Editorial: Policy limits athletics
A legislative practice by the Appropriations Committee in the South Dakota Legislature typically denies athletic coaching salary contracts that are extended to more than a year, limiting the guaranteed tenure of coaches to one academic year.
This is detrimental to the University of South Dakota on two levels. First, it creates an overwhelmingly high-pressured environment for first-year and new coaches. Also, the lack of program security trickles throughout the athletic department — stunting the growth of a relatively new Division I program.
With one-year contracts, no one’s job is ever safe. Each year, coaches are essentially coaching for their job, and while USD has only seen one major coaching change since transferring to D-I, it’s indisputable this has an effect on teams.
The phrase “Rome was not built in a day” comes to mind when analyzing the situation USD coaches are put in when they step foot on campus.
Each coach is forced to draw up a schema that can be proven effective for one year, and if there is anything college athletics rely on, it’s the building of programs.
They step into a whole new situation with players they did not recruit and traditions they are not adjusted to, and with the heightened competition of D-I, are expected to make a noticeable turnaround.
In the realm of recruiting, the negatives go both ways. Coaches are not promised necessary time to build a solid recruiting base, and what high school student can be confident signing to a program without any promise of coaching stability.
It’s easy to see how this provision can hurt university athletics season by season. Luckily, since moving to D-I, USD has seemingly allowed its coaches proper time to adjust and build a new base under the program.
The school has seen success in track and field, softball and now volleyball, so the confidence the administration has in its staff is beginning to show.
However, this practice could have detrimental effects on athletic programs long-term. If administration lacks any patience in sport development and switches out coaches like a carousel, as the state allows, it would be easy to imagine the effect that could have on athletics as a whole.
Bad sports teams typically mean lack of fan support and the loss of revenue, which is meant to come back and benefit the school and academics. Ultimately, if worse comes to worse, this policy could come back to hurt not only athletics but the whole university.
The Legislature needs to throw this outdated practice in the trash. It should be up to the individual athletic directors whether or not coaches deserve longer contracts. USD coaches can feel more secure with the legal proof of administrative confidence in their hands.
Only then can they go forward with the time and confidence they need to prove their worth and ability to build programs, with the potential to better the program and the school as a whole.
Kudos to USD athletics for working around this provision and displaying proper patience with current coaches, but with any luck, this outdated provision will be set aside by the state in the near future.
