In an era of transient players and $40-60 million buyouts, why would P4 schools offer coaches anything more than two or three year rolling contracts?

James Franklin signed a 10 year extension. Was he in such demand that they needed to lock him in for 10 years? If Franklin wanted to leave some day, he could pay as little as $1 million to have departed, which the other school could pick up. Instead, PSU and/or its donors are on the hook for $48 million-plus for that decision. Jimbo Fisher, even more.

This isn't about retaining the next Nick Saban. No one was going to steal away the likes of Billy Napier, Sam Pittman, Mike Gundy, etc. Why do schools continue to lock in money that, in many cases, they will never get back?

(10-14-2025 10:20 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  In an era of transient players and $40-60 million buyouts, why would P4 schools offer coaches anything more than two or three year rolling contracts?

James Franklin signed a 10 year extension. Was he in such demand that they needed to lock him in for 10 years? If Franklin wanted to leave some day, he could pay as little as $1 million to have departed, which the other school could pick up. Instead, PSU and/or its donors are on the hook for $48 million-plus for that decision. Jimbo Fisher, even more.

This isn't about retaining the next Nick Saban. No one was going to steal away the likes of Billy Napier, Sam Pittman, Mike Gundy, etc. Why do schools continue to lock in money that, in many cases, they will never get back?

Jimmy Sexton would like a word.

College football is the most financially irresponsible industry in the country. Why change when legions of fans are so willing to subsidize the malfeasance?

College football is why we haven’t cured cancer. Take the billions pissed away by unhinged donors and cancer would likely be cured.

(10-14-2025 10:30 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-14-2025 10:20 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  In an era of transient players and $40-60 million buyouts, why would P4 schools offer coaches anything more than two or three year rolling contracts?

James Franklin signed a 10 year extension. Was he in such demand that they needed to lock him in for 10 years? If Franklin wanted to leave some day, he could pay as little as $1 million to have departed, which the other school could pick up. Instead, PSU and/or its donors are on the hook for $48 million-plus for that decision. Jimbo Fisher, even more.

This isn't about retaining the next Nick Saban. No one was going to steal away the likes of Billy Napier, Sam Pittman, Mike Gundy, etc. Why do schools continue to lock in money that, in many cases, they will never get back?

Jimmy Sexton would like a word.

We can go into the long list of guys who are Jimmy Sexton clients but not worthy is James Franklin and Luke Fickell, two guys about to land massive buyouts, are on the list.

(10-14-2025 10:20 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  In an era of transient players and $40-60 million buyouts, why would P4 schools offer coaches anything more than two or three year rolling contracts?

James Franklin signed a 10 year extension. Was he in such demand that they needed to lock him in for 10 years? If Franklin wanted to leave some day, he could pay as little as $1 million to have departed, which the other school could pick up. Instead, PSU and/or its donors are on the hook for $48 million-plus for that decision. Jimbo Fisher, even more.

This isn't about retaining the next Nick Saban. No one was going to steal away the likes of Billy Napier, Sam Pittman, Mike Gundy, etc. Why do schools continue to lock in money that, in many cases, they will never get back?

Good question.

Ultimately, it’s the market speaking. There is a real or perceived small pool of “desirable” coaches available each season and, depending on which jobs are open, it’s a zero sum game between schools competing for that small pool.

If anything, on the flip side from the coaching perspective, if a school is willing to fire a coach with a .500 record just 9 months after they were playing for a spot in the National Championship Game (as was the case with Franklin), then coaches would rationally ask for even *more* of a buyout (as we have entered into an era with zero safety net or credit for past accomplishments).

I think that this era is coming to an end. As more money is spent on player rosters, I expect to see coaching and athletic administration compensation decrease or at least stagnate.

(10-14-2025 01:10 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I think that this era is coming to an end. As more money is spent on player rosters, I expect to see coaching and athletic administration compensation decrease or at least stagnate.

I don’t know.

Think of it this way: if the quality of football coach is so important that you are willing to spend $50 million just to get rid of the old one halfway through the season (and one that has been pretty objectively successful over a long period of time), then the university is directly stating how important that they think having the right football coach is for them. If firing a bad coach is worth $50 million because the state of the football
program is THAT important, then by definition, getting the right football coach is worth even more.

(10-14-2025 01:10 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I think that this era is coming to an end. As more money is spent on player rosters, I expect to see coaching and athletic administration compensation decrease or at least stagnate.

I keep thinking that, and it keeps not happening. I think we should all be resigned to the fact that there are a LOT of people with a LOT of money out there and no better idea of how to spend it than payoff off bad football coaches at their beloved State U. A couple years ago it was A&M (and maybe MSU), then Northwestern, now PSU, tomorrow it will be somebody else. USC maybe if Riley can't keep the train rolling this season, though they've looked pretty good thus far. Probably another SEC coach or 2 this season gets a big buyout.

In Penn State's case with Franklin, and O'Brien before him, the scope of the job during the probation/penalty years made it easy for both coaches to leverage their success to market themselves for other gigs above PSU. The NFL experience was both attractive to Penn State, but a natural instigator toward retention, as well.

The extension that has PSU on the hook potentially into next decade was its gesture to "stop the madness" with Franklin flirting with other opportunities. Sure, he could go...at a price. But, PSU was confident, for a time (at that time), that the consistency was worth it.

But, "consistency" is simply abstraction; arbitrary on a performance-level. When Franklin signed that extension, there was still a PAC-12. The playoff was four teams. The portal was an unknown; COVID starting to rescind its grip. NIL was nebulous. On its face, the extension, with this outcome, make it age like milk, but, oh, that journey.

Keeping in mind that Franklin's contract is structured in a way where PSU won't likely pay out that full amount of nearly $50 million, I'm still more intrigued by the overall structure and composition being at issue here more than length. Like, for Franklin, the base salary for the job itself was something like $500K. It's the other parts, that "supplemental pay" piece, that drive that total salary and guarantee way up, and its sourcing and composition should be worrisome. Not unlike Hurley's contract at UConn: the salary is not "meat" on that thing. It's the other perks.

(10-14-2025 10:38 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  College football is why we haven’t cured cancer. Take the billions pissed away by unhinged donors and cancer would likely be cured.

The conspiracy theorist in me says cancer does have a cure and it's suppressed by Big Pharma and the like but I digress from the topic.

I think if schools are smart they'd stick with 3-4 year extensions. Which usually barring transfers and red shirts a completely new team. The only concern is lower buyouts.

(10-15-2025 11:11 PM)46566 Wrote:  I think if schools are smart they'd stick with 3-4 year extensions. Which usually barring transfers and red shirts a completely new team. The only concern is lower buyouts.

Low buyouts are probably *the* reason you offer a long contract. You avoid the speculation drama. You "lock in" with your coach so you maintain consistency within the program. But, if consistency isn't being delivered, you question the validity or worth of that contract. That, maybe, there is no plateau, or, that peak is in the past?

Having the right coach matters, but, also, schools and their cultures. Personally, I think, sticking with Franklin, with 2025 being lost, 2026 is rebuilding with a steeper curve, and higher expectations on 2027. Swing and miss along the way, and a 2024 season probably isn't on PSU's or Franklin's radar again until, what, 2028 or 2029? Hey, guess what happens around that time, too? Franklin can begin that shopping game again; the buy-out's far more approachable. If I'm Penn State...maybe I'm "hard pass" on that. But, I'm not. Nor is it clear that if Penn State did succeed this season and made it to a playoff, but got eliminated early, does a "down year" in 2026 push him out the door then, instead?