Good afternoon Grudenites:
I've been following the Gruden Threads since well before MIT's posts were deleted. I've been lurking here for years. This is my first post. (I tried to get in a few days ago, but I got buried in the mountains of new requests with the recent hubbub.) I just wanted to share a few thoughts.
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN INSIDER! I HAVE NO PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AT ALL. EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS EITHER PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, OR MY OPINION.
I wanted to clarify a few legal points that keep recurring:
First, there is no language in CBJ's contract that precludes the AD from interviewing new candidates. There is no exclusivity clause, etc. Barring some regulation that I've not found, UT could have two head coaches if they wanted. Anyone who thinks that Currie is barred from discussing an opening with potential candidates is mistaken. It may be poor form to do it publicly, but it is within the purview of the position of AD to offer the position to coaches who fit the criteria.
Second, there is 100% no obligation for UT to leave the job open for any period of time, or to vet X number of candidates before hiring anyone. Someone did post the relevant regulation, but it got washed over quickly. In a position like this, one candidate is all that is needed (and you could hire him before firing the other one).
Third, deals can be done, and based on conditions. For example, the Gruden deal could be totally done on the condition that CBJ goes 7-5 or worse. In that case, should CBJ go 8-4 then the Gruden deal would be void. This is important for anyone wanting a way to reconcile MIT's "deal is done" verbiage. (My personal opinion is the same as SFD, the deal was done on the Gruden side, and being taken to the AD. The "carrot," if you will.)
Fourth, it would not be surprising at all to see CBJ accept a buy out option. Like has been posted elsewhere, by negotiating a lump sum, he may actually receive more in total compensation. Every time I see someone say that CBJ would not accept a buy out option, I cringe. Stahp it.
Fifth, We all like transparency, but its hard to work in chaos. The AD is now operating quietly and discreetly. The result is the murmurs and grumblings we are seeing now. There is nothing wrong with grumbling, but from the AD perspective its easier to deal with vague grumbles than exacting criticism and involvement of having the whole world in your thoughts. This is not uncommon in these types of deals. Just have patience. If you don't have meaningful influence, keep it to social media. When the deal is done we'll know where we are and how we got there. (I'm thinking a 30-for-30 is totally warranted.)
Sixth, IMO, a CBJ game is equal in effect to an interim if you have your guy. It only makes sense to switch to an interim if you think the interim can do better than your coach. In this case, I think any interim is a totally unknown quantity. Just let it play out, these folks aren't stupid. Maybe egotistical and self destructive, but not dumb.
Seventh, haters end up on preacher's list. You don't want to be there.
To say a little about me, and why I have opinions on the law and deals, I'm an, in fact, an attorney. I do complex litigation that almost always involves complicated settlements between as many as 20 distinct parties. I concentrated my legal education on contracts, negotiation, and dispute resolution. I took every sports law related course offered at my school (one that focuses on sports law quite prominently. It has a top 3 ranking for sports law).
I believe. The facts are coming into the light. The ducks are in their rows. It's just a matter of time.
Soon.