December 21, 2017 at 3:53 p.m.
Spending on college football coaches has gotten out of control
By Nick Sabato-
Texas A&M lured Jimbo Fisher away from Florida State with a 10-year, $75 million contract earlier this month. Alabama signed Nick Saban to an eight-year extension that's worth $65 million, not including bonuses.
On Tuesday, Florida Atlantic University gave Lane Kiffin a 10-year extension after he led the Owls to the Conference USA championship this season.
Albatross contracts are not new in the sporting world, but what doesn't make sense is why schools are willing to put so many years on a contract for a coach. If things go sour for the coach, the school is left on the hook to pay the coach in the event they fire him.
In the event Kiffin leaves for a bigger school - which is likely in the next two years - it has been proven that long contracts don't deter those Power 5 schools from paying the buyout cost.
Central Florida coach Scott Frost signed an extension to remain with the school through 2021 last May. Seven months later, he was introduced as the new coach at Nebraska.
Let's not forget the king of buyouts, Charlie Weis, who was given a 10-year extension just one year into his deal at Notre Dame. Weis was fired four years into the new deal and was paid a total of $18.97 million through 2015. That's in addition to the nearly $6 million he was paid for his buyout after being fired by Kansas in 2014.
Professional sports franchises have a quick trigger for firing coaches, as do major college basketball schools, but the contracts nor the lengths of the contract is anywhere close to what college football is paying at the moment.
The Southeastern Conference saw four coaches get fired this fall, with buyouts totaling $37.95 million, including Texas A&M, who paid Kevin Sumlin $10.4 million before hiring Fisher. Florida replaced Jim McElwain with conference rival Mississippi State's head coach Dan Mullen, which means the school also paid for two buyouts.
Yes, boosters are willing to pay that much money for coaches, but where it hurts schools is in the argument to pay or not pay student-athletes.
It's hard for a school to say it doesn't have the money to pay athletes when the coaches are being paid ridiculous sums of cash.
It also hurts schools when it comes to cutting athletic programs for the sake of the budget. Sure, football is king in college sports and as Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said at function for boosters in Arbor Vitae over the summer, "Football pays for the rest of the athletic department."
Perhaps some of the money given to football coaches could be allocated in different areas.
Bret Bielema famously said one the reasons he jumped from Wisconsin to Arkansas in 2012 was in order to pay his assistant coaches a higher wage. Yet, Bielema settled for an $11.8 million buyout after Arkansas fired him last month. If he wasn't concerned with his own salary at Wisconsin - $2.64 million in his final year - then why not fight for his coordinators to make more money at Arkansas?
Offensive coordinator Dan Enos made $800,000 last season at Arkansas, roughly double what Paul Chryst made in the same position at Wisconsin in 2011. Enos's salary was ranked 30th in the country last season, compared to Bielema, who had the 17th-highest salary among head coaches.
It's time for institutions of higher learning to dabble in better business practices. College athletics are spiralling out of control and the NCAA is having a difficult time grabbing hold. This isn't the only major problem colleges are dealing with, but it is a major factor that could put the current form of collegiate athletics as we know it in jeopardy.
Nick Sabato may be reached at [email protected] or via Twitter @SabatoNick.
WEATHER SPONSORED BY
250 X 250 AD
250 X 250 AD
E-Editions
250 X 250 AD
Events
250 X 250 AD
Comments:
You must login to comment.