How to Fire a Head Coach | Apple's Seedlings

Head coaches (or field managers or whatever they are called in some sport or other) usually have costly contracts of lengthly duration. Presumably, this is okay if the team is performing well and if the head coach keeps on good terms with the "front office."

But what happens if the coach's team loses more than people think it should, or if there is stress between the coach and the front office? The usual activity when this occurs is for the front office to "buy out" the remainder of the coach's contract, effectively firing him or her and giving a whopping severence pay package.

But one team found a better way. The coach had established a winning record and was a fan favorite, so the usual approach was not available. A strategy had to be developed which would put the coach at the disadvantage. It took a good deal of coordination, but they were able to pull it off.

This was a public institution, so they were able to get many people into discussing contract renewal. These people had different constituencies. They were the governor of the state, the CEO of the institution, and the head of athletics. Each, under the guise of representing their "people," told different stories and wanted different provisions in the wording of the contract renewal.

After the dust settled, there was a provision in the proposed renewal that stated that the head coach would have to pay the institution a sizable indemnity if he left before the term of the contract was up. This was initially unacceptable to the head coach, but upon being assured by one of the negotiators for the institution that it would be removed or eased, the coach agreed to sign the contract.

It should have come as no surpise that the front office immediately began finding fault with the head coach. They not only criticized him publically, but indicated that there would be delays in providing funds and other resources he needed to fulfill his obligations. After more than a year of this, the coach was offered a position at another institution with other considerations such as better compensation and working conditions. He took the position.

Most of us know by this time who the principles in the above story are: Rich Rodriguez moved from head football coach at the University of West Virginia to head football coach at the University of Michigan. In the lawsuits and counter lawsuits that followed, it was clear that the contract he signed ruled (as perhaps it should) and that people told him things with the express purpose of getting him out without having to buy out his contract or incur the animosity of his fan base.

Other schools, professional teams, and the like have certainly learned from this. The day of the team buying out a coach's contract is probably behind us. A coaching job is now a liability and a coach will have to pay the institution which effectively fires him (even though he was forced to resign).One is remined of the line from the folk song "Pretty Boy Floyd": Some men rob you with a six-gun. Some with a fountain pen.

And sports, including players, coaches, fans, and even front offices, are all losers because of this.

Comments (2) Add A Comment

February 24, 2009 02:13 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

It would be a good article IF you had any inkling of what you are trying to talk about here......most of this article doesn't even come close to the actual truth.......just so you can be informed and be able to write an article that IS actually the truth, my suggestion is to read the official court transcripts from the depositions concerning RR.......After seeing what kind of atmosphere that he created at WVU, it is easy to see why UM decided to go ahead and pay the buyout of RR's contract with WVU. The timing is the tale of the true story.......for the simple fact that the buyout was paid the DAY BEFORE UM president and AD were due to testify....which most surely would have brought out the fact as to exactly WHEN RR and UM officials started conversation (was it a violation of ncaa rules?), and the fact as to when RR contacted recruits (PRYOR) and told them that he was headed to UM..BEFORE even telling his own players.
All I can see in this article is the uninformed and biased opinion of someone who hasn't any idea of the actual facts, but decides to go ahead with thier own version which plays good for readers.....fiction, but good.....

shelldawv

Total Comments (50)

February 24, 2009 10:08 PM ET

shelldawv - You make some good points and I appreciate your comments. What motivated me to write the article was the discrepancy between the claims made by UVA and those made by RichRod. The article was an attempt to develop a situation which made both perspectives credible. I did not necessarily feel that it described the situation.

I did not feel that my "reconstruction" was necessarily the case for RichRod, but still feel it is one of several possibilities. (Perhaps I should not have mentioned RichRod, UVA, or UM and just described the events?) It was, indeed, motivated by the hiring of RichRod and I do feel that it describes a possible ploy that some administrations could use to get rid of a popular coach without having to pay a penalty.

I did scan much of the documentation, and I believe that my reconstruction is consistent with what I saw there. That is not to say it is what actually happened. Indeed, since this was written I have come to feel as you do about the situation - except that I feel that not only RichRod and UM's AD Martin were wrong, but that UVA was playing games as well.

The entire "RichRod at Michigan" series is oriented toward explaining my change in attitude from a skeptical acceptance of RichRod as a coach at first to my current position in which I feel he is a fundamentally destructive.