Are we possibly seeing another step in the 'evolution' of collegiate athletics?
The firings of Mark Richt and the potential firing of Les Miles (it seemed like it was a last second decision by the AD, which may or may not do well with Les to begin with) are showing me that schools are putting increasingly more pressure on coaches to win.
Alright, well they get multi-millions of dollars to win, I get that. But with 3 losses and a very competitive team in the most competitive division in college football, are such expectations too high, given the amount of money involved?
I ask this because, they would have had to buy out Les' something like $10-$15 million buyout, then hire someone else with a competitive salary in the SEC, and hope THAT person can turn things around in what seems like a 3-4 year window.
Charlie Strong may be let go from Texas, there's been discussion that he may end up at Miami or some other jobs.
He's getting 5 years and $5 million+ annually...imagine if they fired him, then got Les...
That'd be over $20 million spent on one person/coach...to fire your current one, hire this one, and spend what else is needed.
Of course, this is going to affect the students and the schools themselves. Several (LSU is one of the few exceptions) cannot even make a profit on their programs...thus netting a loss but trying to keep up, is going to be hurting them if others follow suit in this manner.
Students are also going to feel the effects of this...which, isn't the greatest thing for them when they graduate with crippling debt.
Are they going to be able to keep up, ON TOP of the mounting arms race of facilities being done to all campuses across America...this whole idea of making the window of success very, very small with massive contract buyouts, seemingly tossing money left and right until someone fits the right position, only to have them lose 3 games and suddenly be on the hot seat?
In short,
Is this what may end up dooming lots of programs, utilizing their wealth and expectations to succeed to the point that it is almost realistically unattainable?
If so, this may be the final nail in the coffin for some, who think they can toss money around and do basically the same thing but on a smaller financial level...only to find themselves further back into debt and unable to continue the cash flow.
The firings of Mark Richt and the potential firing of Les Miles (it seemed like it was a last second decision by the AD, which may or may not do well with Les to begin with) are showing me that schools are putting increasingly more pressure on coaches to win.
Alright, well they get multi-millions of dollars to win, I get that. But with 3 losses and a very competitive team in the most competitive division in college football, are such expectations too high, given the amount of money involved?
I ask this because, they would have had to buy out Les' something like $10-$15 million buyout, then hire someone else with a competitive salary in the SEC, and hope THAT person can turn things around in what seems like a 3-4 year window.
Charlie Strong may be let go from Texas, there's been discussion that he may end up at Miami or some other jobs.
He's getting 5 years and $5 million+ annually...imagine if they fired him, then got Les...
That'd be over $20 million spent on one person/coach...to fire your current one, hire this one, and spend what else is needed.
Of course, this is going to affect the students and the schools themselves. Several (LSU is one of the few exceptions) cannot even make a profit on their programs...thus netting a loss but trying to keep up, is going to be hurting them if others follow suit in this manner.
Students are also going to feel the effects of this...which, isn't the greatest thing for them when they graduate with crippling debt.
Are they going to be able to keep up, ON TOP of the mounting arms race of facilities being done to all campuses across America...this whole idea of making the window of success very, very small with massive contract buyouts, seemingly tossing money left and right until someone fits the right position, only to have them lose 3 games and suddenly be on the hot seat?
In short,
Is this what may end up dooming lots of programs, utilizing their wealth and expectations to succeed to the point that it is almost realistically unattainable?
If so, this may be the final nail in the coffin for some, who think they can toss money around and do basically the same thing but on a smaller financial level...only to find themselves further back into debt and unable to continue the cash flow.
