rutgersal you can try and explain the why it was done NOW to posters but that is fruitless Funny some claim a business sense….cough cough…it was done for all the reasons you list or others who are  pro Schiano . The name of the game is perception and stability . We have many who detest Greg… just because he’s Greg. Other are obviously somewhat jealous of coaches being paid astronomical salaries. Still others hate or disagree just for the sake of. Sort of like “ John “ from South Brunswick . Now that was a Rutgers hater.
		
		
	 
I do claim it's business sense.  Is it smart business to pay for unknown results?  Was it smart business for A&M to give out a 10 year deal (who knows the heck will happen next year let alone  over 10 years) at 75M for Fisher and then "refresh" to 10 again after about 3 years and increase the salary to 9.5M.  They're going to pay him 77M to go away.  Is that whole ordeal, smart business?  No way.  The numbers are astronomical for A&M but the general gist is the same across CFB.  IU just paid Tom Allen 15M to go away (luckily it wasn't 20) off two good years, not even one.
Paying long term, largely guaranteed or fully guaranteed contracts on unknown future results isn't smart business.  Fisher got up to rank 5 for 1 year and still had 7 years left on his deal and A&M for some crazy reason decided to alter the contract.  For what?
So many examples across CFB of boosting salary and length based on short term performance.  It's not smart at all.  This idea of perception and stability is bunk and just a facade to justify making a bad financial decision.    Winning is what helps perception most.  Paying coaches more for not really good reasons doesn't help anything.  Spending money just to spend it, isn't good business.
Plus what do these contract boosts get the school.  Quite often coaches can still leave if they want to, so what is the school getting.  Elko and Smith are just two examples from this offseason.  So if they're good they can still leave if they want but if things turn south you're stuck with cumbersome contract.  Take on all the downside risk but not much of the upside.
Look at Miami giving Cristobal also a 10 year deal at 80M.  He's 5-7 and 7-5 in 2 years back and lots of NIL to help.  The guy didn't even know when to kneel the ball to easily win a game.   He basically has to compete with FSU and Clemson in the ACC and that's it. Right now he's way overpriced.  He's got a lot to accomplish to live up to that salary.
Throwing money at things doesn't suddenly make things better.  If this was gov't there would be a lot of complaints but it's CFB so it's okay.
I don't have jealousy of the millions coaches earn.  I don't blame them or their agents either, if someone is willing to give it to you why wouldn't you take it.   I would.  I'm about pay for performance.  You can pay Nick Saban 20M/yr and I wouldn't bat an eyelash.  Give big annual bonuses that raise the level of salary based on performance and wins.  I'm fine with that.  It's fair to both sides.  If you're winning you get paid, possibly a lot if you win big, and if you're not you'll have some reasonable base salary which will still be millions of dollars.
Having money is a good thing, spending it is fine but using it wisely (especially when you have less) is the most important.