I've written a lot about the whacky market for college football coaches. It's been boiling for a while, but the latest round of coaching changes shows how unseemly this whole game has become. It's become greater than simply hiring a new head coach. It now calls into question not only the direction of the football program, but also the entire university.
Ken Kendrick, described as "a primary West Virginia athletics donor and close friend of Rodriguez," spoke to ESPN's Joe Schad about his discontent with WVU and suggests Rodriguez plans to contest his $4 million buyout. Kendrick claims WVU "baited and switched [Rodriguez]. Rich was boxed in by a university and athletic department that was arrogant, mean-spirited and intellectually bankrupt."
It's a state of affairs by all involved. Kendrick, the former WVU booster and current deflater certainly didn't do his friend nor his once-favorite school any favors by talking to the media. Until the matter is settled, this will cloud Rodriguez and the WVU football program. And who gets screwed the most? The players, of course, who, along with their parents, consistently fall for the "my is as strong as oak" line.
All this reminds me of what George Burns said about a similar enterprise: "In show business, the key word is honesty. And once you've learned to fake it, you're in."
I've been advocating for this for a while, but it bears repeating:
1) College football needs a commish empowered to act in the best interest of the game.
2) As long as the current system allows coaches to get out of signed contracts, football (and basketball players) players deserve the same freedom.
--Marc Isenberg
UPDATE: Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Art Thiel writes an excellent article on athletes deserving the right to change schools if their coach leaves.
I agree that College football needs a commissioner separate from Miles Brand. However, I still am not sure I agree with your second point. We have debated this issue before, and I stand by the fact that if you allow players to leave a school at whim, the whole system will fall into a state of anarchy.
Players will be switching teams constantly whenever there is an opening and based upon the team's success in the prior season. If you think the system is in turmoil due to coaches changing at will, you have no idea what it will be like if we allow players the same option (without any buy-out consequences).
Posted by: Darren | December 18, 2007 at 03:44 PM
Do we know for sure that giving players the freedom to transfer would result in a mass exit? (Everyone said that free agency would ruin sports...but of course it didn't.) Plus is it fair that the transfer rule only applies to men's and women's basketball, football, and men's hockey? BTW--We don't hear about anarchy in others sports where the transfer rule is not imposed.
My point is if coaches aren't subjected to barriers to "transfer," then players shouldn't either. I think a fair compromise would be to allow players to be released from the Letter of Intent or transfer should some material fact change (e.g. coach leaves or is fired or there is an NCAA investigation).
Posted by: Marc Isenberg | December 18, 2007 at 06:23 PM