“The Biggest Hire in School History”: Considering the Factors Influencing the Hiring of a Major College Football Coach The purpose of this case is to illuminate the numerous factors administrators must consider when conducting and completing a coaching search. Specifically, participants are instructed to use Kellison’s (2013) ethical decision-making process framework to guide their analysis when deciding on, and eventually hiring, a head coach at an exceedingly visible university and athletic department. A hypothetical situation was created based on actual events that took place during a highly publicized head coach search in a major university football program. In all, participants will be immersed in the process of identifying, interviewing, and ultimately choosing a new head coach for their highest revenue-generating program during the most important time in the history of the university and athletic department. Keywords: ethics, ethical decision making, personnel hiring, risk management, intercollegiate athletics Whitfield University athletic director Gil Washington just received the news. His football coach of five seasons, Joe Greer, announced he was taking a job with powerhouse Cameron University despite offers of a five-year contract extension and additional bonuses. Washington couldn’t fault Greer for his decision. The coach had earned numerous accolades, transforming a 3–9 team the year before his arrival into a perennial winner. During his tenure, the team achieved a 39–14 record, won two conference championships, and received three major bowl game invitations. This season the team again won its conference and was invited to play in its biggest bowl game. The team faced Bryce University in a primetime matchup, and most pundits viewed Whitfield as the underdog, a classic David versus Goliath situation where the team had no chance of winning. The Whitfield players were not daunted, and beat Bryce with a final score of 44–18. The win vaulted Greer further into the limelight. Lauded as an astute manager of players both on and off the field, his name was frequently mentioned as a potential coaching candidate at multiple universities. Yet he remained committed to Whitfield—until he received the offer to end all offers to become the head coach of Cameron University. Washington and the university president attempted to counter this offer and persuade Greer to stay. However, the coach viewed the Cameron job as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, thanked the athletic director and president for their support, and departed for his new coaching position. This move left Washington with a big decision to make. He wanted to continue what the president had described as “advanced acceleration” across the university. Over a five-year period, the university had taken major strides to transform its image from a local commuter school into an established research institution with competitive academic and athletic programs, and Washington played an instrumental in the athletic department’s transformation. The athletic department benefited from a favorable perception on campus and among local residents. Within the department, the football program represented a standout. Historically, Whitfield was viewed as a strong basketball school, but during the last five years the football program made advances toward regional and national prominence. The recent win against Bryce launched the program onto the national stage, helping Washington recruit students outside the region and retain some of the best players in the team’s home state. With these improvements, the football team gained greater exposure on campus, where previously the program stood in the shadows of the more popular basketball team. The players and coaches now were well received and seen as part of the heightened emphasis on improving all of the sports programs on campus. Talks had resumed about expanding the football stadium a second time, and a new academic center was in the works. The student body proved enthusiastic, rallying around the team and getting more excited about what it could do in the upcoming season. The latest development for Washington and his staff was the athletic department and university’s move to a major conference. This was not the university’s first conference move, and the previous shifts had opened more doors for Whitfield, leading the football team to win its first major bowl game under the supervision of former coach Adam Miles. While this move would not take place until after the conclusion of the upcoming academic year, Washington began taking the necessary steps to prepare his teams for the transition. Part of this game plan included having Greer at the helm of the football team. Thus, when the coach announced his departure for Cameron University, Washington quickly began to look for a new coach that would continue the momentum that Greer had generated. Before Greer’s arrival, the football team arguably was embattled. The previous coach departed with a 10–26 record, going 3–9 in his last season. These circumstances were in stark contrast to fan expectations, and attendance declined to less than 20,000—less than half of the stadium’s capacity—for the final game of his tenure. Washington wanted to avoid a reoccurrence of these events, and reminisced about a more successful time in the football program’s history with Coach Adam Miles. For four years, Miles led the Whitfield team. He was viewed as a winner in college football and later used his winning ways to land a coaching position in the National Football League (NFL). Industry analysts applauded Miles for his innovative offensive approaches, which were considered among the best in the nation. Known for frequently running up the score, he was a hard-charging coach who placed great emphasis on success. With a 41–9 record, Miles won the vast majority of his games at Whitfield. The university and residents cheered the team’s efforts, and viewed Miles as instrumental to the program’s athletic ascendency and national standing. These successes led the university to approve an expansion of the football stadium. The $45 million project would increase seating capacity to 45,000. These achievements also prompted Miles to consider his possible options—whether to stay with the university or seek a new opportunity elsewhere. Miles ultimately chose to leave Whitfield for the NFL, but his professional football career was short-lived. The coach remained for two seasons, going 8–24. He retreated to the collegiate coaching ranks, where he assumed the head coaching position at a historically strong football program, but one that had suffered in recent years. In a short period of time, Miles returned the team to its previous status within a notoriously difficult conference. Accolades included playing in two major bowl games and securing a place in the Associated Press Top 10 for most of his fourth season. Fans returned in droves to the stadium, which reported 95% capacity since his arrival. Athletic merchandise sales as well as enrollment and tuition revenues were on the rise. However, all of these positives came to a halt with unexpected news. In the summer after his fourth season, Miles was implicated in an embezzlement scandal. The wife of his closest friend was employed by the athletic department, and used the department’s purchasing card to buy personal items totaling $270,000 over a three-year period. Miles did not actively take part in this activity, but turned a blind eye when rumors started to surface. Additional details indicated that the coach misled the athletic director, first saying he knew nothing about this activity, then offering a series of misleading statements, and finally admitting to knowing the full details. The athletic director was understandably upset by this turn of events. Noting the breach of trust—on top of questionable decision making—the athletic director felt that he had no choice but to terminate Miles with cause. Back at Whitfield University, after the departure of Coach Greer, Washington began his search for a new coach. He knew all eyes were on him as he made this monumental decision. On the one hand, he knew he could not rush his selection. He needed to find the best coach possible: one that could continue the momentum and lead the program into a new era. The move to a new conference provided evidence of the department and university’s growing reputation. In fact, the conference commissioner said that in making a decision to add the university, he and the other conference institutions considered Whitfield’s academic, athletic, and extracurricular offerings; position in the community; and ability to complement the currently strong conference beyond the sports it provided. Whitfield met these requirements with higher enrollments and a better caliber of students. The university president and administrators also believed the athletic department was part of this complete package. The athletic director also felt his department was critical to a successful conference transition—making the hiring decision even more important. He recognized that his previous coaching hire between Miles and Greer had left the program in disarray and fans unhappy with the lack of successes. Their unhappiness was magnified by rising expectations following Miles’s performance. While not wanting to rush this decision, time was of the essence. In this year’s coaching carousel, big name coaches were on the market and high-profile programs were on the hunt. Several internal options also were available among the current Whitfield staff. Many viewed the current coaching staff as replete with talent, and conceivably one of the coordinators could step into the head coaching position. Ethical Decision Making and Risk Management In addition to selecting a coach who can win, Washington needs to consider the ethical consequences of his choice. As Kellison (2013) stated, “the public visibility of sports teams . . . presents managers of those teams with immense pressure to make rational and sound decisions” (p. 357). Regardless of who Washington chooses to hire, his decision will have implications and consequences for both internal and external stakeholder groups of the athletic department. The members of internal stakeholder groups, such as coaches, administrators, and student-athletes, will be affected. External stakeholder groups, such as boosters, fans, corporate sponsors, and conference administrators, will certainly be interested in the hire, considering how much revenue generation and publicity is tied to a university’s football program. With so many ethical issues in the fold, Washington could and should adhere to an established ethical decision-making model to help him decide whom to hire. Washington needs to consider the public perception of the hire, the scrutiny of his hire and of the new coach’s actions on and off the field, and the potential for a smooth transition into a new conference. The ethical decision-making process (EDMP; Kellison, 2013) framework is a linear representation of the litany of factors sport managers must consider when making important choices for their organization (such as hiring a new head football coach). Washington would be well suited to consider all the components of the EDMP when selecting among qualified candidates. As indicated in the Figure 1, there are two stages of the EDMP process. Stage 1 encompasses the actual process of ethical decision making. Stage 2 addresses the reactions to the process (Kellison, 2013). Following the linear. representation of the EDMP model, the decision maker first takes into account the public visibility of his decision and then considers who will hold him or her accountable for this decision. Based on the increased visibility of the athletic department at Whitfield, there is clearly significant public visibility for the program and the onus is on Washington to hire a coach who will continue the program’s recent success as the athletic department transitions into a new conference. After taking the first two constructs of public visibility and accountability into consideration, the decision maker then has to anticipate both the public scrutiny and the economic impact of the different potential decisions on hiring one of the coaching candidates. With millions of dollars on the line with conference realignment, Washington’s selection will face public scrutiny. The decision maker has to make a decision, knowing that he or she will have to deal with positive and negative reactions from both internal groups and external groups. Washington needs to address the interests of the student-athletes and of the athletic department employees. At the same time, he needs to satisfy the fans, boosters, university officials, and corporate sponsors. The priorities of the internal and external groups could differ, and the decision may not appeal to every group. Regardless of Washington’s hire, there will realistically be some unsatisfied stakeholders. Thus, internal and external relations will be important after the decision is made, and the decision maker will have to use political skill to address negative reactions from the aforementioned internal and external groups. Further, Washington must consider the inherent risks that come with hiring each of the candidates. Without a “surefire” prospect in the applicant pool, the athletic director and his staff must weigh the risks each coach carries against the potential rewards he can bring to the Whitfield football program. As is noted earlier, this hire is arguably the most significant in university history in light of the momentum the team currently has and its imminent move to a nationally renowned, more competitive conference. The enormity of the situation is not unlike the University of Arkansas in 2012 when sport media personality Paul Finebaum stated, “(The Arkansas athletic director) is about to make not only the most important decision in his career, but the most important decision in the history of the University of Arkansas football program” (Harris, 2012, para. 6). Washington is feeling much of that same pressure, as the stakes are as high as they have ever been for Whitfield University and its athletic program. The Coaching Hiring Process Whereas hiring a coach can generate a lot of excitement for fans, athletic directors and others behind the scenes experience a very different set of circumstances. Those involved know that the process takes considerable time, resources, and energy to select the best hire. Lisa Love, former athletic director at Arizona State University, said, “It’s an allconsuming process. That’s all you do all day, every day. Fluidity is important, research is important. The only way you’re going to be able to do it is to be at it 24/7” (Withers, 2012). Even with this dedicated effort, the end result may not provide what the athletic department and university desire, and they may be forced to restart the entire process just a few short years later. Financial Implications Athletic departments are on a relentless search to find the best talent, particularly with their football coaches who can provide a tremendous amount of visibility and attention for the program and the athletic department as a whole. Dosh (2013) reported that college athletics often serve as a gateway to the university, and a successful football program could offer a very visible first point of contact. Part of this heightened attention stems from the football’s potential revenue generation, a critical component for an athletic department. For example, the University of Oregon’s football team accounts for 70% of the athletic department’s revenues, and those resources are used to support 19 sports programs (Kramer, 2013). Similar trends exist with other universities. The most successful football programs can help fund the entire athletic department, and the stakes can be exceptionally high for athletic directors, who must move at a feverish pace to select the best coaches to lead those programs (Brady, Berkowitz, & Upton, 2012). Of course, some coaching hires have proven better than others, and the ramifications of mediocre performances or off-the-field problems can be significant. When the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill fired its football coach, Butch Davis, for allegations of academic misconduct, the athletic department was confronted with a $2.7 million buyout of his contract, stagnant ticket sales and donations, and $70 million in debt for a stadium expansion—a project agreed upon in happier times (Dosh, 2013). Coaches leave—or are asked to leave—their football programs, and athletic departments face the sizeable task of having to reverse the slide and rebuild the trust of players, university officials, donors, and the larger community. Conversely, some of the best hires in recent history include Nick Saban of the University of Alabama and Urban Meyer of the University of Florida and the Ohio State University. Evidence of their achievements abounds. Alabama’s 2012–2013 athletic department revenues exceeded $143 million, a 16% annual increase from the previous year. A sizeable portion of Alabama’s financial success corresponds with Saban’s tenure, which includes three national championships, a football stadium expansion, and a lucrative television contract as part of the Southeastern Conference (Solomon, 2013). Meyer achieved a 65–15 record and two national championships with Florida, followed by a 24–2 record at Ohio State (Myerberg, 2013), and his wins at Florida translated into greater ticket sales, student enrollments, and donations to the university (Saraceno, 2007). Undoubtedly, the financial implications of a positive hire are significant, and the best coaches receive considerable financial compensation for their efforts. USA Today reported that in 2006 over 40 football coaches earned $1 million or more annually. Six years later, a similar number of coaches earned twice as much, with over $2 million annually (see Table 1). Also reaping the benefits are assistant coaches, who witnessed their salaries grow at a healthy clip during this same time period (Brady et al., 2012). With these hefty financial investments, athletic departments and universities are cognizant of the importance of selecting wisely to ensure they receive an adequate return on their investments. Football Program SWOT Analysis Beyond these financial implications, athletic directors have to consider whether the coach would be a good fit with the football program, athletic department, university, and community; work well with the players and other athletes; and offer his constituents positive outcomes on a longer-term basis. As part of this assessment, Washington developed a SWOT analysis to capture the football program’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. He wanted to use this information to evaluate how each potential candidate could leverage the program’s strengths and opportunities while helping to mitigate its weaknesses and threats. Strengths. The athletic department in general and the football program more specifically were perceived favorably on campus, in the community, and beyond. The athletic director viewed the football program as up-and-coming with a number of recent accomplishments. These results helped spur positive support from the athletic department and university. In addition, fans embraced the program, as they too enjoyed the growing momentum. They showed greater support by attending more games and promoting the team. The university benefited through the recruitment of better players and an upturn in general student body applications and enrollments. These positive outcomes and reception paved the way for Washington to pursue a coach with significant experience and prominence. Weaknesses. On the other hand, the program had a number of weaknesses. Traditionally, Whitfield was not viewed as a powerhouse football institution. The team had played in some historically weak conferences, which limited its perceived ceiling for growth within the national football community. As a result of these perceptions, the football program faced challenges with attracting high school recruits from talent hotbeds such as Florida and Texas. While the program had made some inroads into these areas, a more concerted effort would be required if the team wanted to compete in another major bowl game. The program also faced competition from other sports. In the past, fans had placed more emphasis on basketball—particularly when the football team was losing—and the athletic director believed support was not as strong for the football program in comparison with other conferences and teams. Opportunities. Despite these challenges, Washington wanted to focus on the growing number of positives. First, the university was moving to a much stronger conference, which would afford the department more conference money through more lucrative television contracts, a higher level of play, and greater exposure for all sports. This move would give a new coach the opportunity to recruit better players by leveraging the team’s existing pipeline and identifying new ones. A palpable level of excitement existed among spectators, who were asking for more season tickets. For those watching at home, they too would benefit from more chances to see the team play in high-profile settings on national television. Threats. Moving into a better conference provided opportunities, but also a number of threats. The football program now would face teams with storied performances and a greater number of athletes who would eventually play in the NFL. This could translate into losing more games, at least at the outset. More losses could upset spectators, who were buying tickets and donating to the athletic department at a faster pace. A new coach also would mean potentially losing connections with recruits garnered through Miles’s pipeline. While the athletic director would try to select a coach with the best fit, players ultimately may not work as well with their new leader. The next coach certainly would offer risks, but also the potential for greater rewards. The athletic director knew he needed someone who would be willing to embrace the challenge. With these thoughts, he began to search for possible candidates. Advisory Board and Search Firm Washington knew he could not make this decision alone, and worked with the university president to develop an advisory board, which included several members of the university’s board of trustees and community leaders to gain their insights and perspectives. Advisory boards are often used when hiring a new football coach, as they can help gather input from a variety of stakeholders (Kramer, 2013). The EDMP framework captures this directive, as decision makers must deal with internal and external constituents and work to balance their varying needs as they decide whom to interview and hire. The advisory board’s first task was to decide whether to hire a search firm to assist with the process, and a number of pros and cons existed with this decision. Advantages included having access to an unbiased third party and using its considerable experience with the hiring process. The firm could identify and screen potential candidates through background checks and interviews. The athletic director wanted to ensure that he had the most complete and qualified roster of candidates. Yet this expertise came with a hefty price tag, and could range from $25,000 to $200,000, depending on the types of services selected (Kramer, 2013). Washington also felt a search firm might be constrained in terms of identifying potential candidates. He believed some provided a limited number of options—typically, the most popular candidates that appeared on every team’s wish list. Thus, Washington felt he might benefit from identifying more options through personal connections or looking for potential “diamonds in the rough” that might give him an advantage over other teams. Some candidates were quite vocal about their interest in a head coaching position. Washington knew that others might take more convincing. However, he felt confident that if he showed candidates the program, facilities, and all that the university and community had to offer he could present a beneficial package. He also knew that several coaches on the current staff might be viable replacements, given their performance to date and detailed knowledge of the team’s current offensive and defensive schemes. Several of them had mentioned their interest in stepping into this position, should the opportunity arise. After further consideration, Washington and the advisory board decided to not hire a search firm. They felt they could identify and vet the best candidates. The money saved would go toward the new coach’s financial package, and the advisory board felt comfortable with this decision. From previous experience, the athletic director knew he had a lot to consider with each potential candidate. Each year the stakes grew higher as turnover occurred within athletic departments across the nation, and the coaching carousel continued to move at an increasingly rapid pace. The numbers reflected this pace with 26 new coaches hired in 2011–2012 (Withers, 2012), 30 in 2012–2013 (ESPN, 2013), and 20 in 2013–2014 (Kirk, 2014), as listed in Table 2. Following news of other coaching hires closely, Washington wanted to develop a recipe for success while avoiding some perceived pitfalls. There were numerous questions to consider, and included the following: • What is the coach’s current resume? What type of coaching experience does he possess at the collegiate and/or professional levels? What effect did he have on and off the playing field in his previous roles? • • • Does the coach represent a good fit for the athletic department and university? Would his peers, players, and colleagues embrace him? Would he embrace the athletic department and university’s current philosophies? What staffing decisions would be made? Would the coach retain all or part of the existing staff, or would he express an interest in starting with a new staff? What recruiting skills and assets does the coach bring? Could he tap into the program’s existing pipeline as well as leverage his existing pipeline and/or create new ones? • For internal candidates, would this individual possess the necessary skillset to advance to a head coaching position? Could he continue to work productively with the existing staff? • What interest does the coach have in the program and moving to this community? Does he have personal and/or professional ties to this area? Does he perceive the position as long term or a stepping stone to another opportunity elsewhere? • What demands would the coach have in terms of salary, benefits, and other needs? • What financial benefits could the coach bring to the university in terms of revenue generation (ticket sales, donations, merchandise sales)? • How would internal (players, students, athletic department) versus external (fans, donors, sponsors, community leaders) stakeholders perceive and receive the coach? Would he have the ability to generate excitement from the outset and make an immediate impact? Potential Coaching Candidates Through his conversations with peers, personal knowledge, and insights received from others, Washington developed an initial list of candidates, and started contacting them to gauge their interest and what it would take for them to join the university. He ultimately winnowed the list down to a smaller number of options. Washington knew that he could take longer to search for and interview more people, but at the same time wanted to move quickly. The longer he waited, the fewer options he might have—and the price of those options might continue to rise as bidding wars erupted for the most coveted candidates (Withers, 2012). A list of possible coaches was reviewed by the advisory board, which gave the athletic director its blessing to proceed with the selection process. Final interviews and background checks were conducted for six candidates, and the advisory board turned to the athletic director, who would make the ultimate decision. Mike Monroe Caucasian Male Mid 50’s, Offense Emphasis Media Reaction: “The Boring Hire” Salary Demands: Minimum two-year contract, $1.5 million a year guaranteed Current Position: Offensive Coordinator at Whitfield University Notes: Coach Monroe has served as the offensive coordinator at Whitfield University for the last three years. He has been widely praised as a player’s coach who has the respect of the team and has a good relationship with the local media. However, fans did begin to question his offensive schemes when the team struggled to score at times last season (even though the team was still generally successful). Monroe often served as the focal point for criticism of the offense when it underperformed. Previously, Monroe was the offensive coordinator at two other successful Bowl Championship Series (BCS) institutions and a head coach at the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) level (over 15 years ago). Hiring Monroe would be viewed as a safe, conservative decision with little baggage. The fan base might be less enthusiastic about the hire in comparison with other candidates, but the vast majority of current players would likely support him and choose to remain with the program. He is generally considered to run programs “the right way” and would likely be the cheapest option in terms of salary of any of the finalists. He is known to be strict on his players and the likelihood of off-the-field transgressions by players and coaches would be minimal. Shane Reynolds African-American Male Mid 50’s, Defense Emphasis Media Reaction: “The Safe Hire” Salary Demands: Minimum two-year contract, $2 million a year guaranteed Current Position: Defensive Coordinator at Whitfield University Notes: Coach Reynolds has served as the defensive coordinator at Whitfield University for the last three years. As with Monroe, the players are comfortable with his schemes and would support his hiring. He has a long track record as a defensive position coach for major BCS and NFL teams. He was a standout player but has no previous head coaching experience and is still relatively new as a coordinator. He is known as a good recruiter and would run the program in a very similar fashion as the previous coach. Hiring Reynolds would be viewed as a safe, conservative decision with little baggage. In general, the fan base would react favorably to the hire and the vast majority of the players would support the hire and choose to remain with the program. The program would continue to be run in much the same way, as Reynolds would bring sustained stability. In addition, the university could receive public relations benefits from hiring a minority coach. He is known to be strict on his players and the likelihood of offthe-field transgressions by players and coaches would be minimal. Adam Miles Caucasian Male Early 50’s, Offense Emphasis Media Reaction: “Winning at All Costs” Salary Demands: Minimum three-year contract, $3.5 million a year guaranteed Notes: Coach Miles is the head coach at a Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) institution in a nonBCS conference. He was previously the head coach at Whitfield University before leaving for the NFL. He then returned to the college ranks and was wildly successful at a major program before resigning after an embezzlement scandal that involved deception and corruption. In his previous stint at Whitfield, he was extremely popular and led the program to accomplishments that had never been achieved before. Miles is largely regarded as one of the top head football coaches in the country and runs an offensive system that is very fan friendly and would generate interest. He would come with an enormous amount of baggage, as his exits from previous positions have generally been bitter, sudden, and unprofessional. The fan base would generally applaud the hire but the national perception would be unfavorable and cause bad public relations for the university. Of all the candidates, Miles has had the most success as a coach and has shown he can win at Whitfield University. However, his hire would carry an immense amount of risk as Miles has the reputation as having questionable character and of consistently looking for new and better coaching opportunities. Further, he is known to recruit and maintain players who have off-the-field issues and carries a potential for embarrassing the university through acts by both players and coaches. Even though he has been known to recruit players with questionable character, he is a highly recognized name. Whereas his per-year salary demands are high, his past indiscretions would likely allow you to work out a favorable contract that would protect the schools interests if Miles were to perform unsavory actions again. Bud McCoy Caucasian Male Mid 40’s, Offense Emphasis Media Reaction: “The Young Gun” Salary Demands: Minimum four-year contract, $4 million a year guaranteed Notes: Coach McCoy is the offensive coordinator at another institution in the conference. He is one of the hottest coordinators in all of college football. McCoy is one of the highest paid coordinators and is widely considered to be an offensive savant. He was an extremely successful high school head coach but has only been a college coordinator for four years. He has no ties to the school or the area and would likely be looking for other positions in the years to come if he accepted this job. Hiring McCoy would be viewed as a high-risk, high-reward proposition and the program would be completely overhauled with a new offensive and defensive philosophy. The fan base would generally approve of the hire and the national perception would be positive. Players would be apprehensive due to the scheme change, but McCoy is an excellent recruiter and would likely improve the overall talent of the team, especially on the offensive side of the ball. Little is known about his reputation for discipline with his players, as he been involved in Division I football for such a short period of time. He would demand a large contract and could potentially move onto a larger program if he shows he can be successful at Whitfield but his style would attract fans and media alike. Jim Martin Caucasian Male Mid 40’s, Defense Emphasis Media Reaction: “Well-Respected but Unknown” Salary Demands: Minimum three-year contract, $2.5 million a year guaranteed Notes: Coach Martin is the defensive coordinator at another BCS institution. He has been a defensive coordinator at the college level for over 10 years and is widely regarded as one of the top defensive minds in college football. He is part of a respected coaching family and is mentioned as a candidate for every major opening. Like McCoy, he has no ties to the area or the university. Martin was credited with being the lead recruiter for many of the offensive and defensive stars on his team that won a conference championship and major bowl game last year. He has never served as a head coach at any level and would likely have to be surrounded by experienced coaches. Hiring Martin would be a medium risk, common-sense hire with a high ceiling for success. The fan base would generally approve of the hire at first, but Coach Martin is not known as a media-savvy coach and may struggle in the spotlight running a major program. However, his players traditionally perform well in the classroom and are active members of the community. Hiring Martin would come with very little risk of public embarrassment from his coaches or players. His style is likely to be conservative and fans will have to accept their team will be involved in many low scoring, defensive battles. Clay Roberts African-American Male Late 30’s, Defense Emphasis Media Reaction: “Potential Home Run . . . If He Stays” Salary Demands: Minimum four-year contract, $3 million a year guaranteed Notes: Coach Roberts is the associate head coach and defensive coordinator at another BCS institution. He is viewed as having a bright football mind that has been an offensive and defensive position coach in college and the NFL. He has no ties to the area or university and is viewed as the coach-in-waiting at his current institution. Hiring Roberts would be a medium risk, ambitious hire with a high ceiling for success. In general, the casual fan base is not aware of Coach Roberts or his pedigree and the athletic department may face some initial resistance. However, he is a solid recruiter and the hire would be lauded nationally. Roberts is viewed as a potential NFL coaching candidate and if he has any success at all at Whitfield University he would be mentioned for every major job opening in college and the NFL due to his past experience. He also is coming from an academically prestigious program and could likely improve the reputation of the team on campus and in the community. He would also be quite expensive and may simply view Whitfield as a stepping-stone position. However, if he has success and does decide to stay, the program has the most potential under Roberts. As with Reynolds, the university could receive positive press from hiring a minority coach who is not well known and has not been a Division I head coach before. The candidates offered a compelling mix of potential advantages and disadvantages with their varying skillsets. These benefits and tradeoffs created a dilemma for the athletic director, as no one coach stood out as the clear choice. Each represented a viable best-case scenario for the program, and Washington felt that he could not go wrong with his selection. The question was whether one coach might be incrementally better than the others. If so, which one?
Purchase answer to see full attachment