In the past, a five-year deal signaled to high school recruits that the coach

[gamecox4982]

would be there for their entire eligibility period. Is this now necessary since we have the portal? I would like to see three year deals.

 

[Lone Star Rooster]

would be there for their entire eligibility period. Is this now necessary since we have the portal? I would like to see three year deals.

So would I, and so would probably a majority of college sports fans. But those long-term deals have become the norm, and trying to break that trend is going to be tough.

 

[atl-cock]

So would I, and so would probably a majority of college sports fans. But those long-term deals have become the norm, and trying to break that trend is going to be tough.

Probably would have to increase the annual salary to accomplish this.

 

[Lurker123]

Well, if we had our wish, the contracts would be heavily incentive based, and the buyout would be influenced by won/loss record.

But fat chance of that becoming the norm.

 

[CreekSnake]

To me having a rolling 3 yr contract would be ideal.Pay at top of scale but limiting the buyout years would work well.I wouldn’t even mind if that was state law.
The argument for long contracts was to assure players the coach would there during their entire career at a school but obviously in today’s world that’s not a consideration.

 

[Bubba Fett]

You could hire a random recreation league or high school coach on a one or two year deal, for a fraction of the cost, and we wouldn't be any worse off.