Will college football’s revenue sharing era usher bloated coaching contracts out of style?

As the college sports world digests Penn State’s decision to pay upwards of $45 million for football coach James Franklin to go away, people around the industry are once again discussing a trend they’ve never been able to stop.

Will the overindulgent coaching contracts with their ridiculously large buyouts ever be curbed?

It didn’t happen during the period of financial strain brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, as schools realized football success was even more important because it was one of the few things that made a profit. But the era of directly sharing revenue with players could finally change the math. At least, they hope.

“For the first time, every dollar in head coach salary is one less dollar that would go to buying you better players,” said one administrator, granted anonymity to discuss the topic candidly.

This fall will be the first coaching carousel cycle since the finalization of the House v. NCAA settlement, which allows each school to pay around $20.5 million to its athletes this year. That money comes directly from the athletic department, and as much as $15 million goes to football at the biggest schools, with boosters and collectives still fighting to find ways to pay above that limit.

When coaches interview for an open job, the money budgeted to spend on the roster is consistently the No. 1 or No. 2 piece of information they want to know, according to people on all sides of coaching searches.

Indeed, one coach who received interest in the last coaching cycle told The Athletic that he turned down an offer of a raise at his current school and told the administration to put that money into the staff and the roster. Schools without truly unlimited resources hope to pitch prospective coaches that it’s better for everyone to put more money into players than the coach’s base salary.

“If you’re a coach, one less million is more we can put into your roster,” the administrator said.

They point to Texas Tech, currently 6-0 and No. 7 in the AP poll, the program’s highest ranking since 2008. Red Raiders head coach Joey McGuire has posted an above-average 23-16 record through three seasons. His $4.5 million salary currently ranks 51st among Football Bowl Subdivision head coaches, according to USA Today’s salary database. Mega-booster Cody Campell and others spent roughly $25 million to retain and beef up the roster in the offseason, and now Texas Tech is one of the best teams in the country.

“Those players can get you that extension or that CFP bonus, all those things,” the administrator said.

This also applies to schools dealing with a coach on the hot seat. Virginia stuck with Tony Elliott last offseason despite a 11-23 record through three seasons in charge. Instead of committing more than $14 million to buy Elliott out, the school and its donors invested into the roster and grabbed quarterback Chandler Morris and other key players out of the portal. The Cavaliers are now 5-1 and ranked No. 18.

College coaching contracts really aren’t like anything else in major sports. NFL teams can’t hire sitting head coaches without permission or a trade. In pro sports, in the business world, in most things, a contract is binding.

But athletic directors have been terrible negotiators for decades, so fearful of losing a winning coach or hurting their recruiting momentum, and coaching agents have pounced. The results were easy outs for coaches and expensive outs for schools — it would’ve cost Franklin just $2 million to leave Penn State on his own for another job.

Coaches and their agents had leverage for decades because the player labor was free. The coach used to control everything. Now, that has changed dramatically.

Joe Moglia, the former Coastal Carolina head coach and CEO of TD Ameritrade, has long railed about the nature of coaching contracts and the damage schools do to themselves.

“(Right now), if you have a great year and somebody wants you, you can leave the next year, and with the portal the way it is, all your best players can come with you,” Moglia said in 2022. “The school you’re leaving is decimated. … If you sign a five-year deal, you’re supposed to be there for five years and nobody can poach you. Nobody should even be allowed to talk to him unless there’s six months left or something. If a guy is doing great and you want to extend him, the guy has to make a real decision. If he thinks he can get a bigger job, he might hold off.

“(But right now), even if the future may be in doubt, they’re encouraged by the agent to extend the contract because of recruiting. That’s bulls—.”

Schools hope the balance may finally shift in this cycle: Instead of asking for so much guaranteed long-term money, put it into the roster and increase the performance incentives. Coaches already get bonuses for championships and various other accomplishments, but they could always dramatically increase that — a bonus for every win past a sixth victory, for example. Another option could be shorter contracts like the NFL. As bad as Bill Belchick’s North Carolina debut has been, only the first three years of his deal are guaranteed.

That is administrators’ optimistic view of the future of coaching contracts, at least. The agents have a different outlook.

The problem for schools is that this carousel is expected to be one of the busiest ever. You need leverage in negotiations, and desirable coaches are about to have a ton of it, especially if a handful of SEC and Big Ten jobs open, as is expected. It will be harder to convince the coach to take that new progressive contract if someone else can land him by doing things the way they’ve always been done.

“There are a number of schools that will do it all and have the ability to do it all,” one agent told The Athletic. “There is a premium for top coaches, and schools will be willing to pay for top talent in all areas.”

Direct negotiations over the money set aside for the roster will happen for the first time on a large scale in this college coaching cycle. Will coaches take less money if it helps them win? Will schools avoid committing to such long guarantees? It’s possible everyone gets smarter about what it takes to win in the new era of college football. It’s also possible short-term hysteria wins out. It always has.