Just to nitpick with Burger a bit…

He writes to tell us that “Clemson, Inc.” is “out of touch with reality.” And he may have a point. However, these few paragraphs bothered me:

In both cases [Clemson and Tennessee], these coaches were given lucrative, long-term contracts just a year ago when their athletic directors were desperate to keep them. Then, before the next season was over, they were willing to do anything to get rid of them.

In any other business, this would be considered totally irresponsible management.

There are huge transactions costs associated with letting a coach go. A coach can pretty much move around without facing costs outside of a UHaul and realtor fees. Universities, on the other hand, have to find a new coach, and not just a new coach, but one that will hopefully be better than the one that left. Plus you face the cost of always being blamed for letting the coach get away should the program deteriorate. And, on top of that, recruits aren’t going to be keen to commit to a school where they really have no idea if the guy that recruited them will actually still be there when they show up in the fall.

Stability is good, but it isn’t free.

Burger continues:

Truth is, perfectly rational people get very angry when corporate executives receive million-dollar golden parachutes for poor performance and demand that the government step in and stop such stupid behavior.

See what he did there? He said that the behavior demonstrated by the universities wouldn’t fly in “any other business.” So of course he has to compare the universities to other businesses where such behavior is standard operating procedure.

Personally I would like for contracts rely much less on base salary and much more on incentives. However coaches who are at all established and/or their agents are going to sign for guaranteed money.