Dead Money Payouts by Colleges Over Past 10 Years
Cuh-razy numbers paid out by colleges in "dead money" (contract buyouts) to fired/dismissed coaches. Auburn, Nebraska and Texas lead the list. Interesting to see Kansas on there as well. Most of these institutions are public; what is the ROI on that money for the taxpayer (especially at, say, Kansas)?
Admittedly we don't know which of these buyouts were funded from private boosters and which were funded from general AD or university funds.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32552130/schools-spent-5336-million-dead-money
November 5th, 2021 at 3:40 PM ^
Okay, I'm willing to make the sacrifice.
I accept the position as football coach of any Power 5 university.
What's in it for me? The usual buyout of megamillions .
What's in it for the school? I won't coach at all so the school doesn't have to go through a bad stretch before moving on.
November 5th, 2021 at 8:14 PM ^
I'll even sweeten the pot, I'll accept half the going rate to not coach. Think of how much money your school could save!
November 5th, 2021 at 8:51 AM ^
A half billion dollars to fire coaches in a 10 year span. WTF?
November 5th, 2021 at 9:14 AM ^
Charlie Weis $65 million (over 10%) of it.
November 5th, 2021 at 9:48 AM ^
Hail Mr. Front Butt! The only schematic advantage he ever had was a legal one!
November 5th, 2021 at 12:35 PM ^
Whale sighting!
November 5th, 2021 at 1:28 PM ^
Has any other coach been such an overrated, shameless self-promoter that their signature win ... wasn't even a win?
Weis made so much money off the Bush-push loss to USC.
Even James Franklin is in awe.
November 5th, 2021 at 3:54 PM ^
Kirk Frerentz says “Hold my beer!”.
November 5th, 2021 at 9:16 AM ^
It's insane. And unsustainable and horrible for the sport(s). I'm shocked that the universities and academic world haven't banded together to put a stop to this. I'm also amazed at how many times a coach gets fired - seemingly for cause because of some horrible/stupid thing he did - but still gets that sweet buyout money.
I don't know what can be done on this front but I'm guessing the AAU could do something about it? I don't know - maybe Congress or state legislatures? I would like to see a state senator somewhere propose a bill that would bar the state's universities from paying the buyouts or at least cap them. It's only going to continue to get more and more wasteful.
November 5th, 2021 at 9:53 AM ^
I mean, contracts are contracts. That's why these coaches have attorneys and agents. If my employer decides to get rid of me because of Wins and Losses before my contract is up, rest assured, I am going to make sure I get my money. These colleges bring it upon themselves by allowing powerful alumni and boosters to make coaching decisions.
November 5th, 2021 at 9:59 AM ^
Exactly the school signed a contract to pay this coach over so many years. You break the contract terms you still owe the money. I’m amazed how fired up people are about this but a year ago people on her thought Michigan should just shell out 18 million to get rid of JH like it was pocket change
November 5th, 2021 at 10:29 AM ^
Because $18 million (or whatever) will purchase better clock management and a win against Ohio State. It's like buying a loaf of bread, right?
November 5th, 2021 at 10:42 AM ^
Just to clarify: I don't think such a law should cover current, already-written contracts, nor do I want it to. But, I wonder if a state legislature can't pass a bill that says future state university contracts for athletic coaches can only include a max buyout clause of $500K or $1m. I would also like to see them create some kind of state review board that would have to approve termination decisions that include buyouts. That's a lot of public (yeah I know, alums/boosters, etc...) money at the discretion of an AD who is often still pretty chummy with the departing coach.
The huge buyout amounts are there to discourage the university from firing the coaches. But, the universities just keep firing them anyway and eating those millions.
I'm impatient w/ Harbaugh but I don't think he should be fired. I'm wondering if his high buyout actually worked in preventing that last year? Probably made the department think twice about it. But, at least I can applaud him for taking a reduced salary in his extension, I guess.
In conclusion: it's all very confusing. But also very stupid.
November 5th, 2021 at 8:18 PM ^
The buyouts arent really there to discourage firing coaches. The buyouts are negotiated in order to provide job/financial security for the coach.
While a state's legislature might be able to pass a law capping buyouts, it would clearly hamper school's ability to hire top coaches, as elite coaches would avoid schools in that state in favor of more generous contract terms that could be had elsewhere.
November 5th, 2021 at 10:54 AM ^
Buyout clauses are a problem because you're willingly giving up leverage. If we were to just look at the surface, the cause here is terrible negotiation. A buyout clause is literally how much you're willing to pay someone to fail. And this isn't like corporate corruption, where the contracts are outrageous because the C-levels all sit on each others' boards of directors and/or represent investment firms so the goal isn't leadership as much as white-collar plunder. At least, I'm not aware of landscape-altering nepotism between head coaches and university boards of regents.
Yet the pervasive nature of it indicates an underlying issue with the economics. College coaches are in very high demand, and the pressure to succeed is irrationally high, so programs are forced to agree to very high buyouts, because that's the only way they can compete for the labor. I have my criticisms of the "free" market but in this case, legislation probably only just squeezes the money in a different direction.
Long story short, the country is way, way too invested in sports. I'm a fan, I like football, but when Michigan State wins a close game, I'm annoyed. OK, seriously annoyed, but that honestly has more to do with toxic fans getting blessed with unearned fortune. If it was just about rooting for jersey colors, I'd enjoy the rivalries far more. Unfortunately, you don't have to look far (just half a day's drive in a couple directions) to see folks who follow a sports program with cult-like zealotry. And even here, we can't throw stones because our glass house has apologists for abettors of sexual abuse, because that guy happened to be good at winning games.
Mind you, I realize I'm not being pragmatic; asking people to be rational isn't a solution to anything. But that's pretty much what we're up against: millions of crazy people pouring their money into weekend games to the point that those with the ability to influence it achieve power comparable to royalty. When that power comes from the citizenry itself, there's very little to be done about it.
November 5th, 2021 at 9:23 AM ^
JFC. Wow. It further proves how NCAA is a joke when it comes to students getting some of that money.
November 5th, 2021 at 9:26 AM ^
"Admittedly we don't know which of these buyouts were funded from private boosters and which were funded from general AD or university funds."
I think this is the key question. We already know that the vast majority of athletic departments are partially if not significantly subsidized by general university funds, but some enterprising reporter needs to dig out how much of this dead money also comes from general university funds. FOIAs would undoubtedly be frequently necessary.
Given the financial pressures that the typical roster of instructional staff are under—with tenured faculty positions being greatly reduced in favor of poorly-paid "lecturers"—I can imagine that this issue could cause significant strife on many campuses.
November 5th, 2021 at 10:02 AM ^
Additionally, donations to a school to pay a coach’s buyout are tax-deductible, so the public is paying for this one way or another.
November 5th, 2021 at 11:54 AM ^
While the person donating the money gets a tax break, the coach receiving all of that money is being taxed on it, I would think.
November 5th, 2021 at 12:46 PM ^
I would suspect (hope?) that a lot of these buyouts are clustered in the big-money schools that aren't dipping into general funds to operate their athletics (e.g. ND, Texas).
November 5th, 2021 at 9:38 AM ^
The Buyout Life
November 5th, 2021 at 10:39 AM ^
I mean, a contract is a contract and in a world where football makes a lot of money and these coaches are in high demand when they get hired, the agents have a lot of leverage in negotiating these. It's kind of a supply/demand problem where the demand for a coach that can change your program is so high vs a limited supply. Not saying I love the situation, but the demand for high level college football programs is driving it and I'm not sure how you get out of it. No school is going to band together with their rivals to agree to cap bids on a coach that could potentially change their program
November 5th, 2021 at 10:42 AM ^
Auburn, Nebraska and Texas lead the list.
To anyone who thinks "fire the coach" is a quick program fix. . .
November 5th, 2021 at 11:35 AM ^
In all reality, how many times, over that period, has a program fired a head coach and improved enough for the buyout to be worth it? Outside of Georgia, what other ones are there?
November 5th, 2021 at 12:56 PM ^
Notre Dame.
November 5th, 2021 at 11:39 AM ^
The fact that amount needed to be spent originally and that most states highest paid public employee is a college football coach is, um, ridiculous? I'll ask you to select you own word for it...
November 5th, 2021 at 11:52 AM ^
I’m shocked… shocked to find that gambling’s going on in here!
November 5th, 2021 at 12:07 PM ^
Didn’t ND just get done paying Charlie Weis in the last few years? He hadn’t been at ND for almost 7-8 years and they were still paying him not to coach there.
November 5th, 2021 at 4:14 PM ^
I believe ND finally stopped paying Charlie Weis in late 2016 or early 2017. Either way Bobby Bonilla says hold my beer.
November 5th, 2021 at 1:09 PM ^
Too many long extensions for coaches who aren't far away from the hot seat just because not extending would 'hurt recruiting'.
November 5th, 2021 at 1:22 PM ^
Seems like UC might be on the right track here.
No, not THAT UC. This one:
November 5th, 2021 at 1:56 PM ^
Try to clamp down and big name coaches (more specifically their agents) will push for significantly higher signing bonuses and renewal bonuses, and then more often leave for other jobs with those lower buyouts
November 5th, 2021 at 1:59 PM ^
Mets fans say "hello!"
November 5th, 2021 at 2:01 PM ^
That money also includes men and women's basketball coaches, and thousands of assistant coaches, not just head football coaches. Assistants now regularly receive minimum two year contracts that roll over every year (rather than one year contracts), which is necessary for them to have some stability.
November 5th, 2021 at 2:06 PM ^
Private boosters pay for all of these. If you make hundreds, tens or even just several millions of dollars a year, then donations to your favorite AD are great to way spend cash that would have gone to the tax man anyway.
You get notoriety, free tickets, special perks, meeting with coaches, get wined and dined, maybe an award or two - all for money you wouldn't have been able to keep most of anyway.
November 5th, 2021 at 4:24 PM ^
Getting Weis'd..... when you pay a former coach more money to leave than you actually paid him to coach....
November 5th, 2021 at 7:17 PM ^
"Institutions threw away more than half a billion dollars -- allegedly to maintain their competitive advantages -- on richly-compensated coaches, instead of using the money to support the education, health and safety of college athletes," said Perko.
As if.
And the same could probably said about executive severance packages, especially at the top - all this money that could go to the health, safety, and prosperity of workers (as well as shareholders).
But looking at it another way, if you buy a consumer good outright, (or one with an x-year contract or payment plan), and decide past the warranty period that you're not entirely happy and maybe want something else, unless it is seriously defective (the equivalent of with cause), good luck getting any of your money back.
BTW doesn't this include buyouts? If so, shouldn't buyouts paid by coaches for job upgrades be deducted from this total?