Buyout Bowl: LSU-Texas A&M rivalry getting $picy

Glenn Guilbeau | gguilbeau@gannett.com

BATON ROUGE — After one of his team's finest efforts, LSU football coach Les Miles waxed on as only he can following his team's 23-17 victory at Texas A&M last Thanksgiving night.

"I think it's a tremendous rivalry," he said. "We need a trophy. Somebody needs to come up with a trophy. There's so much petroleum right? On both ends. Maybe some kind of big petroleum something."

Someone in the audience made a suggestion.

"No, not a barrel," Miles answered with joking disdain. "A wrench or something."

It's only about three months later, and Les got his wrench all right — and a whole lot of gasoline.

The wrench's name is John Chavis, and he has ratcheted up this rivalry. Chavis left LSU's defensive foreman post for Texas A&M's after last season, and on his way out took a little shot at LSU offensive coordinator Cam Cameron, who was going to be making more money than Chavis had Chavis stayed at LSU in 2015. And that would have been wrong, considering how much better Chavis' defense was than Cameron's offense in 2014.

"I'm excited to play with a great offense," Chavis, who coached with one of the SEC's worst offenses in 2014, said sharply on Jan. 1 while wearing A&M gear and boarding an A&M plane.

Then on Friday, Chavis poured petro on the fire with a lawsuit against his former employer. Then LSU, which had planned to file its lawsuit on Monday, sued later Friday after the legal blitz by Chavis.

The legal football is the $400,000 buyout LSU says Chavis owes for breaking his contract that was scheduled to end on Dec. 31, 2015. The contract has a clause that says Chavis would have to pay the buyout if he left before Jan. 31, 2015. Chavis does not want to pay that buyout nor does Texas A&M, which told Chavis it would pay off his contract obligations — if any at all — when it hired him.

So Chavis, who knows that some of the best defenses have deception (or lies), skillfully tendered his resignation to LSU on Jan. 5 with the necessary 30-day notice that his contract said was needed to free him of the buyout. Chavis' lawsuit also contends his last day at LSU was Feb. 4, which lies in the last 11 months of the contract, thus freeing him from the buyout — conceivably.

Now, Chavis did not actually work at LSU through Feb. 4. His last active day was spent "coaching" the Tigers' defense in the Music City Bowl on Dec. 30 in Nashville. (Though some would debate that date since he and his defense looked like they were hardly working as Notre Dame piled up 449 yards in a 31-28 win.) Nevertheless, Chavis could have used accrued vacation time and other leave to get him to Feb. 4.

People postdate their last day of work legally very often in other fields of work. "Here's my three-week notice, but you owe me two weeks of vacation. This is not a busy time anyway, so I'm out of here in a week." Therefore, one can be at an old job for those last two weeks on paper, but actually be house hunting in the new town over that span. Happens every summer.

So, all these pictures out there of Chavis wearing A&M logos while boarding A&M planes and recruiting A&M targets in January before the $400,000 buyout cutoff date may not matter, because A&M skillfully did not put him on its payroll and did not officially announce his hiring until Feb. 13. Smart call.

Yes, Chavis and A&M have all their documented dates — or lies, depending on which side of the Louisiana-Texas line you are pulling for — in a row. Chavis may have been out recruiting and attending meetings with Texas A&M coaches and working in his office, but he did not go on the payroll until Feb. 13. Reporters have interviewed subjects for stories for newspapers before they went on their payroll.

It depends upon which meaning of the word "work" works for you — or works for the judge or jury. If you're not getting paid yet, is it work? As that skilled frequent liar Bill Clinton once said as only he could, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

LSU is understandably upset over this litigation. This is the second lawsuit by a former coach against LSU involving athletic director Joe Alleva in less than three years. LSU wants its $400,000, but it seems a little desperate considering its bank account.

In reality, Alleva wants to get back at Chavis just as he wanted to get back at tennis coach Tony Minnis, whom he not only fired but tried to strip of his lifetime health benefits from LSU after two decades of service. Alleva originally claimed Minnis missed that deadline by a few weeks before relenting when lawyers got involved. Alleva is now claiming Chavis missed his $400,000 deadline by a few weeks. Minnis' case was eventually dismissed but only after LSU spent thousands upon thousands in legal fees delaying it when more professional behavior by Alleva toward Minnis could have meant no lawsuit. Minnis and his attorney, by the way, have appealed.

LSU, by the way, has had language clarity issues with its coaches' contracts in the past, and it has another one regarding Chavis' deal. This contract wants to punish Chavis with the $400,000 buyout because LSU feels he left in the first month of the last year of his deal instead of after Jan. 31, 2015. But by Chavis leaving earlier — just after the Music City Bowl in reality — he helped LSU by giving Miles more time to find a replacement. After a couple of candidates turned him down, Miles still hired Kevin Steele from Alabama to replace Chavis in enough time in mid-January so as not to hurt recruiting. DBU missed out on one defensive back from Tennessee because of Chavis' move. Big woo. LSU grows defensive backs in its backyard. Now, had Chavis physically not left LSU until say, mid-February, to avoid the buyout, that would have put Miles and LSU in much more of a pickle than when Chavis did leave. It may have been even more difficult to find a replacement than it was.

Yet, Alleva is playing hardball for this $400,000 that really didn't need to be in the contract in the first place. Obviously, Alleva didn't think Chavis was good enough for what Chavis wanted anyway. So now, Chavis is firing back.

Funny, if it was up to Miles, Chavis would have gotten the $1.7 million he wanted instead of the $1.3 Alleva insisted upon. Chavis also had a problem with Alleva because Alleva did not give him a three-year deal after the 2013 season.

So, Tiger fans, if Steele's defense is not as good as that of Chavis next season, do not blame Miles. Blame Alleva. Chavis got angry and overreacted when he didn't get exactly what he wanted, but Alleva seemed to forget that Chavis has clearly been the best assistant at LSU since he arrived in 2009. LSU's defenses — not its offenses — were among the best in the SEC and in the nation for the most part since Chavis' arrival. We shall see if that remains.

Chavis' court date has not been scheduled as of yet, but Texas A&M and Chavis are due in Tiger Stadium on Nov. 28. The LSU-Arkansas "rivalry" has played out annually for two decades longer than LSU-A&M in the SEC, but it has never been this good.

Forget the Wrench Trophy, Les. Make it a big dollar sign and put it in the north end zone. If Texas A&M wins, Alleva pays Chavis' legal fees and moving expenses and apologizes at midfield. If LSU wins, Chavis pays Alleva the $400,000 at midfield right after the game.

Call it "The Buyout Bowl."