Started By
Message
In today's NIL era, do coaching contracts need to be shorter?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:25 am
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:25 am
I'm not directing this toward Deboer... Just coaching contracts in general.
I think 3 years in this new era is all you need to tell if a coach is going to improve your program. However, we see allot of coaches with 6, 7, 8 year deals. You'll probably get a good sense after 2 seasons what type of couch he's going to be. How's his recruiting and how he's going to use the portal to fill gaps.
With shorter contracts (say 3 years), after 2 years you make a decision to add a few more years or prepare to start looking after year 3. Currently, schools are stuck with a buyout of the last 3-5 years if a coach isn't performing.
I think 3 years in this new era is all you need to tell if a coach is going to improve your program. However, we see allot of coaches with 6, 7, 8 year deals. You'll probably get a good sense after 2 seasons what type of couch he's going to be. How's his recruiting and how he's going to use the portal to fill gaps.
With shorter contracts (say 3 years), after 2 years you make a decision to add a few more years or prepare to start looking after year 3. Currently, schools are stuck with a buyout of the last 3-5 years if a coach isn't performing.
3
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:31 am to bamabonners
quote:
I think 3 years in this new era is all you need to tell if a coach is going to improve your program. However, we see allot of coaches with 6, 7, 8 year deals.
In a perfect world, yes, contracts would be shorter. But agents hold the power these days and if you want to sign a legit coach, you're going to have to offer a long contract with a substantial buyout.
The only way this would change is if schools all colluded to limit the length of contracts and/or buyouts. And if that were to happen, well, lawyers would be champing at the bit to file lawsuits.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 9:51 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
Buyouts should not be 70 million.
This post was edited on 1/6/26 at 9:51 am
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:12 am to bamabonners
You don't understand leverage.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:19 am to Legionfield
quote:
Buyouts should not be 70 million.
That's what happens when schools don't have leverage in negotiations. If School A isn't willing to agree to a $70m buyout, School B will because they're desperate for an elite head coach.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 10:58 am to Legionfield
quote:
Buyouts should not be 70 million.
More important...all buyouts should have mitigation clauses.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 11:15 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
quote:
That's what happens when schools don't have leverage in negotiations. If School A isn't willing to agree to a $70m buyout, School B will because they're desperate for an elite head coach.
But as you have pointed out here, if school's don't have leverage, it's because they have willingly given it up.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 11:19 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
if school's don't have leverage, it's because they have willingly given it up.
Absolutely. Once one or two schools willingly gave it up due to being desperate to hire who they thought was the best coach, it was over for all the rest.
Sure, Byrne could fire KDB and decide he's only going to agree to short contracts with small buyouts, but then your talent pool will shrink into a talent puddle because very few coaches will be willing to accept those terms when the market standard is so different.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 2:43 pm to Sl0thstronautEsq
no buyout should be more than one year's salary. treating coaches like congressmen and giving lifetime money for a few years service, good or bad, is ridiculous.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:08 pm to bamabonners
Didn’t this kind of get out of hand when T a&m went after Jimbo? They were/ are after that big name.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News