Sadly, this is exactly how your typical athletic director thinks ($$).
… Rarely are coaching searches undergone and extensions drawn up with sober, level heads. And what Fisher, Tucker and Venables’ did in 2022, spawning groans across their campuses, won’t mean fewer such contracts in the future.
Instead? It just means more.
“Those guaranteed contracts reset the market,” one Power 5 athletic director said.
The why shouldn’t be hard to figure out.
Athletic directors’ jobs often are defined by their ability to get their man. Missing a candidate or worse, missing a candidate willing to take your job because negotiations fell through can cost an athletic director his or her own job.
“You can say you won’t make a deal like that, but in the new market, not making a deal like that is the difference between getting a coach and not getting him,” a Power 5 athletic director said.
No athletic director ever has been fired for overpaying for a successful coach who becomes the most popular man on campus. And thus, another chapter of the most lopsided rivalry in college sports — agents versus athletic directors — is written.
Jimmy Sexton may not be undefeated, but he’s got the highest winning percentage in college sports.
And there’s a touch of irony that shouldn’t be ignored here.
Coaching contracts with higher and higher percentages of guaranteed money have arisen, in part, because of a growing lack of patience from fans and boosters, and as a result, athletic directors are quick to pull the rug out from under once-promising candidates.
That’s a lot harder to do if you’re on the paying side of, say, a seven-year guaranteed deal. Just ask Texas A&M. So the end result in situations like this — again, as is the case in Aggie Land — is that these deals wind up acting as a brake on fans’ impatience. Maybe that’s good, but if it’s not… well, ADs generally don’t have seven-year guaranteed deals.
You must be logged in to post a comment.