Why Extend Coaches Contracts?

[gmubrian]

What benefit is it to renegotiate/extend contracts with our coaches these days?

For the first time in all my days as a fan of Mason basketball, our Athletic Department executed nearly perfectly in terms of handling our basketball coaches and contract extensions. Our teams performed well and the school not only renegotiated with our coaches, putting the coaches in the top 1/3 of A10 pay, but, they started negotiations well before the season ended. I was so heartened by that on top of all the other moves our administration/athletic department has been making recently. We can’t really ask or much more of them than that can we?

What has it gotten us, though? Absolutely nothing. In fact, you could argue it has gotten us less than nothing since we have a much bigger coaching bill now.
Both coaches, almost immediately, tried to get a job at a different school after signing an extension just days earlier.
Extending their contract didn't seem to buy us any grace period or loyalty, even when one of them is an alumni and former player.
Regardless that we gave them massive raises, they were immediately looking for that next step up.
I guess you could argue that the increased pay limits the competing schools that they might go to, but, I am doubtful that they would make what would likely be a lateral move implied by that level of pay.
It appears obvious they are both going to jump at the first opportunity to make a decent jump up. That means we are pretty much in the same situation we were in before extending their contracts.

In the era where schools will be paying the athletes directly, does, it make sense to get into the arms race trying to keep our current coach when it doesn't seem to extend how long they actually stay at our school?
We are already rebuilding the entire roster almost every year, so, when the current coach leaves it isn’t as big of a deal as it used to be 4+ years ago.
We are now paying our coaches in total, roughly, $1.5M more per year than we would have been had we not extended them.
If, instead, you could redirect that money to fund the revenue share/NIL/pay (whatever we call it), that would be enough to put us in the top tier of the A10 in terms of money for roster building.
Would it be better to just sign the initial contract, and stick to that for as long as the coach stays and keep the savings for revenue sharing/NIL/athlete pay?

Even if we don’t do that, at a bare minimum, we need to start putting much better terms in the contracts For example, if Mason fired Tony tomorrow (April 10), we would owe him $9.5M. If he left Mason tomorrow, he would only owe us $1.2M. We should at least make it match what we have to pay him it we fire him. $9.5M would be a decent deterrent against all but the biggest of schools. $1.2M, not so much.

 

[GunstonsGhost]

Both coaches, almost immediately, tried to get a job at a different school after signing an extension just days earlier.
Extending their contract didn't seem to buy us any grace period or loyalty, even when one of them is an alumni and former player.

It appears obvious they are both going to jump at the first opportunity to make a decent jump up.

I would understand if Tony left for UMD, but it seemed like they were trying harder to pull him and less Tony testing the market. Is there any evidence Tony interviewed anywhere else? I'm sure you have more insight into such matters, but I'd hope Tony wouldn't dip just for a fatter check at any 'ol school.

It's hard to know what would happen if we didn't double his pay, but I'd be willing to bet it would increase his interest in testing the market and text Coach L "same 'ol shit". Hopefully we can continue rewarding his successes, but if not and he leaves for simply more money then you're probably right; just treat the whole department like a revolving door of cheap hookers. Pay em for a season of success and find the next sexier model next year.

 

[gmujim92]

What benefit is it to renegotiate/extend contracts with our coaches these days?

For the first time in all my days as a fan of Mason basketball, our Athletic Department executed nearly perfectly in terms of handling our basketball coaches and contract extensions. Our teams performed well and the school not only renegotiated with our coaches, putting the coaches in the top 1/3 of A10 pay, but, they started negotiations well before the season ended. I was so heartened by that on top of all the other moves our administration/athletic department has been making recently. We can’t really ask or much more of them than that can we?

What has it gotten us, though? Absolutely nothing. In fact, you could argue it has gotten us less than nothing since we have a much bigger coaching bill now.
Both coaches, almost immediately, tried to get a job at a different school after signing an extension just days earlier.
Extending their contract didn't seem to buy us any grace period or loyalty, even when one of them is an alumni and former player.
Regardless that we gave them massive raises, they were immediately looking for that next step up.
I guess you could argue that the increased pay limits the competing schools that they might go to, but, I am doubtful that they would make what would likely be a lateral move implied by that level of pay.
It appears obvious they are both going to jump at the first opportunity to make a decent jump up. That means we are pretty much in the same situation we were in before extending their contracts.

In the era where schools will be paying the athletes directly, does, it make sense to get into the arms race trying to keep our current coach when it doesn't seem to extend how long they actually stay at our school?
We are already rebuilding the entire roster almost every year, so, when the current coach leaves it isn’t as big of a deal as it used to be 4+ years ago.
We are now paying our coaches in total, roughly, $1.5M more per year than we would have been had we not extended them.
If, instead, you could redirect that money to fund the revenue share/NIL/pay (whatever we call it), that would be enough to put us in the top tier of the A10 in terms of money for roster building.
Would it be better to just sign the initial contract, and stick to that for as long as the coach stays and keep the savings for revenue sharing/NIL/athlete pay?

Even if we don’t do that, at a bare minimum, we need to start putting much better terms in the contracts For example, if Mason fired Tony tomorrow (April 10), we would owe him $9.5M. If he left Mason tomorrow, he would only owe us $1.2M. We should at least make it match what we have to pay him it we fire him. $9.5M would be a decent deterrent against all but the biggest of schools. $1.2M, not so much.

Just my 2 cents, but you pay a coach for performance and as a retention incentive. Both Tony and VBL earned significant salary increases by raising the bar for their programs — this signals to players, recruits and coaches that Mason is serious about basketball and will compensate its coaches appropriately for success on the floor.

The reality is we’re never gonna be able to pay enough to keep a coach if a P4 program wants them badly enough — and that goes for all mid-majors, look how many coaches vcu has gone through — but being seen as a place that does right by its coaches expands/enhances the talent pool if they do leave. For $1.8M a year Mason should attract a slew of highly qualified candidates whenever Tony does take another job.

Conversely, good luck hiring a coach who knows how to be successful in this crazy Wild West era of college basketball if your reputation is as a penny-pincher.

 

[JPgmuswim]

Very well thought out view. While the pay bumps may keep some lateral schools from stealing them it is inevitable that if they both have great seasons next year P5’s will come take them. I agree that their contracts should have larger buyouts if they leave early, I’d also love to see the school follow the vcu method on putting a home and home in the clause. We can’t get P5’s to play us at home, put it in the contract.
The fact that we are paying coaches in the top 1/3 of our conference now makes me feel more confident when it comes time to hire replacements it won’t be for lame ducks.

 

[gmujim92]

Very well thought out view. While the pay bumps may keep some lateral schools from stealing them it is inevitable that if they both have great seasons next year P5’s will come take them. I agree that their contracts should have larger buyouts if they leave early, I’d also love to see the school follow the vcu method on putting a home and home in the clause. We can’t get P5’s to play us at home, put it in the contract.
The fact that we are paying coaches in the top 1/3 of our conference now makes me feel more confident when it comes time to hire replacements it won’t be for lame ducks.

As we all know contract terms are negotiated and coaches have agents. I’m sure Mason wanted a bigger buyout but if you have a coach you really want to keep, you have to weigh that against what the coach is willing to accept. I’d rather live with the challenges of having excellent young coaches eager to move up than having mediocre coaches nobody else wants to hire.

 

[illayin]

This isn't exclusive to us. It's all throughout sports. It's in lots of occupations. He outperformed his initial expectations and is growing his resume and respect in the industry. Either we make some attempt to keep up with that or we leave ourselves vulnerable to a school who could even give him the slightest bump up in pay but a much bigger opportunity to advance his career.

So, as an alternative, we could stand pat contract-wise (even with fast forwarding his market value 2 years) and either spend potentially as much money trying to get an up-and-coming coach to replace him or try to hit the bullseye over and over with a cheaper option and be a stepping stone for them as well... and there is a lot of value in certainty and dependability and that is part of what you pay for with an extension. Also, don't forget it's not free to do a coaching search.

Basically, I think there are several intangible aspects that don't get found on a balance sheet. I don't disagree, however, with closing the gap on buyout terms.

 

[psyclone]

What benefit is it to renegotiate/extend contracts with our coaches these days?

For the first time in all my days as a fan of Mason basketball, our Athletic Department executed nearly perfectly in terms of handling our basketball coaches and contract extensions. Our teams performed well and the school not only renegotiated with our coaches, putting the coaches in the top 1/3 of A10 pay, but, they started negotiations well before the season ended. I was so heartened by that on top of all the other moves our administration/athletic department has been making recently. We can’t really ask or much more of them than that can we?

What has it gotten us, though? Absolutely nothing. In fact, you could argue it has gotten us less than nothing since we have a much bigger coaching bill now.
Both coaches, almost immediately, tried to get a job at a different school after signing an extension just days earlier.
Extending their contract didn't seem to buy us any grace period or loyalty, even when one of them is an alumni and former player.
Regardless that we gave them massive raises, they were immediately looking for that next step up.
I guess you could argue that the increased pay limits the competing schools that they might go to, but, I am doubtful that they would make what would likely be a lateral move implied by that level of pay.
It appears obvious they are both going to jump at the first opportunity to make a decent jump up. That means we are pretty much in the same situation we were in before extending their contracts.

In the era where schools will be paying the athletes directly, does, it make sense to get into the arms race trying to keep our current coach when it doesn't seem to extend how long they actually stay at our school?
We are already rebuilding the entire roster almost every year, so, when the current coach leaves it isn’t as big of a deal as it used to be 4+ years ago.
We are now paying our coaches in total, roughly, $1.5M more per year than we would have been had we not extended them.
If, instead, you could redirect that money to fund the revenue share/NIL/pay (whatever we call it), that would be enough to put us in the top tier of the A10 in terms of money for roster building.
Would it be better to just sign the initial contract, and stick to that for as long as the coach stays and keep the savings for revenue sharing/NIL/athlete pay?

Even if we don’t do that, at a bare minimum, we need to start putting much better terms in the contracts For example, if Mason fired Tony tomorrow (April 10), we would owe him $9.5M. If he left Mason tomorrow, he would only owe us $1.2M. We should at least make it match what we have to pay him it we fire him. $9.5M would be a decent deterrent against all but the biggest of schools. $1.2M, not so much.

I would agree that negotiating an extension + pay increase doesn't really guarantee the university that the coach will remain for the length of the extension. I think that's true everywhere and not just in our current situation.

Extensions + increase happen when things are going well and likely ADs at other schools are taking note, as they should if they are being proactive. I'm assuming every coach has an agent and if they are doing their job, they are testing the waters, promoting their client, and seeing if other schools are interested. If they are and an interview is offered, almost every coach will take an interview to test the market (and protect themselves--after all, ADs/college presidents don't stay in one place much longer than coaches--see U Md recent events).

But Mason offering an extension + increase is an (important) expression of good faith from the university -- "we appreciate what you have accomplished here to date and we are committing to you for x+1 years". If the university doesn't extend the current contract, the coach likely reads it as "I'm on the hot seat" and starts actively looking.

Building in a bigger buy-out is a worthwhile idea so the university can protect itself somewhat, but my guess is that the coach's agent may work against agreeing to that unless the market demands it.

(Separate thought--how about buy-outs for players once universities start paying them directly, just like there are buy-outs for coaches?)

 

[Patriot8]

Negotiating a larger buyout, or something like a H&H clause (which in vcu's case can be bought out for 250k) is much easier said than done, and a quick way to lessen the desirability of a job.

Bumping the salary up to 1.7M (which he deserves) makes it an easier decision for him to not go all out and pursue a job like Florida St when they inquire. But, if a job like Maryland calls, I don't care if the ink on the extension is actually still wet, you answer. It just is what it is. I'd much rather have our coaches be in demand than the alternative.

 

[FreeGunston12]

Let’s not overthink this. Be honest, if Skinn wasn’t given an extension then we’d all be up in arms.

 

[gmubrian]

The reality is we’re never gonna be able to pay enough to keep a coach if a P4 program wants them badly enough — and that goes for all mid-majors, look how many coaches vcu has gone through — but being seen as a place that does right by its coaches expands/enhances the talent pool if they do leave. For $1.8M a year Mason should attract a slew of highly qualified candidates whenever Tony does take another job.

Conversely, good luck hiring a coach who knows how to be successful in this crazy Wild West era of college basketball if your reputation is as a penny-pincher.

Past reputation doesn't seem to matter. MD should have a bad reputation, but, many coaches were jumping for it since they were offering money,

I’d rather live with the challenges of having excellent young coaches eager to move up than having mediocre coaches nobody else wants to hire.

... and there is a lot of value in certainty and dependability and that is part of what you pay for with an extension. Also, don't forget it's not free to do a coaching search.

That isn't really the scenario we seem to be in or that I suggested. The extension/extra pay to the current coach didn't seem to help one bit is the point. It didn't add any certainty.

But Mason offering an extension + increase is an (important) expression of good faith from the university -- "we appreciate what you have accomplished here to date and we are committing to you for x+1 years". If the university doesn't extend the current contract, the coach likely reads it as "I'm on the hot seat" and starts actively looking.

Where is the return of the "good faith" by not jumping at the next job that opened up days after your extension?

I'd much rather have our coaches be in demand than the alternative.

We'd all like that, but, that isn't the scenario we appear to be in. Again, it appears our extension hasn't done much to prevent job shopping.

Let’s not overthink this. Be honest, if Skinn wasn’t given an extension then we’d all be up in arms.

Fair point, but, I am not saying we shouldn't have done it. I am saying we have an opportunity to learn from this experience. We don't seem to have gained much, if anything, by doing the extension and need to consider the overall impacts on overall budget with the school is paying the players in the near future. We all know we can't compete with a P4 for coaching money, so, it is time to look at what the right amount to pay a coach when they are going to go to a P4 eventually if they are good.

 

[gmujim92]

Past reputation doesn't seem to matter. MD should have a bad reputation, but, many coaches were jumping for it since they were offering money,


That isn't really the scenario we seem to be in or that I suggested. The extension/extra pay to the current coach didn't seem to help one bit is the point. It didn't add any certainty.

Where is the return of the "good faith" by not jumping at the next job that opened up days after your extension?

We'd all like that, but, that isn't the scenario we appear to be in. Again, it appears our extension hasn't done much to prevent job shopping.

Fair point, but, I am not saying we shouldn't have done it. I am saying we have an opportunity to learn from this experience. We don't seem to have gained much, if anything, by doing the extension and need to consider the overall impacts on overall budget with the school is paying the players in the near future. We all know we can't compete with a P4 for coaching money, so, it is time to look at what the right amount to pay a coach when they are going to go to a P4 eventually if they are good.

We’re now paying the going rate for a high-end A-10 basketball coach. I know it’s a lot more than we’ve ever paid before, but it’s not out of line for our league by any means. Should we purposely pay less to have a worse coach?

 

[mkaufman1]

Great discussion and there really isnt a right or wrong answer. A lot of solid points here.

I will always be of the group that thinks Mason should do whatever they can to compete and within their control. As many have said, Mason did everything they could with Tony in terms of salary (and VBL) showing commitment and respect. In this absurd landscape thats the best they can do. Our coaches will inevitably dart one day, but if Mason does what they can, I will be a lot less upset. This includes higher buyout, home and home clause, etc etc

It wont prevent job shopping or poaching. Thats just how the game works. In addition though, we now have seen that Mason can and will commit serious dollars. Even when Tony and VBL dart, we would be shopping in a significantly different aisle. A program starts with a coach and commitment from the top.

Its very very tough to be a fan of college basketball, and it most likely will continue to get worse. This is my opinion and my opinion only.

 

[Patriot8]

It wont prevent job shopping or poaching. Thats just how the game works. In addition though, we now have seen that Mason can and will commit serious dollars. Even when Tony and VBL dart, we would be shopping in a significantly different aisle. A program starts with a coach and commitment from the top.

Exactly. You know why you extend coaches contracts and give them well-deserved raises? Because when you do that, you elevate the stature of your program and increase desirability to potential HC replacements.

ESPECIALLY in a market where your mid-major HC can leave and get a HM assistant job that pays them 1M+.

 

[gmubrian]

We’re now paying the going rate for a high-end A-10 basketball coach. I know it’s a lot more than we’ve ever paid before, but it’s not out of line for our league by any means. Should we purposely pay less to have a worse coach?

You are altering the scenario. Again, we aren't getting a worse coach. We paid our current coach more and he still jumped at the one job that fit his current parameters. He didn't get that job so he is still our coach. The increased money had nothing to do with it. The odds are that he would still be our coach at his previous contract level.

This whole thread is my version of moneyball for basketball (credit to someone else for that analogy who shall remain nameless so he isn't implicated in this).

To take the discussion more in the direction I was I intended, I'll ask the question a different way to see how you guys would run the program. Here is the scenario:
Let's say that Mason has pool of money in the amount of $3.5M for the combination of men's basketball head coach and players pay.
Assume that GW and, more importantly, vcu have $3.5M for players alone. Their current head coaches salaries don't come out of that $3.5M.
We expect that if our coach is reasonably successful, that, he will be leaving every 2-4 years.

If you are the AD, how do you split the money into two pools, head coach and players?
If you are the coach, and somehow you have control over it, how do you do the split?

 

[mkaufman1]

You are altering the scenario. Again, we aren't getting a worse coach. We paid our current coach more and he still jumped at the one job that fit his current parameters. He didn't get that job so he is still our coach. The increased money had nothing to do with it. The odds are that he would still be our coach at his previous contract level.

This whole thread is my version of moneyball for basketball (credit to someone else for that analogy who shall remain nameless so he isn't implicated in this).

To take the discussion more in the direction I was I intended, I'll ask the question a different way to see how you guys would run the program. Here is the scenario:
Let's say that Mason has pool of money in the amount of $3.5M for the combination of men's basketball head coach and players pay.
Assume that GW and, more importantly, vcu have $3.5M for players alone. Their current head coaches salaries don't come out of that $3.5M.
We expect that if our coach is reasonably successful, that, he will be leaving every 2-4 years.

If you are the AD, how do you split the money into two pools, head coach and players?
If you are the coach, and somehow you have control over it, how do you do the split?

For me you have to start with the coach. If you don't have the right coach and dont pay him on market you aren't getting anywhere. You have to play for the now, and you worry about later, later. I have always said you can have shiny objects, but if you dont hire the right coach (and obviously pay them appropriately), you won't get very far.

If we are talking numbers and lets say 1.7 is market, you start with 1.7 which gives you about 1.8 roughly to pay the players. Now the next question is "Is 1.8 enough to pay players?" I have no idea if thats enough, and it may not be but you have to find a way to make it work, find the right fits and coach up your talent.

You always have to live in the now, because you dont' know what tomorrow brings in sports.

 

[TheStringer]

For me you have to start with the coach. If you don't have the right coach and dont pay him on market you aren't getting anywhere. You have to play for the now, and you worry about later, later. I have always said you can have shiny objects, but if you dont hire the right coach (and obviously pay them appropriately), you won't get very far.

If we are talking numbers and lets say 1.7 is market, you start with 1.7 which gives you about 1.8 roughly to pay the players. Now the next question is "Is 1.8 enough to pay players?" I have no idea if thats enough, and it may not be but you have to find a way to make it work, find the right fits and coach up your talent.

You always have to live in the now, because you dont' know what tomorrow brings in sports.

Exactly, we could pay 1.8 for FKE or 1.8 for CTS and even though we've spent the same money on a coach and the same money on players, id bet 9/10 times the team coached by Tony Skinn is better and wins more.

 

[dr. gunnie]

Tough to come up with the ideal split between spending on players and coaches. I think we are close to our ceiling on the coaching side. I wouldn't want to spend any more than the 2 mil ballpark just because I think you can find other young coaches that can produce comparable results for less. Hiring a new coach for 1 mil and having another 1 mil to spend on players in this hypothetical would make more sense to me (if Tony were to leave).

If we continue to do well, Tony will leave at some point. While we might get the hometown discount for some jobs, if an ideal situation opens up for him he is going to be gone. The good news is I don't think there is a more ideal job for Tony than the Maryland job and that's filled... maybe Georgetown? He obviously loves the area and recruits the area very well. But with a young family/kids, the Maryland job would allow them to stay in the same schools, wouldn't even have to move right away. I guess my point is I don't blame him for going after that job. Now, if he is going after any P4 job that opens, I might get a little pissed - but I'm not for Maryland. It would have been perfect for him. That being said, the grass isn't always greener *cough* KE *cough*.

 

[2011WinOverVillanova]

What benefit is it to renegotiate/extend contracts with our coaches these days?

For the first time in all my days as a fan of Mason basketball, our Athletic Department executed nearly perfectly in terms of handling our basketball coaches and contract extensions. Our teams performed well and the school not only renegotiated with our coaches, putting the coaches in the top 1/3 of A10 pay, but, they started negotiations well before the season ended. I was so heartened by that on top of all the other moves our administration/athletic department has been making recently. We can’t really ask or much more of them than that can we?

What has it gotten us, though? Absolutely nothing. In fact, you could argue it has gotten us less than nothing since we have a much bigger coaching bill now.
Both coaches, almost immediately, tried to get a job at a different school after signing an extension just days earlier.
Extending their contract didn't seem to buy us any grace period or loyalty, even when one of them is an alumni and former player.
Regardless that we gave them massive raises, they were immediately looking for that next step up.
I guess you could argue that the increased pay limits the competing schools that they might go to, but, I am doubtful that they would make what would likely be a lateral move implied by that level of pay.
It appears obvious they are both going to jump at the first opportunity to make a decent jump up. That means we are pretty much in the same situation we were in before extending their contracts.

In the era where schools will be paying the athletes directly, does, it make sense to get into the arms race trying to keep our current coach when it doesn't seem to extend how long they actually stay at our school?
We are already rebuilding the entire roster almost every year, so, when the current coach leaves it isn’t as big of a deal as it used to be 4+ years ago.
We are now paying our coaches in total, roughly, $1.5M more per year than we would have been had we not extended them.
If, instead, you could redirect that money to fund the revenue share/NIL/pay (whatever we call it), that would be enough to put us in the top tier of the A10 in terms of money for roster building.
Would it be better to just sign the initial contract, and stick to that for as long as the coach stays and keep the savings for revenue sharing/NIL/athlete pay?

Even if we don’t do that, at a bare minimum, we need to start putting much better terms in the contracts For example, if Mason fired Tony tomorrow (April 10), we would owe him $9.5M. If he left Mason tomorrow, he would only owe us $1.2M. We should at least make it match what we have to pay him it we fire him. $9.5M would be a decent deterrent against all but the biggest of schools. $1.2M, not so much.

I think at bare minimum we need that home game clause. It’s not like we’ve been setting the world on fire with our home out of conference slate against the ferrums and coppin states of the world.

 

[gmubrian]

For me you have to start with the coach. If you don't have the right coach and dont pay him on market you aren't getting anywhere. You have to play for the now, and you worry about later, later. I have always said you can have shiny objects, but if you dont hire the right coach (and obviously pay them appropriately), you won't get very far.

If we are talking numbers and lets say 1.7 is market, you start with 1.7 which gives you about 1.8 roughly to pay the players. Now the next question is "Is 1.8 enough to pay players?" I have no idea if thats enough, and it may not be but you have to find a way to make it work, find the right fits and coach up your talent.

You always have to live in the now, because you dont' know what tomorrow brings in sports.

You kind of cheated by choosing Tony's salary exactly. LOL. I guess I wasn't specific enough. Let's say we lost Tony to MD this year and we need to hire a new one. What is your allocation for the new coach? For reference, Eric Olen was successful at UC San Diego this year and jumped to New Mexico. I'd say that is a reasonable type of target when we are searching for a new coach. His new salary at New Mexico is $1.2M.

Are you still offering your new coach $1.7M or more of the going rate for a successful coach from a step below. If you paid him $1.2, you have $2.3M for players.

 

[gmubrian]

Tough to come up with the ideal split between spending on players and coaches. I think we are close to our ceiling on the coaching side. I wouldn't want to spend any more than the 2 mil ballpark just because I think you can find other young coaches that can produce comparable results for less. Hiring a new coach for 1 mil and having another 1 mil to spend on players in this hypothetical would make more sense to me (if Tony were to leave).

Thanks for not cheating like Matt . I am in the same ballpark as you. We should be able, in today's dollars, to hire the next up and coming coach in the $1M range.