Now We Know Why Napier Has Not Been Fired

That's a good question.

I think schools could get away with it if they got together and fought back against the agents to get away from this horrible business model.

But if only a few schools--major power schools- do it, they're most likely going to lose competitively. Are their fans willing to tolerate that?

Don't think that Sexton and his ilk don't prey on that obsessive, win at all cost mentality. They prey on fear and irrationality both among the fans, and the athletic departments.

The only reckoning I can see is money. Perhaps at some point, boosters are going to tap out on NIL and buyouts. That would change the balance of power.

 

They're only worth what someone is willing to pay them. They've got good agents and they have taken advantage of the market while it was good.

Not sure you can put the genie back in the box at this point.

 

The way to put the genie back in the bottle is to demonstrate players are worth more than the coach and redirect those resources accordingly.

A major reason coaches salaries became bloated was that before now, schools could really only spend their money on two things to make their football program better: coaches/staff, and facilities. In that old world, those two things are what bought you good players. Now that schools and collectives will start paying players directly, the coaches are a secondary tool to attract good players. That should diminish their worth a little.

Any other scheme here where schools band together and agree to limit what they offer coaches is collusion. Collusion of that sort is 100% illegal without a collective bargaining agreement with that group of employees.

 

The question is why do ADs/ Athletic Depts give these ridiculous contracts with the huge buyouts...

In my experience the best way to figure out something like this is to imagine yourself in their shoes...
So from a school/ AD perspective...

1) ADs #1 asset is the school's reputation/ perception. They hate hate hate being embarrassed. They cannot appear to be outworked/ outspent/ or out maneuvered. So once a top target is identified it's really important to bring him home- and that gives all the power to the agent/ prospective coach.

2) There's also the dynamic of "other people's money." If UF somehow had an owner/ operator using his/her own money, and was worried about a bottom line, the dynamic would be completely different. If a prospective coach demanded too much, the owner/ operator would simply go on to the next candidate. But because it's not their money, and because of rule #1, they give away the store.

 

I think we forget that he had interest from other SEC schools.

https://247sports.com/article/why-billy-napier-didnt-take-auburn-or-south-carolina-job-158565851/

 

At the time, it was considered a good hire.

 

Meh, I wouldn't call those schools interest a ringing endorsement. SC likes our left overs and Auburn has been the ugly step child of Alabama forever.

 

It started from the successful coaches. At one time coaches may have been hired under whatever old school method there was, but then some successful coaches and/or their agents bucked the system and said they needed to have a floating 4-year contract at all times so they could realistically promise recruits they would stick around. No school was going to say no to Bobby Bowden, Steve Spurrier, Lloyd Carr, or whoever, and they accepted those terms. Then those terms trickled down to unsuccessful coaches and became the standard.

 

The douchebag ad at LSU really started us down this trend of guaranteed 10 year deals when he signed Jimbo at TAMU. He gave Kelly the same kind of stupid ass deal at LSU. Then it became what was required to retain a top coach or hire a sitting P5 coach. People think our deals have been bad, but there's some way, way, way worse ones out there. Riley's deal at USC is absolutely bonkers.

 

True, those deals are all nuts. I think people just get hung up with BN's deal because he was an unproven P5 Coach. At least Fisher, BK and LR had proven success at the p5 level, they just can't seem to replicate it.

 

That's pretty recent. The deal Notre Dame gave to Charlie Weis when they were afraid the NFL was going to hire him had to have been one of the earliest pivotal moments.

 

The buyouts started back then, but they were much smaller, and nobody was getting fully guaranteed 10 year deals.

 

Further evidence that "proven" doesn't mean much when looking to hire a new coach.

 

The simple answer to the question of why Napier has not been fired is due to financial tradeoffs. The more complicated answer is that the University of Florida is caught in a perfect storm of unrelated events.

By any other measure, Napier should be fired this December. Even if he wins out the rest of the season he will finish his third year with a losing record at Florida (18-19), and no coach has ever done that and turned the program into a championship team with the same program.

In terms of financial tradeoffs, I can see why Stricklin would gamble on his choice for head coach of the football program. It would cost Florida over $20M to fire Napier in 2024: $13M of Napier's salary due within 30 days, $5M for the staff buyout, plus $5M to $10M to buy out the next coach's contract). In 2025, the NCAA revenue sharing of $22M basically offsets all those costs, and it buys Stricklin time to prove to the new university president that he made the right decision to hire Napier. If the gamble fails, the new president fires Stricklin and Napier is gone as well.

Then there is the perfect storm of the interim university president, team injuries, NCAA revenue sharing in 2025, and the coaching market. UF has an interim president who does not want to make permanent decisions even though he has the power to do so. Even then, Kent Fuchs is probably fine with a football team of really nice kids who win under 50% of their games as long as the football program is not losing money. Even then, the football program's $180M+ revenue pales in comparison to all other revenue streams in excess of $5B. The injuries are not as numerous as they were in, say, 2013, but the injuries are more impactful in 2024. Florida football is consistently in the top 10 in revenue despite the number of wins, so the administration is betting on that trend to continue for at least the first year of NCAA revenue sharing. Finally, the big agents (primarily Jimmy Sexton) are incentivized to get their clients these monster contracts and buyouts because they get a large chunk of that for themselves.

The next university president would have to care enough about football and know enough about its potential direction moving forward to make big decisions to fire Stricklin, hire a general manager, and micromanage the next AD's choice of football coach. Is a 10% decline on $180M worth sweating over against a $5B all-source revenue stream?

 

That's because coaches made a lot less back then. I'm pretty sure Spurrier and Bowden were making just a little more than $2M per season 25 years ago. Buyouts have always been proportional to salary.

 

Fred Taylor said Georgia paid him 50 k yet he went to Florida. What do you think Florida paid? Thats a long time ago and buying championships is nothing new. Leon Orr said his entire class was on the payroll. Yep, these guys are making it up and exaggerating. NIL has only brought it out in the open where all teams can participate and theres less favoritism. Its more expensive now because there are way more bids out there for theirs services.

 

I’m certain the landscape will look vastly different next year.

or not

 

There are tons of examples disproving the "muh proven" idea. Kirby, Lanning, Lashlee, Day, Key, Freeman, etc.