Started By
Message
Coaches Guaranteed Contracts
Posted on 10/27/25 at 6:24 am
Posted on 10/27/25 at 6:24 am
Schools are going to start to stop with this guaranteed money for coaches and start putting it in NIL. How many teams are paying their past 2 or 3 coaches? It's crazy. OU is in a better position than most. USC paid OU to take Stinkin Lincoln.
5
Posted on 10/27/25 at 6:48 am to Wishbone85
Why would a coach take a job where he’s fired when he loses to #3, #7 and #9?
As long as fans and administrators are making decisions like this, they will have to give guaranteed money.
As long as fans and administrators are making decisions like this, they will have to give guaranteed money.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 6:55 am to Wishbone85
The idea that schools should shift guaranteed coaching money into NIL might sound appealing in a vacuum, but it collapses under the weight of the current transfer and NIL landscape.
Coaches no longer control roster stability. In the pre-NIL, pre-transfer portal era, a coach’s contract was a proxy for program stability. You paid for continuity, recruiting pipelines, and institutional memory. Now? A coach can build a culture, and watch it evaporate in one offseason. Players move freely, chase better NIL deals, and flip allegiances faster than schemes can adjust. If anything, guaranteed money for coaches is more critical now—because it’s the only stable lever left.
Your proposal is built on a pre-2021 framework. Back then, NIL didn’t exist, and transfers were tightly controlled. You could reasonably expect a coach to build over 3–4 years. Today, NIL and unlimited transfers have turned roster management into triage. Coaches are no longer just strategists—they’re retention specialists, NIL negotiators, and culture stewards. Cutting their financial security while increasing their volatility is a recipe for churn, not progress.
Schools paying multiple coaches isn’t new—it’s the cost of churn, not a flaw in guaranteed contracts. Programs fire coaches mid-contract because they’re chasing wins, not because guaranteed money is broken. If anything, the churn rate will increase if coaches are treated like disposable NIL brokers. You want accountability? Fine. But don’t pretend NIL replaces the need for institutional leadership.
OU and USC aren’t proof of NIL supremacy—they’re proof of institutional leverage. USC didn’t “pay OU” to take Lincoln Riley. They poached a coach with leverage, vision, and a plan. OU’s position isn’t better because they shed a contract—it’s better because they’ve invested in continuity and doctrine. NIL is a tool. Coaching is the architecture.
Coaches no longer control roster stability. In the pre-NIL, pre-transfer portal era, a coach’s contract was a proxy for program stability. You paid for continuity, recruiting pipelines, and institutional memory. Now? A coach can build a culture, and watch it evaporate in one offseason. Players move freely, chase better NIL deals, and flip allegiances faster than schemes can adjust. If anything, guaranteed money for coaches is more critical now—because it’s the only stable lever left.
Your proposal is built on a pre-2021 framework. Back then, NIL didn’t exist, and transfers were tightly controlled. You could reasonably expect a coach to build over 3–4 years. Today, NIL and unlimited transfers have turned roster management into triage. Coaches are no longer just strategists—they’re retention specialists, NIL negotiators, and culture stewards. Cutting their financial security while increasing their volatility is a recipe for churn, not progress.
Schools paying multiple coaches isn’t new—it’s the cost of churn, not a flaw in guaranteed contracts. Programs fire coaches mid-contract because they’re chasing wins, not because guaranteed money is broken. If anything, the churn rate will increase if coaches are treated like disposable NIL brokers. You want accountability? Fine. But don’t pretend NIL replaces the need for institutional leadership.
OU and USC aren’t proof of NIL supremacy—they’re proof of institutional leverage. USC didn’t “pay OU” to take Lincoln Riley. They poached a coach with leverage, vision, and a plan. OU’s position isn’t better because they shed a contract—it’s better because they’ve invested in continuity and doctrine. NIL is a tool. Coaching is the architecture.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 6:57 am to Wishbone85
They should stop with it. It's ridiculous. But they would all have to do it
Posted on 10/27/25 at 7:05 am to the808bass
quote:
Why would a coach take a job where he’s fired when he loses to #3, #7 and #9?
Brian Kelly signed a 10-year contract worth $95 million in base salary, with incentives that could push the total value to at least $100 million.
If fired without cause, LSU must pay Kelly 90% of his remaining base salary, supplemental compensation, and pro-rated longevity bonuses.
$$,$$$,$$$ This is why a coach takes the job. Guaranteed money and contract negotiations of LSU's fool of an AD. LSU also get's to pay to release the current assistants out of their contracts and hire all new ones. LSU caught the aggy disease from the same common carrier.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 7:28 am to Victor R Franko
Coaches need performance based contracts end of story.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 7:35 am to Wishbone85
I agree. Hire a young up and coming coach who is willing accept a small buyout contract and put your money in NIL to get superior players.
Pay for a good OC and DC but generally it's the Jimmies and the Joes and not so much the X's and the O's.
Many coaches blame losses on lack of execution.
Well, if you get excellent players, it's much more likely that plays will be executed well.
Pay for a good OC and DC but generally it's the Jimmies and the Joes and not so much the X's and the O's.
Many coaches blame losses on lack of execution.
Well, if you get excellent players, it's much more likely that plays will be executed well.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 7:39 am to CU_Tigers4life
Coach Saban addressed some of these issues in last Saturdays GameDay show. Said Coaches need to have NIL and NIL responsibilities spelled out. Also, what role contributors played in NIL contributions, player allocations, and what role and responsibilities the new coach would have.
He laid down some pretty good stuff. I'm sure he experienced it at Bama and saw where it was heading.
He laid down some pretty good stuff. I'm sure he experienced it at Bama and saw where it was heading.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 7:40 am to Wishbone85
I guess this is where MS unwittingly made a good law limiting contract term lengths to 4 years max for state employees
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News