Your position at your company has a cap, not your job. If another company (team in this case) wanted to offer you more to do the same job, they’d be well within their rights to do so. Pro sports have cba’s.
A head coach is a position. And if the league did it there are other options. But if it got struck down and the feds for example threatened a law that capped salaries, some sort of agreement to get back to sanity would be in place almost instantly. Even if the SEC did it and it got struck down the shot across the bow would force change, because it would be clear they would find a way eventually. But enough from me on this, the point I was making was that simply saying “oh well” isn’t good enough. Hopefully we all agree on that at a minimum.
The coaches are not employed by the league or the conference. They are employed by the individual schools and/or their UAA’s. The coaches have no reason to seek out a cba. The league would be in trouble for price fixing/collusion if they tried to implement a cap.
Oklahoma's Lincoln Riley had a small buyout at $4.5M and he was subsequently poached by USC. Buyouts are a double-edged sword. They can protect your coach from getting poached by another school or they can be a poison pill if the school wants to make change. Let's not forget that it goes beyond the buyout for the head coach. Schools have to pay the buyouts of the assistants also, many of which are making over $1M per year. I've heard estimates of UF's buyout for Napier and staff at $40M.
Napiers buyout was out of the norm for a head coach with zero power 5 head coaching experience. Jimbos was outrageous- but he had won a national title and they had to pay to get him to jump ship from FSU. Kelly had been to the playoffs and a proven power 5 head coach. FSU was dumb not seeing Norvell only won with Travis and couldn’t recruit, but he did go 13-1 and won his conference. Billy got a buyout terms more in line with a proven big time power 5 winner when he wasn’t, so it was not really a market like deal. Probably had to agree to such a buyout since other schools kicked the tires on him at times…but still wasn’t smart to do.
there are different sides to the buyout - one to protect the coach from being fired and the other to protect the school from poaching, and the buyouts are often not equal. for example, Kiffens buyout if he leaves on his own (gets poached) is $4 million dollars. If Ole Miss fires him, he is currently owed 36.5 million in buyout. A huge difference. you can look at UF as well. Mike White, if fired, had a buyout of around 7 million. However, it was 1 million if he was poached (which Georgia paid UF). these contracts do or did little to prevent a coach getting poached- they are pretty one sided.
It's relative to the length of the contract and salary per year. Buyout percentages have increased along with the salaries, with current deals at $10M plus per year. Riley - 10 years at $110M. Norvell - 8 years at $84M. DeBoer - 8 years at $87M From the WSJ article: Additionally, the language of coaching contracts has grown less forgiving to trigger-happy schools over the last decade. As coaching salaries ballooned, so did the percentage they were owed in a buyout if they were fired without cause. Agents have pushed the industry standard for guaranteed salary from roughly 50 to 75% in the 2010s to between 80% and 100% now, said Chatlos.
Luckily for them they've not been getting anyone the fan base would want even with sizeable guaranteed money. McElwain, Napier and Muschamp were coin flip picks with McElwain and Napier looking like very suspect choices.
yep. And a dumb business model. the incentives are not aligned - a coach stinks and they get paid a huge buyout for failing some get a small bonus for winning a conference or national title ($250,000 for some $500,000 for most and $1 million in rare cases). so a coach gets a lot more if they fail. So dumb. the average length a coach lasts now is 3.5 years. With the transfer portal - contracts don’t need to be 5,7,10 years long. Players used to want to see a coach under contract for 4-5 years since they would be tied to that school for that long. With players able to leave pretty much at will…this is no longer a factor. And with NIL and the portal, it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) take 4+ years to prove you can win/turn a team around. the GNFP guys - I like their idea. Higher a coach today (a decent higher profile coach)- sign them to a $10 million a year 4 year contract. No buyout. Make the playoff- $5 million dollar bonus. Win the national title $10 milion bounus. the bonuses pay for themselves if that happens. Coach could make $20 million or more in one year winning big. You pay more in the buyouts these days for losing. The coach is betting on himself - they win they get paid huge money. Instead of getting paid huge money to be fired for failing. Any coach who wouldn’t do this…(yeah, agents are a problem) - they don’t believe they can win and you don’t hire them.
Lots of beguiling data in this thread, but is it not true that the boosters raised the money in question for the purpose of Napier’s buyout? If so, how can the UAA just say, “Hey, now we have more money for NIL!” If that was truly the logic and I was a booster who ponied up for Napier’s firing, then that would be the last you saw of me for a while. Another point is, I’m not sure it matters how many studs we bring in with NIL if the crux of the matter is still that Napier can’t coach.
It's a great business model illustrated by both it's profitability and that the NFL has decided to turn it into the NFL d-league.
Do you think it would be cheaper to start paying A LOT more yearly but without the buyout? Like go to 16 million a year but no buyout and a 3 year deal. Also, do you think the coaches / jimmy sexton would go for it?
Perhaps the buy outs were a function of the market at the time, and that market is changing. But the ‘everyone else is an idiot’ argument is a compelling one! one of the reasons that firings are down is that it is difficult to get a better coach without improving a school’s NIL situation. I imagine that any candidates to replace Napier would demand that, and the Admin cannot guarantee that. Also, UF, as a whole, is trying to find a new President, and not in a position to make a multi million dollar decision.
I agree, but the fans are going to bitch and whine if you cheap out on the coach they want at the time, especially if they find out that's why you couldn't sign them. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
His salary was out of the norm, too. Tennessee hired Heupel the year before for $4M per season. We instantly gave Napier $7.5M per one year later.
I'm guessing only in a closed league like the NFL, NBA, NHL. But even then it's overall salary and not individual. Good question. I can't think of any industry that does this. Maybe Union scale wages? But I'm not familiar with that.
