I've been thinking that NIL has not only thrown recruiting into new ground but it could be doing the same for coaching searches.
Traditionally, the best coach has been a mix of several characteristics. Manager, X-O gamer, Press Speaker, NCAA navigator, NANNY etc, etc. One of his main responsibilities, if not the main responsibility, is RECRUITING. Better players can make an average coach look way better than he is. With NIL, recruiting is becoming less and less his responsibility. In fact, it's gone from his biggest responsibility to one that is, to some degree at least, out of his hands.
Assumption: The University has $ 1 mil a year for a coach that can be supplemented an additional $ 1.5 mil a year by wealthy boosters. ( I don't have specifics but you can insert any amount you want for the argument)
Proposition: Wouldn't it be better to spend the $ 1 mil on the coach and take the doner $ 1.5 mil and put it up for NIL payments for a few more top flight players?
Now, before anyone has his head explode look a the chart below ( incomplete and a year old, but the best I could find and it serves it's purpose for this post) You need to pay $ 2.5 mil to get a coach paid in the top 50. But when you look at some of the coaches getting that type of cash there are at least 20 of them we would be threatening to run out of town. They were a flash in pan, got hired, and now they are coming back to earth but with a pile of cash. So, I propose we pay our coach @ 1 mil from school funds and pay our players as much as possible. If the coach leaves, who cares - we get another one for a mil. If a couple of players get better deals - so what - we can pay new ones.
The goal would be to have the best players we can afford with an OK coach - rather than O.K. players with a 50th ranked coach.
Just a thought.
Traditionally, the best coach has been a mix of several characteristics. Manager, X-O gamer, Press Speaker, NCAA navigator, NANNY etc, etc. One of his main responsibilities, if not the main responsibility, is RECRUITING. Better players can make an average coach look way better than he is. With NIL, recruiting is becoming less and less his responsibility. In fact, it's gone from his biggest responsibility to one that is, to some degree at least, out of his hands.
Assumption: The University has $ 1 mil a year for a coach that can be supplemented an additional $ 1.5 mil a year by wealthy boosters. ( I don't have specifics but you can insert any amount you want for the argument)
Proposition: Wouldn't it be better to spend the $ 1 mil on the coach and take the doner $ 1.5 mil and put it up for NIL payments for a few more top flight players?
Now, before anyone has his head explode look a the chart below ( incomplete and a year old, but the best I could find and it serves it's purpose for this post) You need to pay $ 2.5 mil to get a coach paid in the top 50. But when you look at some of the coaches getting that type of cash there are at least 20 of them we would be threatening to run out of town. They were a flash in pan, got hired, and now they are coming back to earth but with a pile of cash. So, I propose we pay our coach @ 1 mil from school funds and pay our players as much as possible. If the coach leaves, who cares - we get another one for a mil. If a couple of players get better deals - so what - we can pay new ones.
The goal would be to have the best players we can afford with an OK coach - rather than O.K. players with a 50th ranked coach.
Just a thought.
Men's Basketball Head Coach Salaries - USA TODAY
Ever wondered who the highest paid coach in men's basketball is? Find out today with USA TODAY's complete salary data.
sports.usatoday.com
