I love the comprehensive analysis presented by Chris....great food for thought. There is however, one thing he neglected to mention that I think bears some consideration. In the case of both Purnell and
Gregory, the high level of enthusiasm generated by a good season relatively early in their tenures, prompted the University to offer them long-term contracts, ostensibly to prevent them from being poached by a bigger school. In neither case did it keep them from looking for greener pastures at a higher level program. I'm not sure how their records fared after this "job security" was given to them, but I have the gut feeling that in both cases there was a leveling off (coasting?). I wonder if a better incentive would be to grant a significant end-of-season bonus for outstanding seasons but not for average or disappointing ones. One benefit would be that it would not require an expensive "buy-out" if things reached the point where a change was required. Another would be that the coach would know there is a substantial incentive to get better and better, rather than to just remain competitive.