Money soon won't be a factor in coaching decisions; more Mailbag
Given programs' increasing profitability, coaches will be held to higher standards
Mark Richt is one of the few coaches who has rebounded from status on hot seat
Plus: Stanford's résumé, Heisman debate, BCS merit of top non-AQ teams, more
|The Mandel Initiative Podcast|
|Tracy Wolfson from CBS previews Saturday's Alabama-Georgia game and shares stories about SEC coaches. Stewart and Mallory discuss coaching changes and answer your listener mail.|
Millions of Americans dropped billions of their hard-earned cash at malls and department stores over Thanksgiving weekend. College athletic directors did much the same thing -- only they didn't get a flat screen or an iPad in return.
Hi Stewart. Sometimes even the loveliest brides don't look so good after the wedding-day hangover wears off (Gene Chizik, Jeff Tedford, etc.). Auburn is now on the hook for more than $11 million to its former coach and assistants. Cal may spend more than $7 million. Do you foresee a reversal in the ridiculous buyout trend?
-- Sam, Fairchild AFB, Spokane, Wash.
In short -- no, not a chance. Very soon, if not already, money will no longer be a factor in whether a school hires or fires a coach, because most major-conference programs now have access to more money than they could possibly know what do with. In the case of Cal, AD Sandy Barbour said the perennially cash-strapped program will pay the $6.9 million remaining on Tedford's contract though "intercollegiate athletics-generated revenue." It's been reported that donors are covering most of that cost, which is not unusual in these situations. But soon, even that might not be necessary. As of two years ago, Cal received less than $9 million annually in conference revenue distribution. Starting with the new deal that kicked in this year, Pac-12 schools will now earn an average of $21 million a year in television revenue alone. That's not even counting BCS and bowl payouts. And beginning in 2014, all FBS schools will get a cut of the new playoff/bowl system that ESPN last week agreed to pay an average of $610-615 million a year to televise, a 340 percent increase from the BCS.
The money in college athletics is rising astronomically -- and as it does, coaching tenures are only going to get shorter. Obviously, coaches have always faced pressure to win, but it's only going to intensify in the coming playoff era. Schools like Purdue and NC State are already saying 7-5 isn't good enough. Everyone wants to play in the big games, but obviously only a handful will in any given year. Whereas in the past it might have been financially imprudent to make a coaching change after just a couple of years -- especially if it meant paying huge buyouts like Chizik and Tedford's -- now there's almost no hindrance. Jon Embree's not working out for you, Colorado? Pay him off and try again. The Heart of Dallas Bowl isn't enough for you, Purdue? Go out and spend $3 million on a big-time coach.
I know I sound like a broken record, but college football is increasingly mirroring the NFL, and this area is yet another example. In the NFL, teams don't give you four years to bring in your own players and right the ship. Expect much the same cutthroat mentality going forward. If a coach is meeting or exceeding expectations, he'll get a big raise. If not, he'll get a golden parachute. And if you're an athletic director who makes a boneheaded hire or two, your friends at ESPN and the other networks will be there to help you bankroll your way out of a bad decision.
How many times have you actually seen a coach work his way off the hot seat? It seems to me that once a coach gets on it, he eventually ends up getting fired. Is Mark Richt the best example of survival, and what happens if he loses on Saturday?
-- James G., Gilroy, Calif.
It's pretty amazing to think that just two summers ago, Richt was the undisputed coach on the hottest seat in the SEC. Since that time, six other SEC coaches (Houston Nutt, Bobby Petrino, Joker Phillips, Derek Dooley, John L. Smith and Chizik) have been let go, while Richt will be playing for a BCS championship berth on Saturday. Mind you, Richt was never in legitimate danger to the degree it was portrayed at the time. It seemed a rare instance where a school's own fans were still widely supportive of a so-called embattled coach. But I can think of no other recent instance of a coach successfully engineering such a dramatic mid-tenure turnaround. The closest comparison would be Oregon State's Mike Riley, who brushed off consecutive losing seasons (including a 3-9 record last year) to go 8-3 this season, but the beloved coach never actually reached hot seat territory.
Reaching the BCS title game has been the one milestone that's eluded Richt in his 11 seasons, and therefore Saturday is a potential legacy-changer. But I can't imagine his actual job status would be affected either way. Georgia is not the favorite against Alabama. Bulldogs fans will be disappointed if they lose and perhaps frustrated at the missed opportunity. But it's hard to hold an 11-1 regular season against someone. Richt must feel pretty confident about his future. In complete opposite fashion of the trend I discussed earlier, last summer Richt agreed to a contract extension that significantly lowers the school's buyout with each subsequent year. So while he seems perfectly safe now, I would not recommend a return to 6-7 in 2014, as it would cost Georgia a paltry $1.6 million to part ways with him.
I am hoping that the mention of your alma mater increases the chances of getting an answer. This season looks like a script from Revenge of the Nerds. Four renowned schools with higher academic requirements -- Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern and Vanderbilt -- are a combined 39-9, and Duke qualified for a bowl for the first time since the 1990s. Do you think this is an anomaly or are the more academically capable athletes starting to gain an advantage with the increased sophistication of offenses and defenses?
-- John Michel, Villa Park, Calif.
Indeed, this is the first time in history that all five schools have reached a bowl in the same season, and with the exception of Duke, it's not like success came out of nowhere. Obviously, Notre Dame is in its own category historically, but we now just accept it as normal that Stanford contends for a BCS berth and Northwestern annually reaches a bowl. Vanderbilt is currently a better football program than Tennessee, and no one seems particularly surprised. And now a school that's tied for the highest graduation rate in the country -- Notre Dame -- is playing for the national championship. The nerds truly have won.
As much as I'd love to conjure some grand correlation between SAT scores and offensive efficiency, really, it's entirely about the coaches. All five schools hired not just outstanding coaches, but guys who "get" their respective schools. David Shaw (Stanford) and Pat Fitzgerald (Northwestern) are alums and former players. Brian Kelly is an Irish-Catholic from the Northeast who grew up rooting for Notre Dame. While James Franklin has no ties to Nashville, the media-savvy coach keenly rebranded longstanding doormat Vanderbilt as a buzz-worthy program from day one. And Duke could not be more fortunate to have a coach of Cutcliffe's pedigree. He's won at the highest level in the SEC, as has most of his staff, but he seems more comfortable at a small private school than he ever did at Ole Miss.
It's all about making the right hire -- which is why so many schools are out there right now trying to find their own Kelly or Franklin.
I remember last year there was a big push to have Oregon ranked ahead of Stanford even though the Ducks had two losses, because one came to the No. 1 team (LSU) and Oregon beat Stanford head-to-head. The argument was the Ducks shouldn't be punished for scheduling a tough team as opposed to a patsy. This year the situation is exactly reversed. Stanford has two losses, but one came out of conference to the No. 1 team (Notre Dame), and the Cardinal have the head-to-head win against Oregon. As a Cal fan, it truly pains me to ask, but shouldn't Stanford be getting the same treatment?
-- Brett, Chicago
Wow. It's EXACTLY the same scenario.
To refresh, Stanford-Oregon became a hot topic during last summer's playoff negotiations, specifically, the "conference champs vs. top-four teams" debate. Several of the commissioners (including Larry Scott) pointed out how unfair it would have been had Stanford (No. 4 in the final BCS standings) edged out Pac-12 champion Oregon (ranked No. 5) solely due to the Ducks' loss to LSU. I contended that had an actual playoff spot been at stake, the voters would have taken that into account and flipped the two.
Yet here we are a year later with the teams in virtually identical, albeit reversed, situations, and I'm not as confident the voters would do the same. For one thing, the two teams aren't next to each other in the standings. Oregon is No. 5, while Stanford is No. 8. It's possible the Cardinal will move up a spot should they beat UCLA on Friday and watch No. 6 Kansas State lose to Texas, but I can't see the voters moving 11-2 Stanford above a 10-2 LSU team with losses to No. 2 Alabama and No. 4 Florida. The Cardinal, by contrast, lost to 7-5 Washington. But as we now know, it won't be the voters deciding this thing in 2014; it will be a selection committee. And as I've written previously, the committee won't be beholden to previous polls or the one-loss trumps two-loss philosophy. Oregon, Stanford and LSU would all garner serious consideration.
It seems you've become more out of touch with football in the South since your move out West. I'm fairly certain you missed all but one Florida game you picked. Has there ever been a team you had a worse feel for than this year's Gators squad?
-- J.W., Tampa
No, I cannot remember a team that more consistently confounded me. Though if anyone in the country correctly predicted that Florida would not only beat Florida State but also score 37 points, by all means, present yourself. I'll turn over my stock portfolio to you.
What happened to you since you got married and moved West? You are a sad reflection of your former self. Did you really say Florida is "laughable" and its offense "putrid?" Will you man up and apologize?
-- Bob Larson, Wake Forest, N.C.
I apologize. But what's with all the West Coast jabs? I live 20 minutes from Stanford and got most of its games wrong, too.
Please Stewart, do me a favor. Pick against the Gators in their bowl game.
-- Martin, Montreal, Canada
I can't make any promises before I know the opponent -- especially when the possibilities currently include Louisville, Rutgers and Kent State.
SI Now: Make or break year for Danica Patrick
SI Now: Russell Simmons on the benefits of meditation for athletes