Contracts. It’s a business
Why not buck the trend and negotiate like a normal business. These college coach salaries and buyouts are ridiculous. There are plenty of competent coaches (think number of ncaa schools with fb programs x the number of personnel on each staff) out there who would love to coach VT. If the first offer declines because they want a big buyout, move on to the next person. Why pay someone who wants a fail payout? They failure should be on them not the school.
Burn it down!
** Edited by Arachnid at 9/15/2025, 5:34:22 AM
23 Replies
10mo
(In response to this post by Arachnid)
10mo
They negotiate what they can because they can. There is no “next person” to move on to. It is just capitalism.
(In response to this post by Arachnid)
10mo
Against other firms.
Supply and demand for labor set the price.
There are about 65 'firms' bidding on college football head coaches.
There are less than 60 'good' head coaches. So bidding wars ensue.
You want a 'good' head coach, gotta bid against other schools.
You think Dan Mullen won't get 3 ir 4 offers this fall?
Why would he accept the offer you think VT should propose, when other schools offer buyouts/large salaries/staff control?
(In response to this post by Arachnid)
10mo
It’s not the constant small pool of 60 good coaches. It’s very fluid.
Burn it down!
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
10mo
NCAA Football is Now about Money !! But you make a very strong point But...
(In response to this post by Arachnid)
10mo
There are simply coaches you have to fire and simply coaches others will hire away from you... statistically most of that happening around the 3 year mark. Make sure the contracts are structured to reflect that reality. Pay them well but no stupid buyouts or restructures
(In response to this post by HOKIEGOBBLE)
10mo
ADs love the system because it helps line their pockets as well. With failure rate so high not much downside gambling on an unknown.
(In response to this post by BROman Hokie)
10mo
Of someone showing how a different model will work... something like a GM in charge of all off field stuff and the coach just coaching period.... much shorter coaching contracts and less $. One bad run, and boom, next guy up, a lot more direct promotion opportunities up through the ranks and occasionally hiring outside if a specific guy meets your game model.More like the club soccer model in many foreign domestic leagues. It feels like we are approaching that type of disruption/destruction moment.
(In response to this post by kinghokie)
10mo
Or you grow some balls, take a chance, and give an unproven coach like Michael Vick a try and they probably will. He's the clear answer here. Hiring these crazy expensive coaches from smaller schools is very clearly not the answer. We've spent a ton of money to find out that it doesn't work for us.
The fact that Whit let any school other than ours hire him for $400k a year should have been grounds for immediate termination.
(In response to this post by BROman Hokie)
10mo
because we won’t adhere to market trends regarding coaching contracts will definitely help us get a quality coach,
(In response to this post by HOKIEGOBBLE)
10mo
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
10mo
to think we can somehow succeed by disregarding how coaching contracts work is insane. Here’s a novel idea: Hire the right coach. Then the buyout won’t be an issue 3-5 years into the contract.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
10mo
Theres no buyout level in the world that will protect your investment when Ohio State comes a calling
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
10mo
You know who you get when you refuse to include a buyout in the contract? A coach with no other options
(In response to this post by One4VT)
10mo
The coach will either need to be fired or replaced after someone plucks him.. Id rather be in the later position. I NEVER said there should be no buyout. Only that it never be priced on the idea that it will prevent a breach. The breach will occur, and if it occurs because someone wanted him, your revenue situation is taking care of itself (throw the coach a revenue bone if certain markers are hit) and if you have to can him, its not cost prohibitive
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
10mo
Like it or not, there is simply a market value for coaches. The market dictates what contract value and structure will be. I guess we can try to be creative or offer a smaller buyout to coaches -- but all that does is signal (1) we lack confidence in the coach and anticipate a buyout will be necessary and therefore are trying to minimize the amount or (2) we think he's a schmuck who will take a below-market offer with a worse buy-out than what most of his peers are getting -- which is pretty insulting.
Texas A&M went the other direction and offered a 10-year, $75M fully guaranteed contract to Jimbo Fisher. It was a disaster and no other programs followed suit (that I'm aware of). The market rejected that outlier. I imagine the same would be true for a P4 job. The smaller buy-out would simply further convey to everyone that we're small time.
(In response to this post by One4VT)
10mo
Whereby the coach would add a year to the contract for each 8 or 9 win season and it also gave him incentives if the program hit certain revenue markers. The explicit buyout was moderate. We cant play the same game everyone else is, im confident of that.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
10mo
The coach is going to be gone in 3 years either way
(In response to this post by Arachnid)