Slightly OT: Why Is Winning Not Important In College Coaching Contracts?

[bbncal02]

So, with Cal exiting last season for us, and football starting up, watching Florida and Clemson fall on their face, it got me thinking.

Why is winning not factored into a college contract for these coaches? Or if it is, why are buyouts so high?

Cal's buyout was massive (luckily he saved us a ton of money).
Dabo's is like SIXTY Million.

Napier's is 36 million or so.

Why does it PAY to SUCK as a college coach? And this isn't even about large programs, many smaller schools have million dollar buyouts for their coaches as well. (Now, before I continue, I'm not saying Dabo is in danger, but it's obvious he's not going to change and is declining. He did get them two titles).

Is college sports SO broken that the only way people take these jobs is to get paid to go away? It's the only job I can think of, outside of maybe CEO of a large company, where screwing up, is not a bad outcome.

For example, if Napier is fired he gets 36 million dollars. Hell, I'd BEG to be fired at that point. End my misery. I'll go cry on a small dinghy somewhere.

36 Million to be bad at your job and go away is enough money to live the rest of your life on if you're not completely incompetent financially.

I just don't get it. If you're going to pay this kind of money to people, the contracts need to have stricter terms. Especially if you can't live up to the contract. I get having severance, but man......at least reduce it to something reasonable if you have a guy start tanking.

Just wanted to spur some conversation around that here since we were in a similar situation with Cal not living up to expectations.

 

[BlueCat#8]

I think its designed to keep your coach from being stole (bought off) from other colleges but I could be wrong. There are plenty of coaches that want to win. Just because we didn't have one, all the others aren't the same way.

 

[bbncal02]

I think its designed to keep your coach from being stole (bought off) from other colleges but I could be wrong. There are plenty of coaches that want to win. Just because we didn't have one, all the others aren't the same way.

Oh I'm sure. My question is why are contracts for coaches so bad that when they start sucking or underperforming it becomes very hard to fire them, financially speaking. You would think that it would have a stipulation that you have to win X amount of games over the course of X years. That way, you can have a bad year without it hurting you horribly, BUT at the same time, give AD's some sense of accountability.

It's just bizarre to me. Like Napier for evidence, he's obviously failing at UF. But it's gonna cost mega bucks to fire him. Wild when the average joe can lose their job for nothing sometimes.

 

[BlueCat#8]

Thats the beauty of capitalism it gives you the right to be a fool. We have plenty of fools in the academia world. I think part of the issue is we now live in a world where accountability is no longer a virtue. We want to blame others for our own shortcomings.

 

[bbncal02]

Thats the beauty of capitalism it gives you the right to be a fool. We have plenty of fools in the academia world. I think part of the issue is we now live in a world where accountability is no longer a virtue. We want to blame others for our own shortcomings.

Agreed. And I have no problem with capitalism. You should be able to get what you truly earn by work. However, capitalism without accountability/some rules is croneyism and leads to oligarchies.

That aside, it's just crazy to me how much Napier (and even Cal at the time) would get paid to go away. I just don't get it. Why are there such favorable contracts to these guys that have proven little to nothing.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

Dabo was amazing a while back with 2 titles. He isnt adapting (like cal) and man does that 60 million sting.

It's always more beneficial for the coach OP.

Pope even got a nice buyout. He gets an extension for making a sweet 16, which is comical at UK.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Oh I'm sure. My question is why are contracts for coaches so bad that when they start sucking or underperforming it becomes very hard to fire them, financially speaking. You would think that it would have a stipulation that you have to win X amount of games over the course of X years. That way, you can have a bad year without it hurting you horribly, BUT at the same time, give AD's some sense of accountability.

It's just bizarre to me. Like Napier for evidence, he's obviously failing at UF. But it's gonna cost mega bucks to fire him. Wild when the average joe can lose their job for nothing sometimes.

The notion is if they don't pay it, someone else will and you will lose a very valuable commodity thats extremely difficult to replace. Plus the economic impact of a great coach will more than pay for the deal they get especially in football. In football there is direct impact in it being by far the highest revenue producing sport (in most situations the only revenue positive). Then you have indirect with studies showing that championships in mens basketball and/or football clearly drive an increase in enrollment the following year

Obviously some of these contracts are just laughably bad from the start because these fools give away the bank before the coach proved anything ala napier and others.

Dabo is different because he was dominant for a long time and they knew bama would come calling very soon. You just couldn't replace a pre portal dabo at Clemson and his economic impact there more than justified his deal.

Dabo was amazing a while back with 2 titles. He isnt adapting (like cal) and man does that 60 million sting.

It's always more beneficial for the coach OP.

Pope even got a nice buyout. He gets an extension for making a sweet 16, which is comical at UK.

Iirc not only did we massively pay pope but guaranteed 75% of his deal with a reducing buyout if mitch is gone.

Granted so far pope is awesome at energizing fans and being the ambassador cal stopped being, but it doesn't change the fact Mitch paid bank and then some to someone that would've walked here.

 

[Cats192]

In short, I think coaches and their agents aren't stupid. Coaching contracts in general are drawn up with a buyout--which lets you fire them without cause, without the risk of legal ramifications/lawsuits.

Everyone got hung up back during the end of Cal's tenure on this whole concept of "with cause." It really doesn't matter as long as you can pay the buyout.

I don't know of anyone that has win/loss expectations built into a contract. No one is going to ignore that fact and agree to be the 1st. Agents/contract lawyers know better.

It's a nice fantasy that UK is UK and holds all the power. But remember, Drew said no. Hurley said no. Pope wasn't the 1st choice. And as much as he wants to be at UK, I doubt he was going to sign a bad contract to do it. Everyone wants the buyout. Everyone else gets it. He would be stupid to give it up.

And we're not exactly in a position of strength after striking out on the 1st 2.

 

[m080470]

A lot of factors, but more than anything TV money has made coaching contracts stupid. Somehow, agents were smart enough to get ADs, college presidents and trustees think this was due to coaches and you better keep up or get left behind. The very, very top are actually probably not paid enough. If you underpay, you'll have the reputation that you're cheap, if you fight buyouts, they'll put the word out that it's a bad place to work and no "good" coach will go there.
Nick Saban was worth his weight in gold if you look at the money generated directly and indirectly by the football program. For a time you could argue Cal was there but has been a cash drain the last 5 years. I've brought this up before but Guy Morriss got his "temp" tag removed he agreed to $500,000 a year deal in 2002 and came back and asked for more after a couple of weeks because Baylor was offering $800,000. UK absolutely refused to pay another cent and now 22 years later, and Morriss made about 6% of Stoops makes now. Inflation is bad but it's not that bad. I think Adolph Rupp only made what a tenured professor would make at UK but he did have extra income from coach' show and speaking engagements to supplement that income.

 

[KAB Cats]

One word. Leverage.

That's it.

 

[truebluewildcat]

The buyout clauses have gotten out of hand. I don’t know how, when, or where that aspect of contracts got started but it’s past insanity.

I think originally it was well intended and probably needed to protect coaches from Willy nilly being fired on the whims of fans, boosters, overzealous AD brass.

There’s too many places that would just fire good coaches with good records. See UK and and other top end P5 programs. FAAARRRR TUBBY FAAAAARRR CAL…dudes are championship winning HOF coaches.

The carousel in college sports is wild enough. If there was no buyouts it’d be worse. Boosters and ADs with big egos who know nothing about sports in terms of building a program, Xs, Os, etc…would have nothing to keep them from making irrational emotional decisions.

However I do think now that the money is what it is there needs to be so wiggle room. Buyout is null and void if certain basic criteria/expectations are not met. If dude has made 10s of millions he doesn’t need 10s of millions to be fired.

 

[Tf2217]

I guess you put out a provision that says
Like for Alabama.
"We are a championship level program, and you're expected as such to be in contention for championships if at any point you do not make the playoffs x number of years running Alabama reserve the right to end employment for cause of agreed on expectations not being met" not saying to can them but Alabama can make that decision without threat of owing a underperformer 70 million dollars or something. Likewise if the coach is upholding the agreed upon contract and expectations he will be entitled to full buyout and severance.

Although really the coaches have just about all of the power. And probably alot wouldn't sign something like that. But if you can have so many things in coaches favor in the contract the schools should be able to help themselves a little too.

What stops a coach from getting a 70-80 mil deal doing absolutely nothing at all in the job period, getting fired and collecting retirement in a few years? Answer is absolutely nothing.

 

[Mike-D]

Dabo was amazing a while back with 2 titles. He isnt adapting (like cal) and man does that 60 million sting.

It's always more beneficial for the coach OP.

Pope even got a nice buyout. He gets an extension for making a sweet 16, which is comical at UK.

This. Dabo didn't get some insane contract without doing jack shit. Same with Cal. Programs see success like those two have had, and they try to lock them down. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody could predict that both Dabo and Cal would stop producing, and become shells of their former selves.

 

[bbncal02]

The buyout clauses have gotten out of hand. I don’t know how, when, or where that aspect of contracts got started but it’s past insanity.

I think originally it was well intended and probably needed to protect coaches from Willy nilly being fired on the whims of fans, boosters, overzealous AD brass.

There’s too many places that would just fire good coaches with good records. See UK and and other top end P5 programs. FAAARRRR TUBBY FAAAAARRR CAL…dudes are championship winning HOF coaches.

The carousel in college sports is wild enough. If there was no buyouts it’d be worse. Boosters and ADs with big egos who know nothing about sports in terms of building a program, Xs, Os, etc…would have nothing to keep them from making irrational emotional decisions.

However I do think now that the money is what it is there needs to be so wiggle room. Buyout is null and void if certain basic criteria/expectations are not met. If dude has made 10s of millions he doesn’t need 10s of millions to be fired.

I can agree to that to a point. Cal and now Dabo are perfect examples. Cal wasn't the same as when hired him. Yet if Mitch had decided it's time we owed him a ton of money.

Imagine if Dabo says, "Screw it. I'm not changing, you can't make me!" and holds Clemson basically ransom and going for the record he did last season. That's obviously not what Clemson wants to pay him to do.

It's just interesting to me it's soooo much different from any other job on the planet. I mean, even PLAYERS of pro sports don't get that much of a guarantee. if they stop producing, they are traded or sent packing. Imagine a sales manger who's not living up to expectations sitting in his office going, "Whelp, you can fire me but you owe me millions! Until then, kiss my ass!" I wouldn't fly.

 

[bbncal02]

This. Dabo didn't get some insane contract without doing jack shit. Same with Cal. Programs see success like those two have had, and they try to lock them down. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody could predict that both Dabo and Cal would stop producing, and become shells of their former selves.

That's fair to a degree. But I mean, doesn't that defy some logic? Maybe what I'm really railing against are the extensions. I'd never give much beyond a 2-3 year extension to a contract these days, especially at a top program in the sport. The expectations are just too high.

 

[Ron Mehico]

I can agree to that to a point. Cal and now Dabo are perfect examples. Cal wasn't the same as when hired him. Yet if Mitch had decided it's time we owed him a ton of money.

Imagine if Dabo says, "Screw it. I'm not changing, you can't make me!" and holds Clemson basically ransom and going for the record he did last season. That's obviously not what Clemson wants to pay him to do.

It's just interesting to me it's soooo much different from any other job on the planet. I mean, even PLAYERS of pro sports don't get that much of a guarantee. if they stop producing, they are traded or sent packing. Imagine a sales manger who's not living up to expectations sitting in his office going, "Whelp, you can fire me but you owe me millions! Until then, kiss my ass!" I wouldn't fly.

It happens in industries where there is a limited talent pool and corporations have to fight over the top talents. CEOs for example have similar situations as coaches with buyouts etc, same for bank presidents. Basically in those jobs getting the right candidate can make that company/universities hundreds of millions of dollars so they have to put in very employee friendly contracts to get them.

 

[StubbornPenny]

It’s real easy to say “well, I’d only give 1-2 year extensions”…

It’s not a normal workforce. If a salesman under performs, there’s hundreds of thousands eager to replace him. How many football coaches are there that have experience and can win consistently high level programs? Maybe 30-40 at any given time.

Plus, all these guys talk. The first university to not give you a nice buyout and only offer a few years, welp, now you’ve got a rep for being cheap. Say goodbye to any chance at an in demand guy. Literally what UK is doing right now with Stoops is establishing that we will pay top dollar and we will give you a favorable contract and we will give you a real chance.

It’s like a QB in the NFL. You don’t know if he’ll be the guy, but you know you cannot win without a guy, so all the leverage goes to them.

That being said I think salaries may go down in the next decade or so, seeing as now that you can pay players, maybe a top level coach isn’t as valuable as it used to be.

 

[CRZ4UK]

Agreed. And I have no problem with capitalism. You should be able to get what you truly earn by work. However, capitalism without accountability/some rules is croneyism and leads to oligarchies.

That aside, it's just crazy to me how much Napier (and even Cal at the time) would get paid to go away. I just don't get it. Why are there such favorable contracts to these guys that have proven little to nothing.

Because the people offering these contracts are not offering their own money.
If all ADs were required to give half their salary to buy out a guy they gave a contract to. The contracts would be different.

 

[Bluegrassking]

Because if we don't pay them someone else will and the imaginary magic leverage were we only have upside evaporates like a snowflake in the August mid day sun.

How are you going to maintain any poacher protection without giving something up? How are you going to demonstrate continuity when you want to give one and two year contracts? You aren't.

Coaches can bring too much to the table to not have some real leverage that calls for significant levels of certainty.

I mostly think folks are jealous they can't negotiate similar security because they cannot command such because they are too replaceable no natter how educated and/or skilled they may be.

There are fewer what we may consider potentially average coaches than potential neuro surgeons and more dollars available for coaches than neurologists too.

 

[bbncal02]

There are fewer what we may consider potentially average coaches than potential neuro surgeons and more dollars available for coaches than neurologists too.

I highly doubt that. Highly. Coaching isn't rocket science. That being said, I understand it's not easy either. And the ones like Saban, old Cal, K, etc are worth what they are paid. The problem is even bad coaches are commanding huge salaries and buyouts. Napier is a prime example. He's probably done by the end of the year if not before. And will get 36M for running a historic program into the ground.

I mean, that's on the AD just as much as anyone, but it just seems that there's less and less accountability for high pay.

 

[Bluegrassking]

I highly doubt that. Highly. Coaching isn't rocket science. That being said, I understand it's not easy either. And the ones like Saban, old Cal, K, etc are worth what they are paid. The problem is even bad coaches are commanding huge salaries and buyouts. Napier is a prime example. He's probably done by the end of the year if not before. And will get 36M for running a historic program into the ground.

I mean, that's on the AD just as much as anyone, but it just seems that there's less and less accountability for high pay.

Neither is throwing a football, singing a song, acting, being many a CEO, or shooting a basketball.

A good percentage of the population can be trained to fly a 747, perform a surgery, or teach kids. Some of highest paid professions are significantly you have it or you don't and no amount of education or training will make you top shelf.

There are fewer Daniel Day Lewis's and Shaq's than there are heart surgeons and always will be.

 

[bbncal02]

It happens in industries where there is a limited talent pool and corporations have to fight over the top talents. CEOs for example have similar situations as coaches with buyouts etc, same for bank presidents. Basically in those jobs getting the right candidate can make that company/universities hundreds of millions of dollars so they have to put in very employee friendly contracts to get them.

I understand the talent pool is somewhat limited. However, my complaint/lack of understanding is they basically get paid when they screw up and fans/shareholders/lower employees get stuck holding the consequences. Just seems like there should be a better way to run things in those positions.

I know I keep using UF football, but it's the most relevant at the moment. Florida will have to pay him 36M if they want to get rid of him. On top of that, they will have to pay highly for a new coach, with another buyout clause. And potentially paying out THAT coaches contract from where they get them. On top of that they are STILL paying out Mullen's contract. He's still getting a million a year.

I don't think jealousy is it per se, more like when you see someone just blow money like an idiot.

 

[bbncal02]

Neither is throwing a football, singing a song, acting, being many a CEO, or shooting a basketball.

A good percentage of the population can be trained to fly a 747, perform a surgery, or teach kids. Some of highest paid professions are significantly you have it or you don't and no amount of education or training will make you top shelf.

There are fewer Daniel Day Lewis's and Shaq's than there are heart surgeons and always will be.

There are also fewer Stephen Hawkings and Einsteins. There are prodigies in every field.

As far as your point about training, yes and no. If that were the case, everyone would be good at tech, and we all know that's untrue.

I think this is a uniquely American quirk as well. Pro athletes make decent money overseas, but it's NOTHING like we pay out here. Which, that's whatever. It's what the market decides. You would just think some of these AD's would hedge their bets better is all.