For blue blood schools, for years, the model to follow in hiring a new coach has been “Hire the most proven successful coach you can”. A few years ago, Texas was going to try that with Urban Meyer, even getting a serious offer together, but we were rebuffed.
Here is an observation that I think is right, but y’all might have better info. Texas hiring Sark and Florida hiring Napier are similar strategies. The idea being that each school really decided to reconfigure their football program, boosting support functions (scouting, personnel, analysis) to mimic what Alabama does. The idea is that the tasks have grown too large (recruiting is year round, and you scout the entire nation, HS through college junior year), and organizational roles and responsibilities have to be rethought.
To that end, Florida and Texas hired coaches that didn’t come to the job expecting traditional “King Coach” roles. Sark makes a little less that $6M per year with a buyout of 65% of his remaining contract. Napier makes $7M per year with a buyout rate of 85%. The idea is- they are paid to coach, and they have the senior roles in recruiting, but nobody is asking them review submitted recruit tape, or even make the first down select of positional offers.
(Down the road, Jimbo Fisher operates a traditional “King Coach” role. Have you heard about his contract?)
I think what I’ve posted is right. There isn’t a lot written about this huge shift in philosophy. Is Kirby Smart successful because he successfully imitated the Alabama program at Georgia? I think so, but I don’t know for sure.
Brent Venables makes $7M per year, with no buyout discount. Has OU reconfigured their program, or is it still organized the way Riley left it? I don’t know.
Im curious as to your thoughts.