The crazy coaching carousel is just a component of the "instant gratification" world we live in. One young coach wins 8 to 10 games at an average program or smaller college, and all of a sudden he is on the speed dial of every AD looking for a coach (see Campbell, Fleck).
Contracts mean nothing in today's world of "what have you done for me lately" culture. With millions of dollars being tossed around on coaching contracts/buyout, the contracts mean nothing more than the paper they are printed on.
College football is a big-time business (Mr. Obvious, right?). But I don't think the overall game is headed in a healthy direction. Coaches getting fired after a couple of seasons, coaches jumping ship after one year in town, former coaches being brought back as ADs, (potential) coaches being run out of town by a social media movement ...
But hey, it's all about the student athlete, right?
I love college football ... On the flip side, I think it's headed in an unhealthy direction. Mega facility investments, major money spent on coaching contracts/buyouts ... Little to no loyalty from ADs, coaches, players (commits, de-commits, transfers)... Crazy money being spent on television rights ... recruits committing and de-committing like you or I change lunch plans ...
I love the game ... it just seems like with each passing years it gets a little bit crazier behind the scenes. It leads one to wonder what the college landscape will look like in 10 years (heck, even in five years) ... For starters, let's stop calling them "student athletes" and instead call them "athletes who also happen to be students."
Well said. I don't know why, but it makes me think of this event in world history.
Tulip mania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:
navigation,
search
"Tulip fever" redirects here. For the film set during the period of tulip mania, see
Tulip Fever.
A tulip, known as "the Viceroy" (
viseroij), displayed in the 1637 Dutch catalog
Verzameling van een Meenigte Tulipaanen.
Its bulb was offered for sale between 3,000 and 4,200 guilders (florins) depending on size (aase). A skilled craftsworker at the time earned about 300 guilders a year.[1]
Tulip mania,
tulipmania, or
tulipomania (
Dutch names include:
tulpenmanie, tulpomanie, tulpenwoede, tulpengekte and
bollengekte) was a period in the
Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for some
bulbs of the recently introduced and fashionable
tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637.
[2] It is generally considered the first recorded
speculative bubble (or
economic bubble);
[3] although some researchers have noted that the
Kipper- und Wipperzeit (literally
Tipper and See-saw) episode in 1619–1622, a Europe-wide chain of
debasement of the metal content of coins to fund warfare, featured mania-like similarities to a bubble.
[4] In many ways, the tulip mania was more of a hitherto unknown
socio-economic phenomenon than a significant
economic crisis (or
financial crisis). And historically, it had no critical influence on the
prosperity of the
Dutch Republic, the world's
leading economic and financial power in the 17th century. The term "tulip mania" is now often used metaphorically to refer to any large economic bubble when asset prices deviate from
intrinsic values.
[5]
In Europe, formal
futures markets appeared in the Dutch Republic during the 17th century. Among the most notable centered on the
tulip market, at the height of
Tulipmania.
[6][7] At the peak of tulip mania, in February 1637, some single tulip bulbs sold for more than 10 times the annual income of a skilled
craftsworker. Research is difficult because of the limited economic data from the 1630s—much of which come from biased and very speculative sources.
[8][9] Some modern economists have proposed rational explanations, rather than a speculative mania, for the rise and fall in prices. For example, other flowers, such as the
hyacinth, also had high initial prices at the time of their introduction, which immediately fell. The high asset prices may also have been driven by expectations of a parliamentary decree that contracts could be voided for a small cost—thus lowering the risk to buyers.
The 1637 event was popularized in 1841 by the book
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, written by British journalist
Charles Mackay. At one point 12
acres (5
ha) of land were offered for a
Semper Augustus bulb.
[10] Mackay claims that many such investors were ruined by the fall in prices, and Dutch commerce suffered a severe shock. Although Mackay's book is a classic, his account is contested. Many modern scholars feel that the mania was not as extraordinary as Mackay described and argue that not enough price data are available to prove that a tulip bulb bubble actually occurred.
[11][12][13]
