[IrishHand]

I read a great article on ESPN.com about the propensity of coaches to ditch schools, contracts and players in order to get a better college job, or take an NBA job. The article talked about the scorn they tend to get from administrators, players, fans, etc. It focused on the two prime objections - (1) the idea that a coach is acting improperly in ending his multi-year employment contract early, and (2) the idea that the coach is abandoning a group of players to whom he made a personal committment to coach for 4 years - this argument applying with the most vigor to recently-signed recruits who are still obliged to attend that school (or sit out a year).

I agree 100% with the article's conclusions and responses to these points. As regards (1), the article pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of administrators who decry coaches leaving mid-contract. Coaches are fired mid-contract on a regular basis. What's the difference between a coach being terminated for poor performance and a coach moving up for excellent performance? In terms of (2), the same sort of hypocrisy applies on the part of the players. Players tend to stay at a school only for as long as they feel necessary to get them into the NBA draft. Rarely, if ever, does a player's commitment to a coach or a school factor into this decision. They talk to scouts, agents, etc, and decide based on that whether the time has come for someone to show them the money. How often to underachieving players get dropped from scholarships? Very, very rarely. How often do top players leave early or transfer? With shocking frequency.

The moment colleges decide to honor contracts given to coaches, and the moment athletes decide to honor the 4-year agreements they make to coaches and schools will be the same moment I return to my prior approach of decrying coaches for doing what's in their career's best interests.