1

Continuity within College

Football and the Reasons
Why Coaches Leave
Their University
BY NOLAN PERALTA
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Background and Research 2

Problem
 The world of college football has become a billion dollar a year industry
and the success of the university’s football programs results in large
amounts of revenue for the institutions of higher learning itself.
 Success on the football field is the number one goal for every university,
and schools are willing to fire and hire coaching staffs frequently with
the hopes of developing a winning percentage and bowl game victories
year after year.
 Colorado State University has had four head coaches leading the
program in the past eleven years giving an example of the high
frequency of turnover for college coaches at the Division I level.
 This phenomenon is not uncommon across the country, and the mindset
of the leadership at the universities drives the decisions to fire and hire
head coaches with the hope of having a winning football program.
Research Questions 3

 The main purpose of this research paper

revolved around the answering of two
questions:
 1. What are the reasons for a college coach to
leave their university of employment?
 2. How frequent is the coaching turnover at
different universities?
Method of Research 4

A Mixed Method research study was

implemented during this project, including
both quantitative and qualitative questioning.
 Theuse of both quantitative and qualitative
data allowed for the understanding of the
reasons behind why a coach would leave a
university, while also shedding light on the
frequency that the coaches were leaving.
Procedure and Participants 5

 The ten membered Colorado State University football

staff during the 2017 season was interviewed and
questioned about their experiences throughout their
coaching career.
 Nonprobability sampling was implemented as I had
access to the coaches on staff having worked with
them and played under them for the past five years.
 A Cross Sectional research design was used to gain
the opinions and experiences of the staff at an
individual moment in time.
Results 6
 It was clear that there were numerous reasons why a college
football coach may leave their university of employment.
 The time spent and frequency for leaving a university by the CSU
football staff is representative for coaches across the nation as
they have been members of 53 different football staffs at
universities throughout the country.
 The need for immediate success on a football program was one
of the main reasons for the administration to make a change at
the head coaching position, resulting in an entire staff losing their
jobs.
 College football is a booming business and universities are willing
to pour countless dollars into their programs in order to find
success. This on field success ultimately leads to greater revenue
and notoriety for the university.
Research Question 1 7

 There were numerous reasons for a coach to

leave their university of employment
including:
 Firings
 Toxic environment on a staff
 Compensation
 Career enhancement, working at bigger
football schools
Research Question 2 8

 In response to the frequency of the turnover

for different coaches at universities across the
country, there were a total of 167 seasons
coached at 53 different universities.
 For the coaching staff at Colorado State
University during the 2017 season, there was
an average of 3.15 years spent at each job
that they worked at during their career.
Implications for Practice 9
 The job security for college coaches is almost
nonexistent as the tenure for coaches on the CSU
football staff was a mere 3.15 years.
 For individuals hoping to enter the profession of
college football coach, the results from this study
provides insight into the lifestyle and reasons behind
why coaches leave their universities after an average
of 3 years.
 There are many benefits to becoming a college
football coach, including the notoriety, pay, and
position of influence that you have with your players.
This project provides a realistic look into the downside
to being a college coach, and it allows potential future
coaches the option to weigh the positives and
Further Research 10
 There are numerous questions that arose upon the completion of
this project that warrant their own research and study.
 1. How successful can a college football program be if the staff
remains together for extended periods of time?
 2. Would it be more beneficial to fire a staff and give the program
a fresh start, or allow a coaching staff to remain together and
develop a winning culture over an extended time when success is
not currently present?
 3. How does the turnover of coaches impact the performance and
careers of the players on the team, and the overall success of the
program?
References 11
 Baade, R. A., Baumann, R. W., & Matheson, V. A. (2008).
Assessing the economic impact of college football games
on local economies. Journal of Sports
Economics, 9(6), 628-643.
 Day, J. C. (2018). Climbing the ladder or getting stuck: An optimal
matching analysis of racial differences in college
football coaches’ job-level career patterns. Research
in Social Stratification and Mobility, 53, 1-15.
 Frank, R. H. (2004). Challenging the myth: A review of the links
among college athletic success, student quality, and
donations. Washington, DC: Knight Foundation
Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.
 Holmes, P. (2011). Win or go home: Why college football coaches
get fired. Journal of Sports Economics, 12(2), 157-178.
 12
 Maxcy, J. G. (2013). Efficiency and managerial performance in FBS college
football: To the employment and succession decisions, which matters
the most, coaching or recruiting?. Journal of Sports
Economics, 14(4), 368-388.
 Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2009). The impact of college sports success on the
quantity and quality of student applications. Southern Economic
Journal, 75(3), 750-780.
 Randall Smith, D., & Abbott, A. (1983). A labor market perspective on the
mobility of college football coaches. Social Forces, 61(4), 1147-1167.