The fallacy of the modern coaching hire

[18IsTheMan]

If you pay a guy a lot of money he must win a lot of games.

When will people learn money doesn’t buy wins?

Schools pay guys hoping they’ll live up to the salary as opposed to paying what is commensurate with his success to that point.

 

[gamecock stock]

Money also doesn't buy love. I learned that a long time ago. But, as it turned out, she did not age well. So, I dodged a bullet. LOL

Coaches are way overpaid. But, unfortunately, that toothpaste is out of the tube.

 

[KingWard]

It's simply market-driven. The big winner's (there aren't many) are well paid. That means that the ambitious schools that aspire to the top tier have to pay the coaches considered capable some very big money. Accordingly, the truly aspiring schools that don't get to the top have coaches that are well-paid.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It's simply market-driven. The big winner's (there aren't many) are well paid. That means that the ambitious schools that aspire to the top tier have to pay the coaches considered capable some very big money. Accordingly, the truly aspiring schools that don't get to the top have coaches that are well-paid.

Some of it is market driven, but the egregious examples are not. Jimbo’s contract, being fully guaranteed, was not at all market driven. Mel Tucker’s absurd contract was not market driven.

To the ambitious comment, though, there seems to be a sense in which schools think if they pay a guy a lot then he will win a lot. It’s a fabricated confidence.

And then fans, likewise, get ticked off when they don’t believe a guy is winning at a level that’s commensurate with his salary. But, really, would A&M fans be any less ticked off if Jimbo was only making $2 million a year? Of course not. They would still think he sucks. But the inflated salaries give people an inflated sense of what they should be accomplishing. Given A&M‘s history, there’s no reason the fans should think they would be in title contention every year. But because Jimbo makes a lot they think they should be.

I do agree that some of it is market driven, but not necessarily the dollar values. Everybody is so desperate to find the next big winner that they are willing to outpay anyone else to secure somebody who they think might be that guy, and in the process, overpaying in almost every circumstance,. That’s what Michigan State did with Mel Tucker.

The whole system is just screwed up. All these salaries are speculative instead of results driven. And that’s how you end up with $76 million buyouts.

 

[Prestonyte]

Some of it is market driven, but the egregious examples are not. Jimbo’s contract, being fully guaranteed, was not at all market driven. Mel Tucker’s absurd contract was not market driven.

To the ambitious comment, though, there seems to be a sense in which schools think if they pay a guy a lot then he will win a lot. It’s a fabricated confidence.

And then fans, likewise, get ticked off when they don’t believe a guy is winning at a level that’s commensurate with his salary. But, really, would A&M fans be any less ticked off if Jimbo was only making $2 million a year? Of course not. They would still think he sucks. But the inflated salaries give people an inflated sense of what they should be accomplishing. Given A&M‘s history, there’s no reason the fans should think they would be in title contention every year. But because Jimbo makes a lot they think they should be.

I do agree that some of it is market driven, but not necessarily the dollar values. Everybody is so desperate to find the next big winner that they are willing to outpay anyone else to secure somebody who they think might be that guy, and in the process, overpaying in almost every circumstance,. That’s what Michigan State did with Mel Tucker.

The whole system is just screwed up. All these salaries are speculative instead of results driven. And that’s how you end up with $76 million buyouts.

Very well stated!

 

[KingWard]

Some of it is market driven, but the egregious examples are not. Jimbo’s contract, being fully guaranteed, was not at all market driven. Mel Tucker’s absurd contract was not market driven.

To the ambitious comment, though, there seems to be a sense in which schools think if they pay a guy a lot then he will win a lot. It’s a fabricated confidence.

And then fans, likewise, get ticked off when they don’t believe a guy is winning at a level that’s commensurate with his salary. But, really, would A&M fans be any less ticked off if Jimbo was only making $2 million a year? Of course not. They would still think he sucks. But the inflated salaries give people an inflated sense of what they should be accomplishing. Given A&M‘s history, there’s no reason the fans should think they would be in title contention every year. But because Jimbo makes a lot they think they should be.

I do agree that some of it is market driven, but not necessarily the dollar values. Everybody is so desperate to find the next big winner that they are willing to outpay anyone else to secure somebody who they think might be that guy, and in the process, overpaying in almost every circumstance,. That’s what Michigan State did with Mel Tucker.

The whole system is just screwed up. All these salaries are speculative instead of results driven. And that’s how you end up with $76 million buyouts.

There are people who lead the market and others who follow - if they can. I can't speak to Tucker, but Jimbo's case was predicated on an impressive record and an appealing (to A&M) persona - and an accompanying perceived value.

There was also the fact he was employed already by a football school with several national championships, one of them his.

A&M just set the bid high to start with in order to secure this man's services and to foreclose other seekers. They thought he was worth it - a valuation judgment. It's still about market. Getting ahead of it and trying to insulate yourself from incursion is one approach, though an approach fraught with peril.

The $76 million buyout is nothing to these people. Otherwise, they wouldn't have rolled the dice. I already know how they raised the money to pay off Sumlin. Now, it wasn't nearly this much money but they raised it with two phone calls. This might have required nine or ten.

 

[mickray]

In the forty's and fifty's (19) development of young athletes and sportsmanship was the goal. Those times have passed.

 

[USCEDGE]

This is a verbatim message I received from one of the members on the committee that canned Fisher. He wrote this in response to a message I sent to him. "That's the way it works in the SEC. It doesn't matter if you just smoked your last opponent. To go 28-21 in conference doesn't warrant that salary." They take this **** seriously at T&M....

 

[18IsTheMan]

There are people who lead the market and others who follow - if they can. I can't speak to Tucker, but Jimbo's case was predicated on an impressive record and an appealing (to A&M) persona - and an accompanying perceived value.

There was also the fact he was employed already by a football school with several national championships, one of them his.

A&M just set the bid high to start with in order to secure this man's services and to foreclose other seekers. They thought he was worth it - a valuation judgment. It's still about market. Getting ahead of it and trying to insulate yourself from incursion is one approach, though an approach fraught with peril.

The $76 million buyout is nothing to these people. Otherwise, they wouldn't have rolled the dice. I already know how they raised the money to pay off Sumlin. Now, it wasn't nearly this much money but they raised it with two phone calls. This might have required nine or ten.

That they have the money to blow is indisputable. But I still don't see JImbo's contract as being market-driven.

His final season at FSU was a disaster and people were starting raise red flags about his tenure.

The silly part was the fully guaranteed $95 million contract extension they gave him after his 3rd season, even though he had amassed 2 fewer wins than Kevin Sumlin did in his first 3 seasons. On the one hand, A&M seems to expect, even demand, elite status. On the other hand, they give a guy a fully guaranteed $95 million contract after he gets a 9 win season. There was no historical basis or market-driven reason for that extension.

But that's just illustrative. It goes to the point that coaches are no longer paid based on their accomplishments in many cases. They are paid based on what the program hopes they can accomplish. It is almost as if schools think these contracts will be self-fulfilling. If we pay him a lot, we'll win a lot. Almost as if they are throwing coins into a wishing fountain.

All the big salaries do is lead to bloated fan expectations. "Hey, we're paying our coach x amount of money so we should be winning titles." In A&M's case, they aren't a national-title caliber program. They have six top 10 finishes in the last 50 years. They've had more years where they finished unraked than they did ranked.

 

[Surfcock]

Looks like Auburn has passed the payoff torch to A&M

 

[ToddFlanders]

I think the modern fallacy is that you need to enter into a one-sided contract if your coach flirts with another school. If they want to leave, let them go!

If Fisher came into my office and said LSU is a job I’m interested in, I’d tell him “thank you for all you’ve done for us Coach, leave the buyout check on my secretary’s desk on your way out.”

A&M would then be the biggest opening around - and in a great position to win instantly under a new coach.

Schools always get sucked into the idea that they must hold onto a coach at all costs - and that’s how you end up with bad contracts like Fisher’s, or Muschamp’s, or Martin’s….

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think the modern fallacy is that you need to enter into a one-sided contract if your coach flirts with another school. If they want to leave, let them go!

If Fisher came into my office and said LSU is a job I’m interested in, I’d tell him “thank you for all you’ve done for us Coach, leave the buyout check on my secretary’s desk on your way out.”

A&M would then be the biggest opening around - and in a great position to win instantly under a new coach.

Schools always get sucked into the idea that they must hold onto a coach at all costs - and that’s how you end up with bad contracts like Fisher’s, or Muschamp’s, or Martin’s….

That's a big part as well. Everyone's looking for that next guy. If a school has a coach who has shown some signs of success, they freak that someone else might come and drop some coin on him, so they overreact and overpay him with an extension. As you cited with Muschamp. One good season and he landed a windfall payday.

 

[Jonesz2]

Some of it is market driven, but the egregious examples are not. Jimbo’s contract, being fully guaranteed, was not at all market driven. Mel Tucker’s absurd contract was not market driven.

To the ambitious comment, though, there seems to be a sense in which schools think if they pay a guy a lot then he will win a lot. It’s a fabricated confidence.

And then fans, likewise, get ticked off when they don’t believe a guy is winning at a level that’s commensurate with his salary. But, really, would A&M fans be any less ticked off if Jimbo was only making $2 million a year? Of course not. They would still think he sucks. But the inflated salaries give people an inflated sense of what they should be accomplishing. Given A&M‘s history, there’s no reason the fans should think they would be in title contention every year. But because Jimbo makes a lot they think they should be.

I do agree that some of it is market driven, but not necessarily the dollar values. Everybody is so desperate to find the next big winner that they are willing to outpay anyone else to secure somebody who they think might be that guy, and in the process, overpaying in almost every circumstance,. That’s what Michigan State did with Mel Tucker.

The whole system is just screwed up. All these salaries are speculative instead of results driven. And that’s how you end up with $76 million buyouts.

If Beamer had Jimbo win loss record we would be giving him a raise and contract extension

 

[ToddFlanders]

That's a big part as well. Everyone's looking for that next guy. If a school has a coach who has shown some signs of success, they freak that someone else might come and drop some coin on him, so they overreact and overpay him with an extension. As you cited with Muschamp. One good season and he landed a windfall payday.

If your guy wants to interview somewhere else (and a school wants to try and keep them), I think you do what you can to make sure you're paying market value + (but not to set the market). However, if the coach really wants to be at the school, the coach needs to give a little too. There is real value to a coach to know he's in a place where he knows he can win, to know the inner workings of the school (which can be very unique to every school), to stay in a community where he wants to raise his family, to maintain friendships, etc.

 

[Lurker123]

To be fair, Jimbo was a national title winning coach. At the time, he was one of a very select few that were actively coaching.

That being said, his contract (buyout) was extravagant imo. So I'm thinking the truth is in the middle.

He wasn't worth it, but he was worth a lot at the time. More so than most other coaches. (I stress "at the time")

 

[18IsTheMan]

Back to the OP, though, there's just a misperception that because a school pays a guy a lot of money they should win a lot of games.

There's just no correlation between how much you pay a guy and how many games you win. If it were that easy, Texas would win the national title every year for the rest of time.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

I think the modern fallacy is that you need to enter into a one-sided contract if your coach flirts with another school. If they want to leave, let them go!

If Fisher came into my office and said LSU is a job I’m interested in, I’d tell him “thank you for all you’ve done for us Coach, leave the buyout check on my secretary’s desk on your way out.”

A&M would then be the biggest opening around - and in a great position to win instantly under a new coach.

Schools always get sucked into the idea that they must hold onto a coach at all costs - and that’s how you end up with bad contracts like Fisher’s, or Muschamp’s, or Martin’s….

So you’re just going to let a dabo swinney, Nick Saban, and urban hire walk out the door when you’re winning? Hell no you’re not going to do that. They are one of the few active coaches to have done it. Their salaries dictate the salaries of the rest because it is a relative scale.

Jimbo was paid for a national title that he already had under his belt. A contract that doesn’t even make AM sweat to pay. I don’t see the problem. Coaches are paid on what they have accomplished. I don’t see a first time coach being paid 12 million. Dabo, Saban, urban, and jimbo all get paid because they have won a national championship. Simple statistics says they have a better chance of doing it again that someone who has never done it.

Jimbo is not the only contract that is guaranteed. Dabo swinneys was basically guaranteed. He had an insanely high buyout but after 26 he gets the remainder of his contract. If he was fired for some reason he lost Pennies to what the contract was worth.

A&m wrote the contract for what the market of the best coaches dictated. At the time fisher’s tract record would have warranted it. He has a national title for Christ sakes.

 

[18IsTheMan]

So you’re just going to let a dabo swinney, Nick Saban, and urban hire walk out the door when you winning? Hell no you’re not going to do that. They are one of the free active coaches to have done it. Their salaries dictate the salaries of the rest because it is a relative scale.

Jimbo was paid for a national title that he already had under his belt. A contract that doesn’t even make AM sweat to pay. I don’t see the problem. Coaches are paid on what they have accomplished. I don’t see a first time coach being paid 12 million. Dabo, Saban, urban, and jimbo all get paid because they have won a national championship. Simple statistics says they have a better chance of doing it again that someone who has never done it.

Jimbo's extension, which included the fully guaranteed money, was after he had lodged a 9-win season. He was given that contract fully on the weight of going 9-1 in 2020, the covid year that produced a number of anomalous records in college football. Nothing about that justified a fully guaranteed $95 million extension. Even if that is pocket change to A&M.

 

[KingWard]

That they have the money to blow is indisputable. But I still don't see JImbo's contract as being market-driven.

His final season at FSU was a disaster and people were starting raise red flags about his tenure.

The silly part was the fully guaranteed $95 million contract extension they gave him after his 3rd season, even though he had amassed 2 fewer wins than Kevin Sumlin did in his first 3 seasons. On the one hand, A&M seems to expect, even demand, elite status. On the other hand, they give a guy a fully guaranteed $95 million contract after he gets a 9 win season. There was no historical basis or market-driven reason for that extension.

But that's just illustrative. It goes to the point that coaches are no longer paid based on their accomplishments in many cases. They are paid based on what the program hopes they can accomplish. It is almost as if schools think these contracts will be self-fulfilling. If we pay him a lot, we'll win a lot. Almost as if they are throwing coins into a wishing fountain.

All the big salaries do is lead to bloated fan expectations. "Hey, we're paying our coach x amount of money so we should be winning titles." In A&M's case, they aren't a national-title caliber program. They have six top 10 finishes in the last 50 years. They've had more years where they finished unraked than they did ranked.

I never said it all made sense. But A&M was in the market as a leading indicator and not a trailing indicator. Did not LSU gave that boy from ND, Kelly, a $95 million 10-year contract AFTER that? The market ramped up for the people who want to be "players". Lincoln Riley's contract, believed to be for 10 years, comes to $110 million. So don't tell me that market forces aren't in play. Part of market is what the market will bear.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I never said it all made sense. But A&M was in the market as a leading indicator and not a trailing indicator. Did not LSU gave that boy from ND, Kelly, a $95 million 10-year contract AFTER that? The market ramped up for the people who want to be "players". Lincoln Riley's contract, believed to be for 10 years, comes to $110 million. So don't tell me that market forces aren't in play. Part of market is what the market will bear.

I only said his contract from A&M was not market driven. Did it drive the market? Probably. But it wasn't market-driven.

 

[will110]

So you’re just going to let a dabo swinney, Nick Saban, and urban hire walk out the door when you’re winning? Hell no you’re not going to do that. They are one of the few active coaches to have done it. Their salaries dictate the salaries of the rest because it is a relative scale.

Jimbo was paid for a national title that he already had under his belt. A contract that doesn’t even make AM sweat to pay. I don’t see the problem. Coaches are paid on what they have accomplished. I don’t see a first time coach being paid 12 million. Dabo, Saban, urban, and jimbo all get paid because they have won a national championship. Simple statistics says they have a better chance of doing it again that someone who has never done it.

Jimbo is not the only contract that is guaranteed. Dabo swinneys was basically guaranteed. He had an insanely high buyout but after 26 he gets the remainder of his contract. If he was fired for some reason he lost Pennies to what the contract was worth.

A&m wrote the contract for what the market of the best coaches dictated. At the time fisher’s tract record would have warranted it. He has a national title for Christ sakes.

Mel Tucker wasn't a first-time coach, but he'd been a head coach for less than 3 years when he got that insane extension from Michigan State.

Look at all the SEC coaching salaries. 12 of the 14 SEC head coaches to start 2023 were being paid $6,000,000 or more, all top 25 coaching salaries in the nation. There is no reason for Shane Beamer to be the 24th highest paid coach in college football. We have hope for his career, but he's accomplished virtually nothing outside of a couple big wins (which were great!). Josh Heupel is the 9th highest paid coach in college football. I don't think anyone considers him a top ten coach in America.

SEC coaches are being paid the "SEC rate" based on association, not based on their own accomplishments.

 

[KingWard]

I only said his contract from A&M was not market driven. Did it drive the market? Probably. But it wasn't market-driven.

It WAS market driven. You'll see here that Nick Saban was ALREADY earning $11.1 million a year BEFORE Jimbo went to A&M. https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...ick-saban-contracts-salaries-alabama-texas-am

 

[18IsTheMan]

It WAS market driven. You'll see here that Nick Saban was ALREADY earning $11.1 million a year BEFORE Jimbo went to A&M. https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...ick-saban-contracts-salaries-alabama-texas-am

Jimbo started at A&M in 2018.

Saban, by that time, already had 6 national titles. Five of those came in his first 11 seasons at Bama. Played in two other title games. He lost 19 games total in his first 11 seasons, and that's counting his first year of 2-6. Saban was getting paid on the weight of being a perennial contender, top 5 mainstay and playing for 7 titles in 11 seasons, winning 5. Saban was the undisputed best coach in the game, and he was paid accordingly.

Absolutely nothing about Saban's contract drove the market for Fisher and his 1 national title.

 

[KingWard]

Jimbo started at A&M in 2018.

Saban, by that time, already had 6 national titles. Five of those came in his first 11 seasons at Bama. Played in two other title games. He lost 19 games total in his first 11 seasons, and that's counting his first year of 2-6. Saban was getting paid on the weight of being a perennial contender, top 5 mainstay and playing for 7 titles in 11 seasons, winning 5. Saban was the undisputed best coach in the game, and he was paid accordingly.

Absolutely nothing about Saban's contract drove the market for Fisher and his 1 national title.

Saban's money drove the plateau of what A&M was willing to sink in a coach in hopes of reaching premier status. It's ipso facto.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Saban's money drove the plateau of what A&M was willing to sink in a coach in hopes of reaching premier status. It's ipso facto.

Just not so.

It's like saying because I drop $350 grand on a brand new Ferari, it justifies you dropping the same amount on a brand new Lexus. It's absurd. Bama was paying for a proven entity and all-time legendary coach, already considered by many to be the best ever at that time. Nothing about that situation gives a market-driven reason for A&M to pay the FULLY GUARANTEED money they did to Fisher.

There are a lot of reasons for it, but nothing was market driven.

 

[KingWard]

Just not so.

It's like saying because I drop $350 grand on a brand new Ferari, it justifies you dropping the same amount on a brand new Lexus. It's absurd. Bama was paying for a proven entity and all-time legendary coach, already considered by many to be the best ever at that time. Nothing about that situation gives a market-driven reason for A&M to pay the FULLY GUARANTEED money they did to Fisher.

There are a lot of reasons for it, but nothing was market driven.

If it hadn't been for the Saban factor, Jimbo would never have SNIFFED at the kind of money he got starting out at A&M. You know it and I know it. They had delusions of Sabanesque grandeur dancing in their heads, for whatever reason. It was Saban that set the table for Jimbo. It's so obvious. Why did the article I linked basically make it all about those two?

 

[HillsToSea]

If Beamer had Jimbo win loss record we would be giving him a raise and contract extension

Yes. Already done that. His jump in salary after last year was premature IMO.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Just not so.

It's like saying because I drop $350 grand on a brand new Ferari, it justifies you dropping the same amount on a brand new Lexus. It's absurd. Bama was paying for a proven entity and all-time legendary coach, already considered by many to be the best ever at that time. Nothing about that situation gives a market-driven reason for A&M to pay the FULLY GUARANTEED money they did to Fisher.

There are a lot of reasons for it, but nothing was market driven.

Nick Saban’s contract isn’t even fully guaranteed. A&M got played. If it takes something crazy to get a coach to stay, then they don’t want to be there. And it will show on the field.

 

[Jonesz2]

Jimbo has won 8 or more games 4 out of 5 yrs there. They need to accept that’s who they are. Just like we need to accept we less then .500. Do that and they will sleep better at night

 

[18IsTheMan]

Nick Saban’s contract isn’t even fully guaranteed. A&M got played. If it takes something crazy to get a coach to stay, then they don’t want to be there. And it will show on the field.

Right. It's the insane nature of the contract. You can argue whether the dollar amount was justified, but the fact that it was fully guaranteed with no offset is insane. Nothing about his performance or the market drove that deal.

I can't possibly imagine what A&M was thinking, other than throwing money into wishing well and hoping the magnitude of the contract would itself yield results.

Jimbo's buyout alone was more than total current contracts for almost every current coach in the SEC. It was more than 2x the total amount of Shane's current contract.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Right. It's the insane nature of the contract. You can argue whether the dollar amount was justified, but the fact that it was fully guaranteed with no offset is insane. Nothing about his performance or the market drove that deal.

I can't possibly imagine what A&M was thinking, other than throwing money into wishing well and hoping the magnitude of the contract would itself yield results.

Jimbo's buyout alone was more than total current contracts for almost every current coach in the SEC. It was more than 2x the total amount of Shane's current contract.

All that only matters if it breaks the bank, which it’s not. Therefore it’s kind of a moot point. A&M wanted him for good reason then. It’s highly arguable that it wasn’t justified when you easily have the money to cover it. Again at the time he was one of 4 active coaches with a NC. Mac brown had not returned yet.

 

[18IsTheMan]

All that only matters if it breaks the bank, which it’s not. Therefore it’s kind of a moot point. A&M wanted him for good reason then. It’s highly arguable that it wasn’t justified when you easily have the money to cover it. Again at the time he was one of 3 active coaches with a NC. Don’t believe dabo had won yet and Mac brown had not returned but I didn’t look it up. So I apologize if I’m wrong.

But the argument is whether it was market driven. We al know it's pocket change to A&M. The nature of his contract was not market driven though. Even Saban, with his multiple titles, didn't have a fully guaranteed contract with no offset. He IS guaranteed to be the highest paid coach in the game, but not fully guaranteed.

They overpaid, and overpaid in a BIG way. Even for a coach who had a national title, they overpaid. When he got his fat, guaranteed contract, he'd had seasons of 9, 8 and 9 wins. And for that, they gave him a nearly $100 million fully guaranteed contract. Since when does that kind of record demand that kind of contract from the market? It doesn't.

If I'm a billionaire and buy a new Toyota Camry for $200,000, that's not market-driven, whether or not that amount of money is insignificant for me.

When your coach's buyout is more than the entire contract of nearly every other head coach in the conference. Not market driven.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

But the argument is whether it was market driven. We al know it's pocket change to A&M. The nature of his contract was not market driven though. Even Saban, with his multiple titles, didn't have a fully guaranteed contract with no offset. He IS guaranteed to be the highest paid coach in the game, but not fully guaranteed.

They overpaid, and overpaid in a BIG way. Even for a coach who had a national title, they overpaid. When he got his fat, guaranteed contract, he'd had seasons of 9, 8 and 9 wins. And for that, they gave him a nearly $100 million fully guaranteed contract. Since when does that kind of record demand that kind of contract from the market? It doesn't.

If I'm a billionaire and buy a new Toyota Camry for $200,000, that's not market-driven, whether or not that amount of money is insignificant for me.

When your coach's buyout is more than the entire contract of nearly every other head coach in the conference. Not market driven.

l disagree. The contract was just structured differently. Dabo’s buyout is not far from 70 million. It’s 64 million currently. After 2025 it’s the remainder of his contract. That’s not far off from jimbo. Kirby smart is 92 million, Kelly at lsu is 70 million. Seems pretty close to market to me. Jimbos contract is also only 2 years old. You take any of the highest paid coaches and their buyout will be in that range. Saban is the one exception but he has to be the highest paid coach in the land. It’s in his contract.

 

[Deleted11512]

l disagree. The contract was just structured differently. Dabo’s buyout is not far from 70 million. It’s 64 million currently. After 2025 it’s the remainder of his contract. That’s not far off from jimbo. Kirby smart is 92 million, Kelly at lsu is 70 million. Seems pretty close to market to me. Jimbos contract is also only 2 years old. You take any of the highest paid coaches and their buyout will be in that range. Saban is the one exception but he has to be the highest paid coach in the land. It’s in his contract.

Truth. It’s just the first time one of these has been exercised. The only thing that’s not really market driven is those other guys got those after winning a NC I believe. Jimbo got his bc they hoped one day he would.

As a side note, Dabo would only owe Clem $5M if he bolted.

 

[ToddFlanders]

l disagree. The contract was just structured differently. Dabo’s buyout is not far from 70 million. It’s 64 million currently. After 2025 it’s the remainder of his contract. That’s not far off from jimbo. Kirby smart is 92 million, Kelly at lsu is 70 million. Seems pretty close to market to me. Jimbos contract is also only 2 years old. You take any of the highest paid coaches and their buyout will be in that range. Saban is the one exception but he has to be the highest paid coach in the land. It’s in his contract.

Not true at the time though. Jimbo set the market, so any coach renegotiating (or negotiating) wouldn't take something "less than" what was already out there.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Not true at the time though. Jimbo set the market, so any coach renegotiating (or negotiating) wouldn't take something "less than" what was already out there.

Still market driven. Jimbos was set slightly higher than the market. Dabo’s 2019 contract proves that.