Dec. 12, 2006
The following column is not a reflection or critical of any program as all programs must make decisions based on the facts known only to them.
This week please let me invite you to read a thought provoking column written by Bill Curry for ESPN which can be found at Curry’s Article. In the context of the recent firing of Head Coach Mike Shula at the University of Alabama, Curry provides a perspective that supports the fundamental principle that commitment to long-term goals not only breeds success, but is good for student-athletes, the University, and is fiscally responsible and sound. Let me express my agreement with the message in Curry’s writing.
A coach’s contract is an expression of the commitment between a university and that coach. And while provisions are made to terminate the commitment–the contract buyout–recent college football history hasn’t necessarily demonstrated its wisdom.
Buyout provisions in coaches’ employment agreements are spiraling. This is directly related to the lack of genuine commitment that many athletic programs have toward the fulfillment of the term of the agreement. The track record of a school’s fulfillment to the contract term certainly plays into the next coach’s contract negotiation. Coaches are astute enough to know that this year’s hero may be tomorrow’s villain. And the savior is right around the corner–buyout and all.
Coaches need to have a sense, not primarily for comfort sake, but of the ability to make important decisions for results that extend beyond one game, a season or possibly seasons. That is what strong programs are built upon. The number of variables that affect a football team’s performance is staggering. True commitment sends a necessary message of stability to recruits, players, coaches, and supporters that the race is a marathon, not a sprint. It’s always been this way. I’m sure that both Wake Forest and the University of Arkansas are glad they stayed the course through two losing seasons to see their teams compete in their respective conference title games.
This does not mean that there are not good reasons to sever a coach’s relationship with a program. Poor academic performance, low graduation rates, and off-the-field matters of student-athlete behavior should always be considered, as well as lack of any evidence toward progress in competitive performance.
Second and on a more practical note, over this past year, the U. S. Congress has been evaluating the appropriateness of the tax-exempt status of intercollegiate athletics. Nothing is a greater lightening rod for scrutiny than the spiraling cost of coaches’ salaries and buyout provisions–and perhaps appropriately so.
Please log on and read Curry’s commentary:Curry’s Article
In Solid Orange, Terry Don Phillips Athletic Director
December 4, 2024
