so is it fair to say a higher percentage of coaches have buyouts than the normal population of society, if so why? all the arguments about keeping good people, making money, "winning" , stopping your people from working for a competitor, etc, apply in all professions.
maybe a non-compete clause could be used and then a buyout would not be needed?
I think the thing that is hurting all the schools like us now is the fact it is very difficult (almost impossible in the Sun Belt or CUSA) to get at large bids to the NCAA or NIT. You have to win the tournament to get to the NCAA and you have to win regular season but lose in conference tournament to get an NIT bid. No matter how well you do in the otherwise, you end up in something like the CIT. That is true for every Sun Belt school and every CUSA school as well. Over reliance on RPI is part of that. RPI is heavily a schedule rating and mid majors have virtually no shot to play the power schools at home in today's world. The salaries are part of the issue. However, what we pay our coach is somewhat the norm for a Sun Belt team. As I say this, keep in mind that the SBC was a strong mid major this year. Stronger from top to middle than just about any year since WKU was a power.
Ironically it seems the p5 is doing poorly in nit
Well you said it is geared to make it hard for sunbelt and others to even be in. If it is then "their" tourney they should be doing better. Last year p5 had zero in final four so they increased p5 bids over 33pct just to get a 2-2 participation in final four
Getting a winning coach is such a crapshoot nobody wants to lose what they have. In business you can be a CEO in a high tech industry today and change to a totally different industry tomorrow and be successful. Don't think Nick Savanna can take over basketball at Kentucky and be a powerhouse coach.
Talent is unique and people pay a fortune for it. In business many can do your job.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)