Why does it work for high school coaches to work on a contract from one year to another, but not for the same principle to be applied at the college level?
Virtually every college head coach in the major men's sports makes more than the President of the United States. There is one President. There are hundreds of college coaches. Based on supply and demand, there should be plenty of coaches -- and aspiring coaches -- who would take on the job for a lot less than universities are now paying.
In 50 years, when we reflect on the year 2012, are we going to find significance in the number of games won by various colleges in our favorite sport or are we going to reflect on the students from those schools who graduated and went on to do great things in life?
Who is proud to acknowledge they are graduates of universities which have been frequent targets of NCAA investigatons, whose coaches have resigned or been fired in the midst of shameful actions or conduct, where student-athletes are routinely in the police blotter or dismissed from the program for infractions that cast a dark shadow over the school?
Why aren't fans of schools which have an exemplary role model as coach, an individual with strong moral values who is committed to doing things the right way, not overjoyed that such a person is on campus and do everything possible to encourage the person to remain at the school?
How many employees have buyout clauses in their contracts? If 99.9 percent of us are fired tomorrow, that's it. We go to the unemployment office and figure out how to make ends meet. Why is it necessary to guarantee someone who coaches and is already making millions of dollars a bonus for being terminated in the cases where those in charge feel he (or she) is not doing the job adequately?