"Just a little brains" could lead to a lot of legal fees with respect to collusion
I don’t see why. If any individual schools finally decide to exhibit some fiscal sanity, especially in this era of player compensation I don’t see how that’s collusion. If some schools want to exhibit some common sense and others follow there's no collusion. I'm not even looking to limit salaries. These deals should be structured more smartly, with better financial flexibility and be more manageable should the need arise, pay for annual performance not one hit wonders and be fair to both parties. It's not monopoly money.
It could be the reverse of what I said about FIsher's first A&M deal and its ripple effects. Were schools talking to each other, "let's all give majority/fully guaranteed 7-10 year deals" or just following suit like sheep. It could be especially effective if bigger deeper pocketed schools took that tact.
I saw this idea too and I've always wondered why it's so easy to get out of college contract vs a pro contract. If you were smart/lucky enough to discover the good coach why shouldn't you reap the full benefit instead of losing him when he does well. The biggest thing is also for the decision maker to have the will to say no and keep looking or let a coach go, realizing that most aren't Saban or the hero you think they are. There are qualified candidates out there.
From the article: (may need a sign in)
Kraft had every right to do this. But when he finds his next coach, he should keep on acting like a pro owner and offer an NFL-style contract.
Five years of salary for five years of work.
No buyout.
No escape clause.
If you want to coach Penn State, you commit to Penn State. If you want to leave, you can do so when your contract is up. Until then, you’re under contract.
If Penn State wants you to coach, Penn State pays you to coach. If the school fires you before the five years are up, it still pays you for all five years.
If Penn State and the coach are happy with each other, they can discuss an extension that will kick in starting in Year 6.
If the coach (or his agent) says no, then Penn State should move on to the next candidate.
This is the simplest, most straightforward version of a contract, and it’s the one that makes the most sense. When the Patriots hired Mike Vrabel last year, they did not give him an out to pursue the Rams job if it opens up. Why should Penn State conduct business any differently?
The contract was an extraordinarily expensive marketing tool: Penn State wanted recruits to believe Franklin would stick around. Coaches’ agents have capitalized on this recruiting-based desperation for years.
That made a bit of sense back when transfers had to sit out for a year. But today’s players know
they can leave at any time for any reason and play immediately at any school that wants them. They have no reason to fear the coach leaving. If he goes, they can go, too.
Also: If you want recruits to think a coach will stick around,
sign him to a contract that requires him to stick around. Don’t let him walk for $2 million.
Changing precedent is hard. Agents will fight it. But this is a chance for Kraft to inject some common sense into the market by showing true confidence in what he is selling.
Kraft sees Penn State as a destination job where the highest aspirations are actually achievable. He
should feel that way—and he should be able to find an excellent coach who feels that way, too.
I’m not suggesting that Penn State try to save a few bucks with this hire. The school can and will pay top dollar. But an enormous commitment from the school should include a reciprocal commitment from the coach. If a coach is paid millions to say “We Are Penn State,” he ought to mean it.
