AZGrizFan said:
Please explain the nuances between “paying” coaches, but “investing in” players.
Also, many many many coaches move up and fail. Many don’t go to a “better place”, nor do their teams perform better. Many don’t make it through their initial contract. Stitt moved up and failed miserably. Hauck had to go to f###[#] Las Vegas to “move up”—and failed miserably. Scott Frost had to go from sunny Florida to freaking NEBRASKA, and still failed. There are countless examples.
It's not just a nuance. Coaches are expected to perform at full speed immediately. There is no redshirting for coaches, or taking a few years to develop and get ready to be a contributor or starter. They are paid for this. It is a job.
Players usually don't become starters or contributors as frosh, or right away. They redshirt. They lift. They learn and develop. During those years, the schools are investing in them.
I don't agree that many many coaches move up and fail, although some do. Stitt was fired; he didn't just move on leave his team. Hauck was not successful at UNLV as head coach, but he did well at SDSU. He was also paid fairly well for his 8 or so years away from UM.
This is not meant as an argument against the Portal or transfer. It's just pointing out the situations of players and coaches are not in fact the same. Also, I don't view college football as job, nor do I think it should be. The unlimited amount of NIL has also created a huge problem, and will skew, and hurt, college sports in the long run.
I believe in amateurism. I don't want colleges to be minor leagues for professional football, or anything close.
The cat is out of the bag. We aren't going back. That's okay with me.