So why aren't there performance clauses in these contracts? Coaches get a golden parachute, that's pretty standard for top executives, but why don't schools do anything at all to protect themselves? Like if he wins 5 games with the talent he's got you'd think you'd be able to fire the guy for being incompetent. I mean whatever, it's hilarious, but I hope we have a way out if our next coach starts to suck.
fsu shouldn't be looking to ditch jumbo because they won't find a better coach, but if they wanted to it would cost them $40 million...and that's just for him not the assistants. Seems like these contracts are a bit one sided. This needs to change. Right after McSharkfcker gets done raping uf on his way out.
Why would any coach agree to a performance clause? These coaches associations and big time agents would never allow that. These Universities agreed to buyouts to keep really good coaches from jumping ship to other institutions and in response these agents wanting to keep a free market system asked for some recourse if the opposite occurred an a coach under-preformed. That established a market that can never be undone.
If UM or any other school tired to have a coach agree to performance incentives they would just get the finger and the coach would find many more opportunities at places that wouldn't include such clause. All it would do is give that institution a bad reputation in a tight knight coaching community as not being fair brokers. These big time agents and coaches have too much power.
Moreover in the event that Universities all agreed to insert performance clauses in their contracts, that would be ground for collusion and they would get sued.