Arch Manning is a long-term plan. If you keep paying them, and let them know they’re going to get their shot, they’ll stick around. Sure, people can be poached.
A donor telling you that you’re going to start someone may not happen, but the AD is going to hear about it if he feels like his money wasn’t utilized correctly. He may indicate that his money won’t be there in the future if that doesn’t change. It’s up to the AD’s discretion if he relays that message to the coach, but I have no doubt there are donors throwing their money around trying to play coach with their checkbooks. The best ADs are going to be able to manage those egos without giving in.
A smart donor tells the AD, “As long as the coach that you hired wins games, the money will keep flowing.” When the winning stops, the money stops. Then, the coach AND the AD are looking for work.
These are people paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay kids to go to a school and play sports for which they receive no revenue. Donors are fanatics.
Arch Manning is a long term plan. But that decision has been made by him. If he wanted to play, he’d leave for top dollar. He’s the exception to the rule. There is no long term plan nowadays, nor is there a donor influencing playing time. That’s a fish story. Gundy isn’t listening to a donors advice on who plays based on how much NIL money a kid is getting.
There absolutely are longterm plans or else people wouldn’t waste so much time and energy recruiting from high school. There is just a larger chance those plans don’t come to fruition.
I expect a say when I spend $10 on a combo meal. People are not dropping ten grand, a hundred grand, a million bucks and not expecting to have input and influence. Whether they get it or not is another story. I don’t think this has changed since prior to NIL except the money spent is more granular. Before it was “I spent this money on facilities and you aren’t recruiting well enough or winning enough,” now it’s “I spent all this money on a QB and you aren’t playing him”. Sure, if you’re winning, they probably don’t care as much, but the minute the starting QB has a bad game and their money is on the bench, they’re going to be upset.
You dont have a “say”. You place an order and that establishment has the right to refuse service. You dont get to walk in the back and tell the manager how to cook your fries. Again, being a big money donor gives you some say. But it doesnt give that donor the ability to dictate a depth chart. Youve lost your mind if you think any donor, at any respectable university, is telling a coach who to play. That is not the structure of Big Money Donors in any way, shape or form. You seriously think Mike Gundy, Brent Venables, Steve Sarkisian or Mike Elko are playing a kid because of a donor!!! You watch too many Netflix shows. You have the system all backwards. The money given is dictated by who has proven themselves to be your best players. A guy produces, he gets rewarded (see Ollie Gordon). If he doesnt, he gets replaced (see the OU QB carousel). Of course there are some places that are dishing out big dollars to recruits upon signing (Mizzou, Miami, Ole Miss, and so on). But thats not being done under the terms of being guaranteed to play. Quinn Ewers was getting paid a million dollars his first year at Ohio St. Nwaneri at Mizzou. Jackson Arnold lost his job. Why isnt Arch Manning starting at UT? Hes making more money than most starting QB’s in college football. Your nuts if you wanna start dishing out dollars willy-nilly and then set your depth chart based off of who is getting paid the most. Donors dollars are utimately paying guys that produce. When they dont produce…that NIL amount doesnt get issued again the next year. The donors arent strolling into the AD and saying “here is a check to pay so this kid should end up starting”. Donors arent deciding who the hell gets what money. They just give it to the football program.