Ah the silly, silly coaching-go-round

So after the Big Tuna left them high and dry by retiring (Tuna was nice enough to let us know that he's healthy - a real load off my mind), the Cowboys brought in Jason Garrett for an interview. Garrett, the former clipboard holder for Troy Aikman is currently the QB's coach for the Dolphins.

So, why is it that all these guys need to "get permission" before interviewing (Wade Phillips, the other rumor says he hasn't been contacted yet)? Well, assistant coaches, just like head coaches, sign contracts with their teams. In most cases, they're not allowed to coach elsewhere. That's right, if the Dolphins wanted to, they could say 'no' and force Garrett to come back as QB's coach even though he'll likely get offered a promotion by the 'Boys (to O-coordinator).

In practice though, teams will almost always grant permission as long as the opportunity represents a promotion. Not doing so would certainly anger assistants, not to mention making coaching searches next to impossible. So, it's basically understood that you allow permissoin if it's a promotion. In the case of a lateral move, teams can and might say 'no' but they'll usually just force the counterparty to offer compensation in the form of a draft pick. This happens in other sports as well.

One goofy little off-shoot of this practice are titles like "Assistant Head Coach". This role didn't exist 10 years ago. By labeling someone an assistant head coach, you protect them from being hired away unless it's for a head coaching job. Russ Grimm, for example, was the AHC for Pittsburgh even though he functioned mostly as an O-line coach. This kept a competitor from "stealing" Grimm to be a coordinator, which is generally considered to be a step up from the o-line coach. Of course, the Steelers didn't exactly follow up on the implied promise that Grimm would be their head coach, instead hiring Mike Nolan. Grimm has since left to join Arizona's staff as, you guessed it, Assistant Head Coach / Offensive Line Coach.

MLB DirecTV

Rumor has it that Major League Baseball and DirecTV are close to a deal that will make DirecTV the exclusive provider of the MLB Season Pass. See http://thesportsbizblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/mlb-joining-nfl-exclusively-on-direct.html
for additional details.

This is not great news for baseball fans. It means that if you want to follow your team live and don't happen to live in its home market, you'll have to get DirecTV or use the subscribe on MLB.com for streaming internet coverage.

The reasons for the deal are clear. MLB is cashing in on this package now, possibly sacrificing total viewers for the cash now. It's hard to argue their business case one way or the other until the figures are in, but it's not hard to see that they're putting money ahead of the fans.

The other party to the deal, DirecTV is placing another bet on content in its race for subscribers with the Dish Network. Each company's valuation has fluctuated with it's ability to sign up new subscribers (not unlike the satellite radio duel). The question is, will the money lost on the rights fees (minus the revenues from selling the package) be offset by these new subscribers. Well that remains to be seen. MLB's online subscription is actually quite good, offering a ton of features like custom highlights and express games (full game in 20 minutes) if you're willing to watch on your computer.

Comcast and the other cable providers are the clear losers if this deal comes off as they lost a potentially valuable add-on sale to their digital cable packages. Maybe at least DirecTV will actually offer every game unlike the Comcast package that liked to randomly omit games.