It came from today's Advocate article about Gonzalez... Porter is returning after 12-16 to prep and coach in the Bowl game...
If thats the case, then I hope, in regards to Stud that just means nothing is being done until after the bowl.
I don't know. Being knowledgeable about his contract and utilizing clauses to his advantage I would not classify as "sneaky". These guys have families to think about, no guarantee of another position if they are fired, etc. I mean, would you not scratch and claw for thousands of dollars from your employer if they were looking to weed you out? This is not chump change at stake, esp. from Stud's perspective.
Maybe so, but imo in order to keep from worrying about this... then make sure the players you're responsible for, play better. If not then... see ya.
well, obviously, that's true and the ideal way to job security. but, if you are seeing the writing on the wall that you are no longer wanted, wouldn't you scratch and claw for thousands of dollars you are potentially owed by contract? i would, and i don't think that is sneaky, which is what my comments were directed toward.
Perhaps the players are not filled with as much trepidation about this as the fans are. Just sayin'... Oh, I if Stud is trying to get all the money due him, who can really fault him for that?
Once you are provided a "nice" way to leave, and do not take it, the second time don't have to be so subtle. Must think he has a pretty strong hand in the game. hwr
Sneaky was obviously the wrong word of choice. Should have said shifty or pretty slick, and trying to give LSU the shaft. Either way I agree with you in that I don't blame him either, just don't like to see anyone stick it to LSU. Especially when they have done such a horrible job.
I thought most assistant coaches,especially position coaches, had one year contracts. That's how a new coach can bring in his own staff and not worry about leftovers.
