It's not a risk relative to the alternative -- that's utter nonsense. How is Terry Smith a bigger risk than hiring someone for 4X the compensation and entering into a massive guarantee that will make it difficult to walk away from the decision 2 years from now. Terry Smith's optionality is 100% to the upside. If he doesn't work out over the 2026 and 2027, you can do a lot more planning & due diligence as to who you want in terms of short-listing and how you want to handle the transition after 2027 season. There are no strings-attached with Smith. If you change regimes right now, the new guy is not going to have a team to coach - and if you really believe he can do better than Smith over the next 2 years given the massive hurdles he's going to face you're nuts. There's no guarantee he's ever going to be able to recruit anyone to PSU (regardless of whether its HS or the Portal) if he's multiple years into his tenure and posting losing records. You aren't watching closely or paying attention if you don't see what happens to name coaches that go to blue-blood programs on turn-around projects..... their careers end and the blue-blood program continues to post bad records and ruin more up-&-coming coaches careers (take a look at UNL, FSU, Miami, etc., etc., etc.....). There is no downside to making Terry Smith HC relative to bringing in someone with a long-terms guaranteed contract at $10 - $12 million/year. You're utterly out of you mind (and know nothing about risk-reward management) if you really believe that bringing in a new coach with no 2026 roster and guaranteeing them $10 mil a year for 10 years is the "low risk" route to go - just laughable ********. You must have gone to the Krafty The Clown school of business decisions and management.