Yeah, I think a lot of it probably depends on the program and the specifics of the NIL situation. A player may have contracts with whatever business is giving them the NIL money that forces those payments to be made. Or a program may decide (correctly I think) to convince its business-owning boosters to honor NIL commitments to players like Clark so as not to sour prospective recruits. But not every player will be so lucky, and I think the lower profile the recruit, the more likely a harsher outcome is.
Coaching Carousel (Basketball)
- Status
This makes it sound as though proven, established players who want security are the same as developing players about to enroll in college. I think it's just as likely that a college player over-performs as underperforms. If they develop, they're the ones who will look at their long term deal and want out.
I personally don't see multi-year deals working in college sports, or if they do, as an exception. I don't see either side being happy enough with multi-year commitments. And an unhappy player isn't worth nearly as much as when they're fully bought in (pun intended?)
The point is that contracts are not stopping coaches from moving. If they're not putting buyouts on ACs why would they be putting buyouts on players.
For one, it's not just established players that seek out long term deals. Ronald Acuna is one example. For many players this is life changing money, and they'll happily take the guarantee.
The real question is, do you think the status quo serves players better?
Look at the cases of Matthew Sluka at UNLV or Jayden Rashada's lawsuit against Billy Napier, and tell me that a written contract wouldn't have benefitted the players. Right now everyone is operating on nothing but promises.
Speaking of fundamentally misunderstanding something, you're arguing against a strawman here because I didn't say that.
A lot of people are participating here, so I'll summarize:
1- 1-4 year deals signed on entry to the school before a player knows their value & buyouts which limit ability to seek further value (movement) are generally not a good deal for players.
2- League owners have fought against uncapped payment & unlimited free movement to the point of cancelling seasons, because it gives too much leverage to the players.
3- I don't understand why everyone in my replies is so vehemently siding with ADs/Coaches here.
Last edited:
Are you claiming that only 1/6.5 HCs would move without the contracts? I expect it would be much higher. I've had contracts with penalties for leaving early. They definitely altered my choices. They are called "golden handcuffs" for a reason.
Most of the HC moves are between low Div I schools. My impression (vs. having hard numbers) is that a many (20-30%?) of the changes are coaches that did not make it, and who may not get another Div I HC job. (On top of the 3-5% retirements.) Should we be counting any of the exits?
I'm not sure how many non-power contracts have significant buyout numbers -- a quick dig did not find many contracts. I did find that most HC's in non-power schools make 150-350/yr (~2/3rds of the contracts). 500k/yr+ is 95th percentile. Do you really want to argue about a buyouts in contracts at that scale? Maybe for the top 20% coaches.
Important ACs (the minority) have buyouts, often with outs such as "no buyout if you become a HC." I remember reading this in some of the UIUC AC contracts. Would anyone seriously expect Tyler's or Zhamer's contract to have a (significant) buyout? I don't know the cost of a typical AC leaving a program. Is it more or less than a rotation player leaving? If more, maybe they should have equivalent penalties in the contracts.
1. This goes both ways. Teams also don't know player values. Currently, this leads to unenforceable verbal promises for NIL deals that sometimes don't get honored. Not sure how that's a better system for players. With the collective bargaining power of a union, and the negotiating savvy of professional agents, I'm sure players could negotiate safeguards that would prevent them from being taken advantage of.
2. And yet the response from players has never been to scrap guaranteed multi-year contracts. Curious.
3. They aren't. The fact that the current system is better for players than the previous one does not necessarily make it ideal. There are plenty examples of NIL promises being broken. A system where either side can just re-neg on an agreement the second a better one comes around undoubtably does help some players, but likely hurts just as many.
You do appear to be presenting a pretty hard core "players should be totally free" argument, so any reply saying that some restrictions may be needed will come across as siding against.
I'd generally go for "people should see through their commitments". We have found people are not doing so. So should we accept the societal change, or implement contracts that strongly encourage people to keep their word? That contradicts the "players should be free". Does is mean I vehemently side with ADs/Coaches? I don't think so.
So why are you not proposing coaching contract reform?
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
This is all true, but the worst of all possible deals for college athletes is one where the fans (the exclusive and total source of money to the system) walk away.
NIL is going to be coaching contract reform, you just watch.
Who needs a cow when you can buy the milk directly?
1- Ok
2- The focus is maximizing contract value, length only has value becuase most leagues negotiate that.
3- I still think you're overvaluing contracts. The re-negotiations youre talking about regularly happen in major sports.
Last edited:
Length has value because teams value it, and are willing to give more $ for more length. Why is that wrong? I value having a player on my team for 4 years and am willing to offer more money for it. Why is that bad for the player? Player can still say no and draw the line at a 1 year deal.
Give one recent example in which a pro team in the US has just not paid the money it promised to a player. No "for cause" justification or anything - just completely re-negged on a promise where they signed a deal for a certain amount of money and then decided not to pay it. Because that is a thing that has happened in NIL.
the NFL cuts players all the time.
But they still get any money that is guaranteed under their contract. You see, the contract is the protection. The NFL unfortunately has weaker contracts because it has a weaker union. But imagine how bad it would be with no union and no written contracts...like the NCAA right now.
So, contracts aren't a silver bullet, particularly when one party has significantly more leverage and will likely still allow for movement.
I don't think anyone is arguing that allowing players and programs the freedom to contract will magically fix any and all potential problems facing college athletics.
I think people are arguing that the current system is not ideal and allowing the parties to form negotiated, legally binding contracts, will improve the situation in many ways. And I haven't seen any compelling arguments to the contrary.
Battle89
- Cary-Grove, the better Trojan team
Gotcha and all goodNot sure how I f'd that up 89...looks like my response to your post, somehow became your response to your own post....
Every player in pros has a contract. Take any one of them. I just can't understand how you would deny it to college kids. You're a nice guy though. You pat yourself on the back for letting them contract four years of scholly money but not even two years of NIL.
I still don't see it, and that last bit is a strawman. Contracts, especially standardized contracts would be a win-win IMO.
The issue that I think gets in the way of longer term deals is the variability for the recruit. There are maybe a handful of sure-fire players, and those guys are going to the next level anyway. The rest are guys that can be in any one of three camps, which are on a very broad spectrum. Guys who do well relative to expectations, guys who do about as expected, and guys who do worse. The parties would need to take the opposing side of the risk, and that strategy seems broken to me. Imagine a team that signed a bunch of 3 and 4 year deals that didn't go well and had dead weight for their collective for a couple years before they could even attempt to rebuild. Seems like that could crater the program in a spiral. Imagine Groce signing his kids back in the day. Year to year just makes more sense from an economic standpoint.
Not saying I'm right, just that I'm seeing more issues than solutions.
This happens in the pros all the time. The teams release the players, pay them what they are owed under the contract. Teams free up their roster space and players get their money, plus the opportunity to find somewhere they can play. Win-win.
Lot of discussion here taking place over something that isn't even on the near horizon. I see ZERO push out there, by anyone, to make students employees. And that is EXACTLY what needs to happen before any school can talk contracts with athletes. It just opens too many cans of worms, and would likely be the death knell of college sports. There is occassional talk on player unionization but so far it's been just that, talk, There is no push to make that happen I'm aware of. Multi-year sponsorships by an outside entity, sure, i can see that happening. But that's not really an enforceable thing either. See Skyy Clark, the UNLV QB, etc. for reference. Lots of hot air being blustered about on this thread....
Last edited:
Universities can already negotiate exit fees in the coaches contract. The fact that they choose not to isn't coaching contract reform IMO.
Yes, under a very different revenue model.
- Status