Question Regarding Coaches Contracts

[MTBoiler]

Why wouldn't a school like Purdue, which does not have a lot going for it...go after either a 'former' head coach or a younger head coach and give them a performance based contract? I would think a guy that is a DC for a school like North Carolina or a head coach from say Montana or North Dakota State would take a $1m contract that has big bonuses for wins, bowl game appearances, all big ten players, etc.
But you never see a contract like this!!

 

[RegionWarrior101]

Because our AD is lacking.

 

[loftygoal]

Why wouldn't a school like Purdue, which does not have a lot going for it...go after either a 'former' head coach or a younger head coach and give them a performance based contract? I would think a guy that is a DC for a school like North Carolina or a head coach from say Montana or North Dakota State would take a $1m contract that has big bonuses for wins, bowl game appearances, all big ten players, etc.
But you never see a contract like this!!

Everybody has an agent today that advises them of what compensation they should expect for a head coaching position at a P5 school. From our standpoint you can't afford to be wrong. Look at the damage that has been done to our program by being wrong. We took a guy that had been passed over that had very limited head coaching experience from a lesser school and we are paying a price that will likely result in a lost decade. It doesn't pay to be cheap - it ends costing far more in lost revenue. Penny wise pound foolishness.

 

[lbodel]

Why wouldn't a school like Purdue, which does not have a lot going for it...go after either a 'former' head coach or a younger head coach and give them a performance based contract? I would think a guy that is a DC for a school like North Carolina or a head coach from say Montana or North Dakota State would take a $1m contract that has big bonuses for wins, bowl game appearances, all big ten players, etc.
But you never see a contract like this!!

While Purdue's contract is not absurdly out of the norm, it is more "pro-coach" than your typical contract.

For example, Dave Doeren was considered a higher profile coaching candidate than Hazell (not by a ton, but more so). His original contract was $200,000 less per year than Hazell and one less year. So over a 3 year period, that's $600,000 less in salary and his buyout would be $3.6 million with the same contract.

Part of the reason Hazell's contract ended up being like that was likely because of supply and demand. Purdue didn't get some of its top candidates and Hazell was about all that was realistic left so Purdue had to get him. So he got a killer contract. There was no reason he should have gotten a higher salary and longer contract than a guy like Dave Doeren.

As for what you suggest about a performance based contract - it's just not realistic. If a coach is qualified enough to coach at a Big Ten school, they can probably get a job at other schools with a standard contract.

 

[Redhotfill]

Because our AD is lacking.

You mean lazy and senile.

 

[Redhotfill]

Does the buyout go down effective Jan 1, 2016?

 

[pb1941]

Why wouldn't a school like Purdue, which does not have a lot going for it...go after either a 'former' head coach or a younger head coach and give them a performance based contract? I would think a guy that is a DC for a school like North Carolina or a head coach from say Montana or North Dakota State would take a $1m contract that has big bonuses for wins, bowl game appearances, all big ten players, etc.
But you never see a contract like this!!

Illinois just signed there coach to a 2-year contract for $1.2 million a year plus bonuses.

 

[Redhotfill]

I guess they have better business acumen there than MB!

 

[lbodel]

I guess they have better business acumen there than MB!

Well let's not be hypocrites. People ridiculed how much Purdue paid Danny Hope and that we didn't want to invest money in a real coach - then they go and pay at the level and now people are clamoring to go back to the bargain basement? Come on...

 

[loftygoal]

I guess they have better business acumen there than MB!

As crazy as it seems now, there was a concern that Haz would bolt for a better program after reviving ours. So that was the reason for the generous buyout.

 

[Redhotfill]

As crazy as it seems now, there was a concern that Haz would bolt for a better program after reviving ours. So that was the reason for the generous buyout.

 

[Redhotfill]

Well let's not be hypocrites. People ridiculed how much Purdue paid Danny Hope and that we didn't want to invest money in a real coach - then they go and pay at the level and now people are clamoring to go back to the bargain basement? Come on...

I don't have any trouble paying going rate, as long as it is tied to performance. Sure would be a motivator to go recruit and actually prepare for games rather than know you could produce a Hazell shitshow and get millions for nothing.

 

[PBoiler84]

I agree you need to tie performance into these contracts somehow. $1M base plus $100k per win. You go 12-0 and you get your $2.2M. Either that or shorter contracts such that the base can be high for 1-2 years but more performance based after that where we can fire your butt for poor performance.

 

[lbodel]

I don't have any trouble paying going rate, as long as it is tied to performance. Sure would be a motivator to go recruit and actually prepare for games rather than know you could produce a Hazell shitshow and get millions for nothing.

I mean, I don't disagree, but it's not realistic if you want a 'prime' coach. The example of Illinois works because he was an interim coach (that had no expectation of being a head coach), had a decent year, they offered him the job and he accepted. He wasn't going to get other head coaching opportunities - he would have gone back to being a coordinator.

If you want to hire someone externally who has no other head coaching opportunities the job, we can. But it's likely not going to impress many people as no one will be familiar with that person (unlike Illinois).