11-27-2012, 09:47 PM
I could be wrong, but the average coaching leash seems to be getting incredibly short. For awhile there the trend seemed to be in the other direction, where the philosophy seemed to be that 3-4 years was not enough to judge someone (with oft-cited anecdotes like Coach K or Frank Beamer among those whose records were bad for several years before improving).Â
Now you have guys like a Tedford, O'Brien, etc, being fired with winning records at schools with really no record of serious achievement. You have a Chizik canned 2 years after winning it all. When we got rid of Walt Harris I seem to recall very few cases ever where a guy got only 2 years based on bad performance (which is why I was surprised when he got canned). Now it seems common, with Embree getting it, same with Turner Gill. Derek Dooley got 3 years out of his 7 year contract.Â
What is driving that? Is based on driving up attendance? Or has the view changed with regard to the ability to evaluate a coach earlier? The buyouts certainly don't seem cheaper.Â
Now you have guys like a Tedford, O'Brien, etc, being fired with winning records at schools with really no record of serious achievement. You have a Chizik canned 2 years after winning it all. When we got rid of Walt Harris I seem to recall very few cases ever where a guy got only 2 years based on bad performance (which is why I was surprised when he got canned). Now it seems common, with Embree getting it, same with Turner Gill. Derek Dooley got 3 years out of his 7 year contract.Â
What is driving that? Is based on driving up attendance? Or has the view changed with regard to the ability to evaluate a coach earlier? The buyouts certainly don't seem cheaper.Â