Why do schools continue to sign coaches to crazy contracts?

That ahitnia gonna swing back the other way soon.there is only 1 Saban and 1 Dabo. Everyone else is not worth it

quote:

---

These athletic directors are horrible negotiators. Top college jobs are highly coveted.

---

Agreed.

Fully guaranteed multi-year contracts may have hit a tipping point though this year with AD budgets under so much scrutiny.

Only a rare few deserve (and performance justifies) the large long-term contracts: Saban, Dabo, and Meyer (if he wants to coach again). End of list.

The fear of losing a coach and creating instability pushes ADs to pay absurd amounts.

Hot take: Quality college football coaches are not a rare breed. The quality of the program (conference, facilities, talent richness in-state, legacy) matters more than the coach.

See Bo Pelini Contract for example. Guy hadnt coached a defense in 10 years plus. No one wanted the guy as a coach and LSU says hey we'll give you two plus million a year to coach a defense. Shouldnt the first question have been have you coached against the spread before? Not for LSU i guess I'm sure he will be back next year because of the stupid contract he was given.

Not understanding the buyouts either. Why does O even have a buyout?

Because outside supporters have donated billions into football programs and fans pay obscene prices to attend games that have become commercialized cesspools.
Cut the money off like what is happening in pro sports and see what starts to happen.

quote:

---

1. You have to show financial commitment or top recruits will go elsewhere. Players want stability.

2. You have to offer best terms or top coaches will just negotiate with the next program.

---

Recruits aren't diving into the weeds of contracts and looking at buyouts. Just having a coach under a lengthy contract is enough for recruiting purposes, even if the buyout is minimal.

Besides, schools have shown a willingness to fire coaches even with 8-figure buyouts. So the buyouts DON'T actually show commitment or longevity.

I would be willing to pay a coach substantially more in salary, to avoid the buyout issue.

Because it’s not their money.

What leverage do you have when things are somewhat industry standard? If you wait to long, another rival school is will scoop him up. When you fire coaches in the SEC every other year, guys won’t come coach your program without huge guarantees and leave their current situations.

quote:

---

1. You have to show financial commitment or top recruits will go elsewhere. Players want stability.

---

This is a myth created by agents. Recruits are not analyzing buyouts.

Agents. Leverage. Security. How desperate/ determined is a school to win/ upgrade?

It’s the agents job to get the best deal for his client.

The buyouts are in place to serve as a deterrent to the school from firing the coach. Might buy him another season to turn the program around or get it going in the right direction.

It serves as security for the coach. They all know going in they’re going to be fired one day. And that damages their reputation and hire ability.

So if you want said coach to take this job, you may have to lure him in with years and guaranteed money. Otherwise, you’re picking from a different tier of coaches.

Another thing - how much leverage does this coach have? If he’s coming off a 10-win Sugar Bowl season , or if he’s the hottest name coordinator out there, that contract or extension is going to cost you.