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.