MSU removes “5 year jackpot” from Lusk’s contract

by **MissouriValleyUnite** » February 8th, 2018, 6:07 am

Takes some of the drama out of Arch Madness.
http://417-sports.com/index.php/blog/20 ... jI.twitter

Methinks Lusk was given an ultimatum after the cryotherapy terror.

**Sponsor**

by **pafan** » February 8th, 2018, 7:49 am

Why would Lusk agree to removing this clause? A 5% annual chance at $1.87 million is not something I'd give up for nothing. And it's not like MSU could force him to accept it - that's not how contract law works.

:headscratch:

by **BEARZ77** » February 8th, 2018, 9:27 am

The thinking among Bear's fans is he was given the option of removing the clause and being able to finish the year or an immediate termination. Still dumb move by MSU in that if you are going to fire, just do it. This way he can make you look bad by going on a late season run, or worse for Bear fans, go on a run and have Administration waffle on the firing. But it does at least on the surface look like he's done at seasons end. :Cheers:

by **glm38** » February 8th, 2018, 12:06 pm

pafan wrote:Why would Lusk agree to removing this clause? A 5% annual chance at $1.87 million is not something I'd give up for nothing. And it's not like MSU could force him to accept it - that's not how contract law works.

:headscratch:

Rumor is that after we started tanking they were thinking about firing him right then at mid season. And that he was offered to finish out the season in exchange for rescinding that clause. It saves him some embarrassment.

Just a rumor/speculation but it's about the only thing that makes sense.

by **Kyle@MOState** » February 8th, 2018, 12:09 pm

BEARZ77 wrote:The thinking among Bear's fans is he was given the option of removing the clause and being able to finish the year or an immediate termination. Still dumb move by MSU in that if you are going to fire, just do it. This way he can make you look bad by going on a late season run, or worse for Bear fans, go on a run and have Administration waffle on the firing. But it does at least on the surface look like he's done at seasons end.

Dream scenario because I like Paul Lusk the person, maybe the team will go on a late season run, make the NCAA and then get some P5-7 school that obviously hasn't been paying attention offer him a job and pay the last years buyout for us. Chances of that happening are miniscule to none, but a boy can dream. At least I will be able to route on the Bears in St. Louis without cringing a little bit at every win. Go Bears! :Cheers:

by **glm38** » February 8th, 2018, 1:38 pm

BEARZ77 wrote:The thinking among Bear's fans is he was given the option of removing the clause and being able to finish the year or an immediate termination. Still dumb move by MSU in that if you are going to fire, just do it. This way he can make you look bad by going on a late season run, or worse for Bear fans, go on a run and have Administration waffle on the firing. But it does at least on the surface look like he's done at seasons end.

Sorry I somehow missed your post when I made mine.

by **BEARZ77** » February 8th, 2018, 3:20 pm

As I said, there is still a lot of "dumb" in this move and more is possible although I think unlikely. In a clarification on this amendment Moats was asked if Lusk could still return next year, and he said " absolutely" and noted the year left on the contract. However, to do so would almost have to include some sort of extension or you're sitting with a lame duck coach and no chance to recruit for almost 1.5 years. This whole issue with Lusk's contract has been so mismanaged from the time they chose to give the extension based on very minimal success : it's just hard to fathom the lack of forethought or insight .

by **pafan** » February 8th, 2018, 8:09 pm

Well, OK.

I guess if I was Paul Lusk I would have told Moats "ok, big boy, fire me if you dare." Being guaranteed your paycheck gives you a lot of power to act like a badass to your boss. Worst case is, he's paying you to lay on a beach in Cancun.

by **bufan42** » February 8th, 2018, 8:41 pm

pafan wrote:Well, OK.

I guess if I was Paul Lusk I would have told Moats "ok, big boy, fire me if you dare." Being guaranteed your paycheck gives you a lot of power to act like a badass to your boss. Worst case is, he's paying you to lay on a beach in Cancun.

I’m guessing Lusk didn’t do that because he probably would have been fired. They are finally at a point where it’s financially somewhat feasible to do that.

Also, he’s probably thinking that if he gets this team to finish say.. 10-8 and in 4th place, then goes on to win at Arch Madness, he would be sitting at 24-10 with a reasonable rpi and probably a 13 seed in the tournament with some talent.

I think that gives him lots of options to get another good job even if he’s not retained.

by **glm38** » February 8th, 2018, 9:22 pm

BEARZ77 wrote:As I said, there is still a lot of "dumb" in this move and more is possible although I think unlikely. In a clarification on this amendment Moats was asked if Lusk could still return next year, and he said " absolutely" and noted the year left on the contract. However, to do so would almost have to include some sort of extension or you're sitting with a lame duck coach and no chance to recruit for almost 1.5 years. This whole issue with Lusk's contract has been so mismanaged from the time they chose to give the extension based on very minimal success : it's just hard to fathom the lack of forethought or insight .

I hadn't heard that about Moats statement. He (Moats) just really has no clue. :Bam:

These last 7 years have just been a nightmare for Bears fans. Is it ever going to end?