Honor the Contract or Change the System?

In college athletics, few debates stir up as much passion as whether administrators should honor the full length of a coach’s contract. Every hire is a gamble. Some coaches arrive with little proven success at the level they’re stepping into. Others come with résumés full of championships, rebuilds, and turnarounds. Yet in every case, everyone, the administration made the choice. They believed the coach was the right person for the job, or they never would have signed their name on the contract.

A contract, after all, is not a suggestion. It’s a roadmap. When a coach is hired on a three-, five-, or seven-year deal, that length isn’t arbitrary. It represents the time needed to recruit players, build a system, implement a culture, and create the foundation for long-term success. No coach worth their whistle expects instant magic. They build a plan aligned with the years they were promised, or did they? Maybe the administration expected immediate results. Maybe the administration realizes they made a big mistake.

In today’s impatient sports world, many coaches never get the chance to finish what they started. A season and a half in, maybe two years at most, administrators decide that the win-loss record isn’t good enough, the crowd size isn’t big enough, or the social media noise is too loud. So, the coach is dismissed, sometimes with one, two, or even three years left on the contract. If both sides truly agreed on the plan from the start, shouldn’t the coach be allowed to execute it? Unless the coach is failing according to the agreed upon plan.

Legally, the structure is clear. Coaching contracts often include clauses allowing institutions to terminate the agreement without cause, if they pay the agreed-upon buyout. Contracts also outline “for-cause” conditions, major misconduct, violations, or ethical breaches, which allow a school to sever ties without further obligation. Most dismissals fall under the former, not the latter. Consequently, the college writes the check, honors the buyout, and moves on. Reassignment is another option.

Honoring the dollars isn’t the same as honoring the contract. Paying someone to go away may satisfy the legal requirement, but it doesn’t satisfy the ethical one. It raises a bigger question: If a school hires a coach based on a vision that supposedly takes years to fulfill, why abandon the vision before the time is up? Or did they have an agreement to produce immediate results?

Some argue that administrators must react quickly when things go poorly. Others say you can’t preach commitment, stability, and trust to student-athletes while modeling the opposite at the administrative level.

Colleges have every right to make a change if they believe it’s needed. They also have a responsibility to ensure they’ve done their part: reviewing the plan thoroughly on the front end, providing the promised time and resources, and allowing the coach a real chance to succeed. Otherwise, we don’t just fail the coach, we fail the process.

Thought for the Week, “Commitment loses its meaning the moment convenience replaces conviction.” Jack Welch