How is this possible when we are led to believe everything is so rosy around the Administration of the University?

Here's the story from USAT's website (both the Dispatch and USAT are owned by Gannett): https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2025/10/09/oh...

I'm sure it's a distraction of some sort but probably not a huge one. The agreement they signed last year says he gets an average of $625,000 per year so if there's ever a dispute it seems equitable that he would get that amount. If he gets canned or leaves it seems there's no buyout clause for either party, so that might be an issue. I wonder how much Cromer's leaving had to do with the lack of a contract. This bye week would be a good time to take care of this.

Last week the sign that there was something wrong with the administration's leadership was that you don't know how to read. This week, it's based on your expertise in incentive comp negotiation timelines.

Don't you ever get embarrassed forming your opinions first and then tripping over yourself to explain how everything you see supports them?

Thought you were supposed to be some sort of journalist, no?

Speaking of the importance of care in reading prior to responding, if you check this thread, you'll find that he made no mention of incentive compensation. You were the one who bought up incentives. He, and BTC, just used sarcasm, which leaves it open for you to interpret the point of the sarcasm.

Myself, I'll only add that, if there is no contract in force, I would presume that Brian will be making sure that his resume ready. My guess as to the point of the sarcasm is that, in a situation where there is no contract in force, there is no reason to presume the situation will remain stable. I absolutely do not presume that he has no incentive to win. The more he wins, the higher his contract will be, if and when he gets one, or the more marketable he will be if he ends up getting a contract elsewhere.

I didn't mention incentives because OCF did. And I didn't mention incentive comp because I dont think he's incentivized to win.

I mentioned incentive comp because the contract that's in place -- and article makes clear it is, indeed, a binding contract -- includes the base salary. So there is only so much left to negotiate, and incentives are almost certainly a big part of what's outstanding.

In other words, the reason neither the administration nor Brian Smith are not showing much urgency here, is that what's in place covers the key components, and there is, of course, also an employment agreement in place. What's left to be negotiated is around the margins.

Again, this just doesn't strike me as big deal at all. There's an effective contract in place that outlines comp through 2029. Even the article qualifies their own headline in the body by saying he's ESSENTIALLY working without a contract. The article acknowledges that the Letter of Agreement is acting as a contract, and points out that there's not much detail in the agreement.

We're not even the only school in our conference where this is the case. 3 schools of the ~20 who hired new coaches this season are in the same spot. That's not some massively infrequent thing, and it's certainly not like it was an oversight.

Just a non-story.

And this is only an indictment of the ADs office to people who go looking for reasons to indict the ADs office. Like OCF.

Yep, and despite BillyTheCat's access to all manner of super reliable, insider info he seems to be in the dark about the fact that the official contract was signed 3 days ago.

For those scoring at home, this was either:

1) A massive, embarrassing mistake on the part of the AD's office that shows we're a school that "doesn't have its act together" and an indictment of the University's administration as a whole.

or

2) Both parties were agreed in principle on all components of the agreement, and the university lawyers understand Ohio contract law, and there was little urgency because there was no reason for their to be any urgency.