MGB: UNT announces new deal for Littrell

[Brett Vito]

MGB: Source says deal will keep Littrell among the highest paid coaches in C-USA

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/2017/02/unt-announces-new-five-year-deal-for-seth-littrell.html/

[GrandGreen]

I heard the same logic when McCarny got a new contract.  

I would save the "highest paid coaches in CUSA logic" for when Littrell is performing at that level.

I only hope that NT got something out of this new contract, like higher buy-off amounts if he leaves.  

[MeanGreenTeeth]

I'm happy with Littrell so far, but I don't get it.   No one was fishing for him at 5-8 and the raise isn't going to keep him here if a P5 school comes calling in a few years.  I didn't get it with McCarney, and I don't get it here.

[Cr1028]

1 hour ago, GrandGreen said:

I heard the same logic when McCarny got a new contract.  

I would save the "highest paid coaches in CUSA logic" for when Littrell is performing at that level.

I only hope that NT got something out of this new contract, like higher buy-off amounts if he leaves.  

Quote

MGB: Source says deal will keep Littrell among the highest paid coaches in C-USA

He was brought in that way and at a lower salary than offered too.

[97and03]

No reason for this.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Everyone who is second-guessing this extension needs to go back and recall their reaction to Ekeler, Davis & Leblanc leaving.   If you were frustrated at all with the AD for not being able to pay them more to keep them around...  well, this is likely your solution.  Re-examine your stance.

This extension is likely not a reward for Littrell.  It's probably money shuffling.   And, of course, if Littrell is going to agree to money shuffling involving HIS MONEY, there has to be something in it for him... hence, an extra year.

[untbowler]

2 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Everyone who is second-guessing this extension needs to go back and recall their reaction to Ekeler, Davis & Leblanc leaving.   If you were frustrated at all with the AD for not being able to pay them more to keep them around...  well, this is likely your solution.  Re-examine your stance.

This extension is likely not a reward for Littrell.  It's probably money shuffling.   And, of course, if Littrell is going to agree to money shuffling involving HIS MONEY, there has to be something in it for him... hence, an extra year.

Saw nothing in Ekeler after first half of season when he ran into real offenses. The Army game was a major outlier, so i was and still not complaining about them being gone. If the big schools want them, then by all means adios.

[BTG_Fan1]

7 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Everyone who is second-guessing this extension needs to go back and recall their reaction to Ekeler, Davis & Leblanc leaving.   If you were frustrated at all with the AD for not being able to pay them more to keep them around...  well, this is likely your solution.  Re-examine your stance.

This extension is likely not a reward for Littrell.  It's probably money shuffling.   And, of course, if Littrell is going to agree to money shuffling involving HIS MONEY, there has to be something in it for him... hence, an extra year.

Has it been proven that SL is taken a payout to increase the assistant pool or this just an idea by us? I keep seeing it said, but haven't seen it confirmed

[GrandGreen]

12 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

He was brought in that way and at a lower salary than offered too.

Not sure why that means that a contract has to be redone after one year.   As far as taking a reduced salary to increase the assistant salary pool, that if it happened, was his decision.  

I hope everything turns up and Littrell builds a powerhouse NT program, but keeping his salary among the highest in the conference, is not a reason to hand a new contract.   On the surface, it buys NT exactly nothing.  Littrell is not going to leave NT for another CUSA program.   

I was one of the few that expressed concern about given McCarney a new contract at the time.  It was a monumental blunder.   The great percentage of posters were in favor of that new contract too.   This is not near as risky as it adds only one year, but other than that; it was very close to the same situation.  If Littrell first team was 2-10, would he have asked for a new contract to cut his salary?   

[Cr1028]

14 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

If Littrell first team was 2-10, would he have asked for a new contract to cut his salary?   

No, but there may have been a restructuring more to Wren Baker's liking.

[BTG_Fan1]

29 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Not sure why that means that a contract has to be redone after one year.   As far as taking a reduced salary to increase the assistant salary pool, that if it happened, was his decision.  

I hope everything turns up and Littrell builds a powerhouse NT program, but keeping his salary among the highest in the conference, is not a reason to hand a new contract.   On the surface, it buys NT exactly nothing.  Littrell is not going to leave NT for another CUSA program.   

I was one of the few that expressed concern about given McCarney a new contract at the time.  It was a monumental blunder.   The great percentage of posters were in favor of that new contract too.   This is not near as risky as it adds only one year, but other than that; it was very close to the same situation.  If Littrell first team was 2-10, would he have asked for a new contract to cut his salary?   

This is basically a 1 year extension... He came in with a 5 year deal...

[TheTastyGreek]

Quick, unnecessary contract extension (with no apparent NT benefit) for a football coach? 

STILL refusing to fire Tony Benford?  

#NewDenton

If anyone knows when Wren Baker's birthday is, please let me know. Because I'm thinking about dusting off the dreambox, and seeing if we can raise enough money to buy him a sweater vest and a Jimmy John's sandwich. 

[Matt from A700]

I trust Littrell will not go 4-8 following a big contract extension like McCarney did, but if it does happen, I will be seriously questioning this decision.