It is that time of year in college basketball: Universities are considering whether to extend coaches’ soon-to-expire contracts, fire their coaches, or — in an underappreciated move — wait and see.
Coaches rarely enter the final year of their contracts before one of two things happen: Either the coach is fired for not being able to live up to the program’s standards, or the coach is given a contract extension. If a coach receives an extension, it generally happens for one of two reasons: He either did a swell job, or the program wants to avoid having a lame-duck coach.
The lame duck coach situation is a strange, weird, and fantastical debacle. Many people despise the idea of a coach entering his final year of his contract without the extension being added on — which kind of makes the idea of a coach’s final year not even a real thing.
People who oppose having lame-duck coaches cite the negative impact it has on recruiting. The program will lose the ability to recruit the following year if prospects aren’t guaranteed that the coach will come back. That makes sense. It really does. However, it doesn’t actually alter all that much, and that’s what casual observers might not appreciate here.
Would an extension give a coach a better chance to recruit than if he was a lame duck? Of course. However, the alternative to a lame-duck coach is firing said coach and bringing a new one in. The new coach would have to target the incoming class all over again, but would also have the same luxuries as the extended coach would have the following year: an ability to guarantee potential recruits that he is going to be there for the long haul.
It is almost as though universities avoid having a lame-duck coach for the sake of avoiding it… even if it is financially irresponsible to extend a coach they don’t necessarily want, but aren’t really willing to part with. Still, they don’t actually have to part ways at all… because he still has another year on his contract! It is almost as though the second-to-last year in a coach’s contract is the actual last year, not the final one itself.
Programs eventually have to start over at some point anyway, right? Let me use the latest example of a possible coach avoiding lame-duck status by, reportedly, being given an extension in the coming days.
Steve Lavin’s original contract at St. John’s calls on him to go into next season with his deal expiring at the end of it. The athletic department, however, is reportedly going to offer him an extension that is anywhere between 2-4 more years. Yet, some of the same people reporting on the extension are also saying that the athletic department — sans the President, who is reportedly very happy with Lavin — is torn on the issue.
Apparently, the department felt it either had to fire Lavin and start all over or give him an extension. Traditionally speaking, that makes sense. The point being advanced in this piece that it shouldn’t.
Lavin is essentially being given a second chance to rebuild. The St. John’s roster, though, has the potential to be an abomination next season. With a core group of seniors gone; Rysheed Jordan and Chris Obekpa (the only two starters who can come back) having serious pro aspirations and considering the jump; and only one four-star recruit arriving next year, many media members have already stated that they expect the Red Storm to finish dead last in the Big East Conference. That means that a Lavin-extended St. John’s team is likely to lose a lot next year. A year that was supposed to be his last.
Let’s consider this scenario, then: Without an extension, Lavin would have been forced to coach next season as a lame duck. If the season turns out to be as bad as many think, the chances of him being given another contract under such a scenario (in March of 2016) would be slim to none. Yet, because of the extension he is likely to be given in the present moment, Lavin has another chance to rebuild over the course of a few more seasons.
Does that make sense? Of course it doesn’t. Still, because having a lame-duck coach is deemed being the worst thing since Jenny McCarthy started giving health tips, St. John’s will end up stuck with a guy it’s not totally sold on for the future.
Here’s the bottom line: Schools often extend coaches they are unsure of for the sake of not having a lame-duck coach, not for any other reason, especially not their actual level of belief in the competence and quality of their particular coach. That’s just dumb. Eventually, at some point or another, that coach is going to end up getting fired or “retiring” and a complete program rebuild — recruits and all — will have to be led by another coach anyway. All of that defeats the purpose of avoiding a lame-duck coach.
If a program’s sole purpose is to avoid having a lame-duck coach, that program is probably lost. The only time lame-duck coaches should be avoided is if the current coach is the obvious future of the program, the best way for that program to grow. The other option is that you are firing him and starting anew. To give a coach an extension when you’re not sure you really want him, just to avoid the horror show that supposedly is lame-duck coaching, is as mind-boggling as it is backwards.
I’m not an advocate for coaches to get fired. I am, however, a proponent of lame-duck coaches. Let the contract run its course. If a program is happy at the end of it — or extremely happy before it ends — extend the coach. When the contract runs out and the program happens to be displeased, let him walk and start over with a new coach. Extending a coach going into his final year when you’re not fully sold on his abilities is another form of starting over — again, with the same guy, the guy you don’t entirely trust.
Second-term rebuilds! What is college basketball — Congress?