The University of Florida’s decision on Thursday to extend football coach Billy Napier’s contract for another year, regardless of the current season’s outcome, is unlikely to please many Gators fans. While social media doesn’t always reflect the broader opinion accurately, reactions to athletics director Scott Stricklin’s announcement were generally negative, ranging from disappointment to outrage.

Stricklin’s statement lacked depth — he provided little justification for Napier’s continued tenure — but the choice could suggest a significant philosophical change in college sports.

Are we witnessing the end of the era of immediate firings?

This topic resonates deeply within Florida’s athletic history. The phrase “What must be done eventually must be done immediately” is linked to former Florida athletics director Jeremy Foley, who used it in 2003 when he fired Ron Zook after just three seasons. At that time, it felt radical to give a coach such a short period to establish his vision for the program.

However, that mindset became standard across college athletics: If a coach doesn’t achieve success in the first few years, they likely never will.

By traditional standards, Napier should already be facing a buyout. His record of 15-18 over nearly three seasons, with only two wins against ranked teams, falls short of Florida’s expectations. While there have been slight signs of improvement recently, it does not suggest that he is likely to lead the team to SEC championships anytime soon.

A straightforward reason for the extension could be financial; terminating Napier would cost the university $26.7 million. However, that’s likely not the sole factor. Florida is a wealthy SEC institution that has previously handled significant buyout costs. If Texas A&M could afford a $75 million buyout to part ways with Jimbo Fisher last year, Florida could likewise manage Napier’s exit if they truly desired.

Another angle to consider is that Stricklin could be acting in self-interest. After his decision to hire and later fire Dan Mullen, a second misstep with a football coach could jeopardize Stricklin’s position as well. With Florida lacking a permanent university president and not in an optimal situation to make changes at the athletic director level, giving Napier another chance could allow Stricklin to secure his own future, especially if a new president agrees to extend his contract.

This situation reflects broader trends that college administrators across the nation are evaluating in light of the evolving landscape of college athletics.

Previously, when rapid coach turnover was the norm, athletic directors mainly focused on just two considerations: cost and the quality of potential replacements.

However, that dynamic has changed with coaching changes today. The potential disruption to the team’s roster, the complicated December scheduling, and the increasingly transactional nature of relationships between athletes and schools make assessing the return on investment for a new coach incredibly complex.

To illustrate, if Stricklin had announced a search for Napier’s replacement instead, this scenario would unfold:

• Stricklin would engage with agents and search firms for a month to see who might be interested in the role, aiming to have a new coach ready promptly.
• Timing is essential; the football transfer portal opens on December 9 and closes on December 28. Many Florida players are likely to leave during this window, and if a new coach doesn’t have adequate time to rebuild the roster, their first year is likely to be doomed to failure.
• Nonetheless, the College Football Playoff’s recent expansion to 12 teams complicates this timing further. If a target coach is unavailable until after playoff games on December 20 and 21, it may be impractical to delay recruitment until then, especially given Florida’s competitive nature.
• The most crucial consideration might be the impending changes due to the House vs. NCAA settlement. Once implemented, schools will be able to directly compensate student-athletes and have designated budgets for player recruitment, fundamentally changing the skills necessary for coaching success. Coaches will need to juggle game day tactics, player development, and now managing budgets for roster construction. As we’ve seen with prior upheavals in college sports, some will adapt well while others may struggle. Without a clear understanding of this new financial model, an athletic director would find it almost impossible to evaluate coaching effectiveness.

• Assessing how potential job candidates may adapt and perform within that setting.

When you consider all these factors, it becomes clear why a school like Florida might hesitate to make a coaching change now compared to a few years back. It’s also likely that in the future, some institutions might choose to first attempt to revive a struggling coach by increasing funding for player recruitment, instead of jumping straight to a costly buyout that can reach into the tens of millions.

This approach is not only more cost-effective but also less disruptive. It reduces the risk that a new coach won’t have sufficient time to enhance the team’s roster immediately and might end up with an even poorer-performing team in the first year compared to what the previous coach managed.

Of course, this strategy could backfire, and we might find ourselves discussing again in a year whether Florida should have opted for the change. If Foley had retained Zook for just one more year, he might have lost the opportunity to hire Urban Meyer and achieve multiple national championships.

Nevertheless, we are no longer in Foley’s era. While fans may yearn for change, dismissing a coach nowadays brings about a series of complications that are far more complicated than they were a few years back.

Stricklin’s perspective might not align with everyone’s view that Napier requires additional time and support to recruit players who can elevate the team’s performance, but it is a practical stance to take.

In this unpredictable era of college football economics, expect that other institutions may arrive at similar conclusions.