When a coach gets stuck underachieving, I’ve seen one of a couple of things happen:
1. In a big money program, they pay the $20 mil buyout (because they have a buyout that big) and rotate in a new coach
2. In Clemson’s example, they staff impressive OCs and DCs and other coaches to shore up the head coach. VT did that under Beamer with a DC. This is a friendly situation
3. If the AD has the right contacts, they bring in an “all but head coach” OC or DC, and the coach is in a “win or this guy replaces you” mode. This is a less friendly situation
4. In a Tommy Tuberville situation, he blames an assistant and fires them, but things don’t get better—he just shifts the blame
5. If it’s a “you’re mostly good, but there are 2 or 3 position coaches that aren’t pulling their weight”, and the AD or HC or both are smart, then a couple of those coaches get replaced
6. If you don’t have any ideas or cash, you buckle up and hope, hope, hope
The money men can pick from 2-5 and save face, but I’d be surprised if they picked 1. They might back off and leave Stansbury with option 6, but ADTS would probably try for 2, 3, or 5.
I don’t think you can do a wholesale changeout and turn things around unless there’s far more than the buyout ponied up. You also need money to attract someone new, and I don’t think that only money is as attractive as one might think. Other coaches surely look here and see “it wasn’t an easy rescue job for Collins, and there have to be easier places for me to achieve what I want”. I agree that it’s another year or two at least, and probably 2.
Stansbury’s ears must be burning. I’m sure the big donors were giving him heat at halftime of the Pitt game. Losing a homecoming game that you could and should win is bad.
I’m glad you mentioned “approach”, because you usually see a successful coach turning a program around by year two. Collins shouldn’t just “do a Tuberville” and buy cover by replacing staff; he needs to find and fix the problems he’s got.