requires the coach make an honest effort to get his name out there/land some interviews, which he reportedly has done. Does Butch want a comparable job at the moment? I think the answer to that is absolutely not, but he doesn't actually have to take another job.

If UT doesn't think he made a good faith effort to obtain a comparable job, they could claim breach of contract and not pay the buyout, but then Butch would likely sue them. The legal expenses involved probably make it not worth it. Supposedly Butch actually turned down the Oregon St job a couple years ago, right after he was fired from Tennessee. If you were offered a comparable job by someone else and willingly turned it down, I suppose UT could argue he didn't make a good faith effort to secure it. However, Butch could argue he did make a good faith effort to secure it (by virtue of throwing his name in the hat for it, interviewing, etc.), but simply decided he didn't want it. Butch would probably win such a case.
Click to expand...
If Butch was offered a college coaching job, even as an assistant, after interning for an entire year, the Vols could seek to have the highest salary Butch was offered imputed to his income and deducted from what the Vols owe him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile
#13
#13
VolunteerHillbilly said:
If Butch was offered a college coaching job, even as an assistant, after interning for an entire year, the Vols could seek to have the highest salary Butch was offered imputed to his income and deducted from what the Vols owe him.
Click to expand...
They could, but then Butch would likely sue UT for breach of contract, because that's not what UT agreed to in his contract. Plus there'd be no way to confirm a salary that Butch was offered by another school. Butch wouldn't have to disclose that, the school making the offer wouldn't have to disclose that. And the school certainly isn't going to get involved in a contract dispute between a coach they offered and their former employer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boca Vol and VolNExile
#14
#14
VolunteerHillbilly said:
If Butch was offered a college coaching job, even as an assistant, after interning for an entire year, the Vols could seek to have the highest salary Butch was offered imputed to his income and deducted from what the Vols owe him.
Click to expand...

His buyout isn't offset by what he was offered. It's offset by how much he is actually earning.
 
#15
#15
bamawriter said:
His buyout isn't offset by what he was offered. It's offset by how much he is actually earning.
Click to expand...
You could theoretically put such a clause in a contract, but UT didn't do that with Butch, I'm not sure what coach would ever agree to that, and there's no way to confirm what a coach was actually offered. Nobody has to disclose that.
 
#18
#18
VolsSportsFan said:
This. My guess is he pursued by some mid-major teams and honestly it would probably be a good fit for that level of job; maybe even a lower P5 job like Indiana. I think his coaching ability tops out around that level.
Click to expand...
isnt Indiana where Debord ended up?
 
#19
#19
bamawriter said:
You're assuming wrong.
Click to expand...
Generally, if you have a duty to exercise due diligence to mitigate your losses by seeking other employment, you may have income that is voluntarily forgone imputed to you. It happens every day in domestic relations cases. I've never seen a mitigation clause that specifically gives one party the right to determine what constitutes an acceptable form of mitigation. I would think that any such provision makes the mitigation clause a nullity, which means a court is unlikely to interpret such a meaning and state law is going to control any ambiguous provisions. Again, I have not read all of Butch's contract so it may be as you say. It just seems silly to have bargained for a mitigation clause only to let Butch be able to refuse any job he's offered and still receive the full buyout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile
#20
#20
He basically has a job that pays his insurance, is not all that stressful, gives him something to do all the while he is still able to draw mega bucks. Honestly, I don't blame him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LittleVol
#21
#21
05_never_again said:
You could theoretically put such a clause in a contract, but UT didn't do that with Butch, I'm not sure what coach would ever agree to that, and there's no way to confirm what a coach was actually offered. Nobody has to disclose that.
Click to expand...
Bamawriter and I seem to disagree. I think the absence of such a clause coupled with standard state contract boilerplate that applies TN law means that offered income can be imputed even if the job was not accepted. Bamawriter is saying the absence of language that specifically allows for offset of imputed income means you cannot get the offset.
 
#22
#22
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Generally, if you have a duty to exercise due diligence to mitigate your losses by seeking other employment, you may have income that is voluntarily forgone imputed to you. It happens every day in domestic relations cases.
Click to expand...

This isn't a domestic case. This is contract law. The terms of the contract are clear cut: UT will pay Butch's buyout offset by whatever he earns, and Butch is required to make a good faith effort to find gainful employment.

I've never seen a mitigation clause that specifically gives one party the right to determine what constitutes an acceptable form of mitigation. I would think that any such provision makes the mitigation clause a nullity, which means a court is unlikely to interpret such a meaning and state law is going to control any ambiguous provisions. Again, I have not read all of Butch's contract so it may be as you say. It just seems silly to have bargained for a mitigation clause only to let Butch be able to refuse any job he's offered and still receive the full buyout.
Click to expand...

There's nothing ambiguous about the contract. At all. It's extremely clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#23
#23
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Bamawriter and I seem to disagree. I think the absence of such a clause coupled with standard state contract boilerplate that applies TN law means that offered income can be imputed even if the job was not accepted. Bamawriter is saying the absence of language that specifically allows for offset of imputed income means you cannot get the offset.
Click to expand...

Yes. If the contract says "earned income" rather than "imputed income," then UT cannot use imputed income to calculate the offset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolunteerHillbilly
#24
#24
Again, I would go back to saying that mitigation without offset for voluntary underemployment is toothless. The clear intent is to create a duty to seek and accept employment. The contract is silent so we apply state law.
 
#25
#25
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Again, I would go back to saying that mitigation without offset for voluntary underemployment is toothless. The clear intent is to create a duty to seek and accept employment. The contract is silent so we apply state law.
Click to expand...

You should read the contract before assuming it's silent on any particular topic. So far, everything you've mentioned is covered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolunteerHillbilly
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top