del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Sphere
Yahoo
Google
Email
PrintFeb. 1, 2008
By Brian Curtis
Senior Writer, CSTV.com
BRIAN CURTIS
Curtis is CSTV.com's Senior Writer and CSTV's football and basketball insider.
E-mail
As the business of college football has grown, so too have the pressures of finding and hiring football coaches. CSTV.com examines this trend by looking at the new "kingmakers" in college football, in an exclusive seven part series, from agents to donors to administrators to search consultants to the media; they all play a role in determining who the next man ruling the sidelines on Saturday will be.
Kevin White, heading into his eighth year as athletic director at the University of Notre Dame, has been using a unique study of 1965
Kingmakers: A CSTV.com Exclusive
"The political theorist would argue that folks that are pinnacle players within an organization, institution or even the broader community, should have a strong sense of the process, at a minimum, and participate in the early-on integration of the high profile coach," says the former athletic director at Arizona State, Tulane and Maine. "Simply speaking, these individuals shape and influence the respective environments."
These individuals, pinnacle players, could be big-time benefactors to the university or members of the board of trustees. As White points out, "Pinnacle players' opinions are both widely and quickly syndicated, which will unquestionably impact the launch of a new coach."
So what does this mean for football searches?
First, powerful individuals, whether campus executives, board members or boosters, are certainly involved at some point along the way, either knowingly or in the shadows. Second, every coaching search and university is unique; thus, the particular competing interests and the power relative to certain positions may vary. Third, if you are an athletic director (or a candidate), you better know from the start who your pinnacle players are.
One thing is certain: in a search process, everyone has an agenda. The university administrators want to come out looking good, with a search that was conducted professionally and with the intended result. The coaches who were in the running for a job but didn't get it certainly don't want it known publicly, and the coaches that do want the publicity want it on their terms. The agents will do almost anything to promote their clients and negotiate seven-figure deals. The donors want to believe they have influence, whether they do or not. The search consultants want the schools to be satisfied to get repeat business. The media wants to break the stories and editorialize on the final selections.
But because everyone has their own agenda, they all have different perspectives on who are the true power players in the game. That's why administrators won't admit that donors play a role; why search consultants insist that their way is the best way; why agents will never admit that they do more than simply advocate for the clients; and why the process continues to create news.
"I think schools have to protect their investments as they go forward," says Georgia Tech Athletic Director Dan Radakovich. "With the money being put forth, which is substantial, I think contracts will get more detailed and longer in length. There will be more dotting of the I's and crossing of the T's."
From an agent's perspective, Trace Armstrong is prepared for the repercussions of the salary explosion and of coaches leaving one school for another.
"I think we will start to see a pushback in the industry because of recent events," says Armstrong. "I think contracts will start to get tighter. There will be more language, clearer language on behalf of the colleges. And there will be more severe penalties for coaches leaving or talking with other schools."
As for the process, agent Gary O'Hagan says, "I don't see the process becoming more simple anytime soon."
West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin believes there should be more stringent rules considered by the NCAA to protect players and schools. Perhaps a cap on coaching salaries in I-A football? Or a rule that would force coaches who break contracts to sit for a period of time, similar to players who transfer? And Manchin doesn't intend to just let this go, either.
"I plan to talk to other governors with land-grant, state schools at the National Governors Association to see what we can do," Manchin says. "We can ask the NCAA to get involved."
Based on the more than 30 interviews conducted for this story, there seems to be no consensus as to what comes next. It appears though, that several more subtle changes are coming:
· Contracts will be longer and more complex, with clearer language and harsher penalties for both parties, to prohibit coaches from moving to another school and having to pay a large, enforceable penalty for doing so. In exchange, more of the money owed coaches will be guaranteed.
· Agents will continue to play a vital role, though some agents may pool with colleagues to increase power and consolidate client lists. Some coaches may turn toward lawyers and legal representatives - as opposed to coaching agents - to help them navigate contracts.
· New search firms may enter the marketplace, but the established ones will be hard to beat. Search consultants will also be more diligent in background checks and find creative ways to hide the process and extend their searches beyond athletics.
· Fewer search committees will be used to limit the number of people involved in searches.
· Donors will be donors. Their influence will only grow stronger as their financial resources are counted on to retain and attract coaches.
· The salaries of top assistant coaches will continue to rise, though the explosion of head coaching compensation will begin to level off as more schools face internal pressure to limit athletic expenditures.
· The 24-hour media cycle and the Internet will continue to alter the way searches are conducted, as universities try to protect the process. Because of the media, searches will continue to go faster.
Here is an ideal college football search, in the eyes of NCAA President Myles Brand:
"It would be conducted like a search for the dean of the medical school. You create a diverse, small committee, who evaluate a diverse field of candidates, as the athletic director looks after the daily operations of the search. The committee finishes its work in a few weeks and, with the athletic director, narrows the field to three to five candidates. At this point, the president needs to be directly engaged, meeting with a diverse set of candidates, determining how they could contribute to the university and ensuring that they understand the academic role. Then, with consultation with the AD, makes a decision and begins to negotiate with the candidate."
Perhaps in the future, there will be different kinds of kingmakers than the ones portrayed here. Perhaps, in an ideal world, university executives will be able to conduct thorough, lengthy searches and not have to answer to donors, agents, search firms and the media. For now, however, coaching searches will continue to fascinate. And that's the truth.
