Stampede Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

Howard Mudd files retirement papers, but might not be gone

So, yeah. It's pretty crappy that the owners decided to kill the pensions of two of their longest tenured coaches in the NFL: Tom Moore and Howard Mudd. Combined, the guys have given 67 years to the NFL, and both deserve better treatment than this. I can't understand the motivation for it. The NFL is absolutely fine financially, and seems to be one of the few business ventures that is growing in this horrid economy. So, to cut the pensions of two great, legendary coaches and, essentially, force them out of the league is the kind of thing that could haunt this NFL further down the road.

I mean, why work for the NFL, who will cut your pension for n reason whatsoever, when you can coach in college (where you could make more money and don't have to worry about moron owners cutting your pension without any notice)?

The bright spot in all this is Howard and Tom could stay on doing the exact same job, but as "consulants." But even with that, there are complications:

Mudd would like to remain as a "consultant" with the Colts but that is also one of the loopholes that owners wanted to close, sources said, citing the example of another renown line coach, Alex Gibbs, who met the league formula for cashing out fully on his pension, only to be hired back as a $800,000 to $1 million consultant.

Right now, there isn't a whole lot of trust between coaches and the owners. I can't say I blame the coaches. The owners got greedy, it seems, and basically yanked the rug out from under guys like Howard Mudd and Tom Moore. If this move forces them from the NFL, it is the kind of move that could cost the NFL some fans.

Mudd's likely replacement is assistant o-line coach Pete Metzelaars. Metzelaars (a former player in Buffalo and other places) is a fine coach who filled in for Mudd last year when Mudd was out for health reasons. The Colts and Howard have been grooming Metzelaars for years as Howard's eventual replacement. If Tom Moore is ousted, Assistant Head Coach and WR Coach Clyde Christensen would take over as the Offensive Coordinator. Clyde is one of the best WR coaches in football, and has been with the Colts offensive staff since 2002.

So, if the old warriors need to go, there is still some great coaching continuity. Obviously, we Colts fans have no ill will or feeling towards Howard or Tom if they walk away. Far too many of us have seen our pensions dry up because of greed from rich fatcats, and if the rich fatcats want to take Howard's and Tom's pensions, then the best thing they can do is take the money and retire. Absolutely no hard feelings.

However, I'm hopeful Jim Irsay and Bill Polian will work something out so that Howard and Tom can stay on as long as they like. We shall see.

0 recs  |  Comment 27 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Around SB Nation

Comments

Display:

First of all, I hope Irsay can find a way to keep them around

if only peripherally.

Secondly, I have a question: Why is it that I’m not hearing about any other coaches? I’m sure my paranoia is working overtime here, but it seems as though this “new rule” was specifically designed for Mudd and Moore. Are there no other coaches in the league with the same or similar tenure?

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on May 7, 2009 11:04 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

more paranoia

The rule was designed for Mudd and Moore…. by Bob Kraft I’m sure

by LovinBlue on May 7, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

other coaches

check out this article by clark judge on cbs’ sportsline.com: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11715980

moore and mudd have garnered a lot of attention because, it seems, they are the first to react to these new rules. from what i gather from this and other articles on the matter, there are murmurs about strikes and other things, but those don’t seem likely. let’s face it, if these older guys want to make a ruckus and leave, there are 1000s of younger, very talented guys chomping at the bit to get an assistant coaching gig.

still, is irsay so tone deaf that he cannot pick up the general distaste in this country for executive greed? granted, guys like moore and mudd who make handsome salaries aren’t exactly headed for the poor house or on the verge of losing their homes, but this is a poor decision (and a shameless one) on irsay’s part.

by tenyardfight on May 7, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

First of all, how do you know Irsay had any part in it?

Second, I’ll hold off my knee-jerk “blame the evil rich guy” routine until I see the financials. The owners could well be doing this to safe-gaurd the pension fund for ALL the coaches. They don’t pocket extra coin by saving a buck in the pension fund. But with the various markets tanking I can only imagine what financial condition the pension fund is in.

Finally, from what I’ve read this only affects those coaches who meet the rule of 75, where their age added to the years they’ve been employed equal 75. How few coaches EVER meet that criteria? And even at that it only effects the extremely unusual ability to take the pension as a single lump sum all at once rather than the standard annuity payments. That is the only thing they would lose – the ability to take their pension in a lump sum.

I don’t see any villians or any heros here – I see a very real financial melt down effecting everyone. And has already been noted, no one who reaches the creteria of the NFL coaches rule of 75 is going to be in the poor house.

by the_iowa_hawkeye on May 7, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well Said!!

I completely agree here. There are details we don’t know yet.

by TRDean on May 7, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

jkadsjkf

 NFL owners voted to give the clubs the option to opt out of league-run pension plans; if irsay and the colts had not pursued this option (along with many other teams), i sincerely doubt mudd and moore would be filing for and/or mulling retirement. irsay could very well be reading over the logistics of the new options in order to find a way to keep mudd and moore.

from judge:

The problem, one coach told me, is twofold: That owners dared to consider a proposal where they could drop or lessen their involvement with a plan in which, until now, they had been required to participate fully, and that they actually went for it. But they did, voting at the league’s winter meetings to make the change, giving them the flexibility to determine alternative retirement plans and to find something that best suits their clubs.

That’s understandable, especially considering the current business climate. But this is not: They never consulted the employees that were going to be affected. Worse, almost none of them notified employees until weeks afterward, with one team getting the word Tuesday.

two things here that i find kind of interesting: 1 “that best suits their clubs” usually means ensure their profitability, especially during a period of economic contraction; 2. these decisions were made without consulting those employees whom they would most impact.

by tenyardfight on May 7, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Putting this in perspective

with other moves NFL teams take to replace older more expensive players with younger cheaper guys who can do the job just as well I simply don’t see this as any great “betrayal.” Especially when they are likely to be rehired as “consultants” after they retire.

There are no guarantees (especially when it comes to pensions which are usually not bound by contract, contrary to popular belief – or at least a contract that is open for unilateral change…which isn’t really much of a contract) in life or in the NFL; why should coaches be any different.

Is it really any different than, say, having a "contract" with Marvin Harrison, who has also contributed unbelievably to the Colts organization, that pays him $13 Million this next season and then just "waiving" him (terminating the contract unilaterally) when he is deemed too expensive? Did anyone cry foul when that happened?

I would honestly hate to see either Moore or Mudd go, and there is a good likelyhood that they can be rehired as consultants. But they were likely to retire anyway, at most this has hastened it by a year. Would their replacements be more ready one year from now to take over? Or would they be even better prepared if they had the reins themselves with Moore and Mudd still around as consultants for a year or two to help in the transition?

by the_iowa_hawkeye on May 7, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quote from Tarik Glenn relating to Howard Mudd via the IndyStar (emphasis mine):

“I remember the playoff game with Kansas City during the Super Bowl season (in 2006). A guy I was blocking hit the quarterback. Didn’t sack him, but hit him. I could hear word for word Howard chewing me out from the sideline. At the time I was very upset, I was embarrassed. But the bottom line is that he expected the most out of me and he was consistent about asking for it. Gotta respect a guy for that.”

I think this pretty much sums up the type of person/coach he was.

Alcohol, the cause of - and solution too - all of life's problems!

by AussieColtsFan on May 7, 2009 11:17 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Sometimes i dont get the NFL

I mean the owners are willing to pay UNPROVEN ROOKIES like Stafford more guarenteed money than Peyton Manning and Tom Brady…. They have over 40 Million for 1 (ONE) ROOKIE but dont have pension money for assistant coaches who have put in 30+ years in the NFL. WOW..

DID SOMEONE SAY CHAMPIONSHIP

by BROWNdude on May 7, 2009 11:22 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Most excellent point!

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on May 7, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

HOPE THIS DOES NOT AFFECT COYER

He is getting up there in age to…. now if he was lost…. then we would be in a lot of shit.

DID SOMEONE SAY CHAMPIONSHIP

by BROWNdude on May 7, 2009 11:25 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

ITs the standard sadly...

BROWNdude: this is just the standard way companies have been treating workers, in all professions, for a number of years. Its time to stop mimicking the labor practices of the Chinese.

by MasterRWayne on May 7, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm sorry...

But this whole conversation strikes of “corporate loyalty” or “corporate disloyalty.” Corporate loyalty doesn’t exist. Coaches are free to retire, resign, or quit at any time with a required time period for notice. Every coach has been given, even if not consulted in the decision-making, a longer period of time than notices to quit require to decide how they wish to handle the pension changes. Corporate loyalty, one way or another, is a fallacy. Coaches, and/or employees, work for a company so long as the company does meets the requirements that employee has to continue doing the work. Corporations are under no obligations to handle the situation any differently. With or without consultation of the employees the corporations have a right to change their pension structures or policies as they see fit and the employees are free to react to those changes any way they see fit. No one is getting screwed here.

by bamock on May 7, 2009 1:37 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Read the new post....

On the main page from BBS. Without any expectation on the part of coaches NFL-wide that the ownership continue paying into the pension plans indefinitely, Irsay has chosen to do so anyway. Let the belly-aching cease ;)

by bamock on May 7, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Most companies treat...

workers like utter garbage. As merely “disposable labor” and through such practices have severally damaged and nearly destroyed the American middle class. The fact that this is happening in the NFL just goes to show was endemic this problem really is. Its high time we all demanded that companies start treating workers here as they should be treated. Its high time workers got treated like American Citizens.

by MasterRWayne on May 8, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you want job security...

And fair treatment. I have some communist countries I could introduce you to.

All politics aside, I just flat disagree. It’s easy for employees to whine about the things they are “owed” by ownership and management. The facts remain as I stated above, objective, reality, there is no loyalty owed from a corporation to an employee or from an employee to a corporation.

You demand x, y, and z treatment from ownership and management of whatever corporation you work for but you’ll be damned if you would ever allow the ownership to force on you the same ultimatums based on some kind of “managerial altruism.” If management were to take the same position toward you/employees, all employees would act the way management/ownership thought they should, have the attitude they thought they should, and would be willing to making one-way sacrifices in the name of strengthening the corporation or improving efficiency or maximizing productivity – no matter what motivates them in their personal lives outside of work or what economic conditions might be effecting the them on the micro level.

You might say: BUT BAMOCK, THEY ALREADY DO TELL US WHAT TO DO AND WHEN TO DO IT, WE HAVE NO CHOICE NOW!!! I will say, yes you do. If your choices are limited they are not limited by ownership/management of your corporation. Maybe your choices are limited by your own financial circumstances, “I have to keep working there because I cannot afford to quit, get a new job, or start a new career!” How, exactly, is that ownership’s fault or problem? Maybe your choices are limited because everyone’s financial circumstances are horrid, IE bad economy. Well then guess what, things are going to get tougher for you at work too, because the economy is “bad” for ownership/management as well.

I’m being too long-winded. The point is this. When you applied for the job where you work, you signed a contract. In that contract you were notified of expectations your employer required you to meet in order for you to keep you job and you notified (or had the chance to notify) your employer on what things you are willing to do to keep your job and what compensation you require to keep doing it. Your employer made a number of promises to you and you made a number of promises to your employer. At no point in that contract did your employer promise to never change payout structures in a bad economy, benefits packages should the company struggle, etc. At no point did you promise not to quit if you won the lottery or to never move away or to never choose to work for a competing company because they offered you higher pay and/or better benefits.

If your employer changes the conditions which were in your initial contract you are free, as all Americans are free, to tell him to “shove it” and go somewhere else. And you just might. Corporate loyalty is an illusion. If you want better benefits, higher pay, better hours… signify that in your contract. Otherwise, find a better job. If you can’t, for whatever reason, then don’t push off your own problems on ownership/management of some corporation to make you feel better.

*Aside – This wasn’t “at you” MRW, just at the argument or position in general.

by bamock on May 8, 2009 5:04 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Most workers treat....

their employers like utter garbage. As merely “disposable sources of income” and through such practices have severally damaged and nearly destroyed the American middle class.

See how that works both ways? Now, can you show me how employers, or the NFL for that matter, are not treating employees “like American Citizens”? Exactly which of their rights protected under the Constitution have been violated?

by the_iowa_hawkeye on May 8, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Its funny...

this whole thread seems to have turned “politcal”…interesting, considering every time I post something of a similar nature, someone treats me to a “scolding”.. Hm.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on May 8, 2009 10:20 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I (and likely almost everyone else here) appriecate you having the maturity to stay out of it

even if it seems unfair.

Half the game too lazy
still sleepin' on me
but I'm 'bout to wake 'em
-Lil' Wayne "Fireman"

by shake n bake on May 8, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

My age, if nothing else, forces me to be somewhat mature.

Thanks for saying that btw ;-)

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on May 8, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

it's true and positive reinforcement is good

and I’m not calling MRW or Bamock immature, I think the conversation just drifted that way, which happens.

Personally I think the right think to do it for the people within to realize where they’ve ended up, and drop it or give it a shove back away from politics land and for the people outside to see it and stay away.

Half the game too lazy
still sleepin' on me
but I'm 'bout to wake 'em
-Lil' Wayne "Fireman"

by shake n bake on May 8, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Apparently...

The sites Editor-in-Chief sees it differently. Additionally, the whole article is based on political beliefs, entitlement to a pension, passing judgment on employers who dare to alter the way the pension is handled, etc. This wasn’t a football post about Mudd/Moore, it was a political post about pensions and management. Not much by way of drifting was necessary or has occurred, as BBS’ latest post demonstrates… so much so he had to justify it in a fan post.

by bamock on May 8, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

peytonsthebest

I thought the same thing reading all of this. You should never have been scolded. I just think that someone didn’t like your particular view on something, which was far less intense than this mess.

Anyhow, it didn’t go unnoticed, including your mature attitude to the situation. Thanks.

by coltsfanawalt on May 8, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Indianapolis Colts, 2006 NFL Champions!
Start posting about the Colts »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Naruto_rasengan_by_kishoto_small
The Day of Depth- An analysis of current injuries and their effects on our depth
Aaiu088_bob-sanders-posters_small
THE STATE OF THE TEXANS: WEEK 9 EDITION
Peyton_dungy_small
Perception altering Reality: Why the Colts are better than the Saints
No_1_small
Power Rankings - Week 9 - Final Update
Medium_jabe_small
One For the Ladies - The NFL's Best Looking Offense

Recent FanPosts

Tlbux4_small
Good Game Houston
Small
PRE GAME Manning Facts
Small
LATE NIGHT THREAD
Bobzilla_small
Just to clear things up
Small
Jack Williams
Small
college football open thread
Small
Taj Smith?
Medium_jabe_small
Projecting This Week's Game-Day Scratches
Small
Bob Sanders done for year

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Field Gulls
Sunday Night Game Thread
Buc 'Em
For Veterans Day, Tampa Bay falls in love with Free-man.
Mile High Report
Winning the (AFC) West the old fashoned way.....Earn It!

Head Writer, Editor-In-Chief

Stampedeblue_small BigBlueShoe

Site Editor

Bob-sanders-081107_small shake n bake

Contributing Writers

Masonair_small JakeTheSnake

Mgrex03_avatar_small mgrex03

Seyton_manning_feature_small KingRichard

Change_small Colts Homer