[media-credit name=’Kelsey Fenton / The Badger Herald’ align=’alignnone’ width=’648′][/media-credit]

Most people would do anything for a million dollars. If they were given a salary of $1 million a year and promised a reasonable position, the money would be many times too much to even bat an eye in deliberation. Yes, yes, please sir.

A salary like that – actually that plus a few thousand more – is the figure that Barry Alvarez makes as the Athletic Director here at Wisconsin. Regardless of the seven-figure paycheck, that’s one position where I would be extremely reluctant to take based on money. I would not like to be an athletic director, and this week proved it to me.

A few things happened. First, Steve Alford played puppeteer with the University of New Mexico and abruptly cut the string.

Just two weeks ago, Alford and the Lobos had finished the regular season with a Mountain West championship and a 3-seed in the NCAA tournament. A day before their first game, Alford, the head coach, agreed to a 10-year contract extension, ensuring his position through the 2022-23 season.

I would be in my thirties by the time Alford would be contractually out of work at New Mexico. That sure is a scary thought. But the Lobos loved their coach that had rescued an average program and created what many hoped would be a national contender.

That was Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday night, Alford coached his team to a shocking defeat at the hand of Harvard, a less-than-heralded Ivy League team.

Off nights happen. The NMU program was still in good hands, likely for another decade or more. That was until Alford departed with Bret Bielema-like flair this Saturday for the sunny pastures of UCLA. If Barry Alvarez was taken back by Bielema leaving, imagine NMU Athletic Director Paul Krebs.

Krebs probably thought he was doing a good thing, not only for the university he represents but also the coach he chose to hire in 2007. All of a sudden, Krebs had been duped and was thrown into the middle of a coach hunt. It’s an all too familiar story.

Coaches are not just a commodity; they’re the only commodity every year. The growing trend, however, is how these commodities move throughout the quasi-market. Coaching destinations arise and fall and the location, tenure, salary and prestige offered by athletic directors lead to changes in the market.

The lucky A.D.s are like Alvarez, who hire coaches similar to basketball head coach Bo Ryan who are successful and faithful enough to stay and stay for a while. The unlucky A.D.s are also in a sense like Alvarez, who hire Bielema with Ryan-like intentions, only to have the university look like a ring on a ladder to a higher post.

Nowadays, athletic directors have to constantly be prepared for the next Arkansas-style swoop of coaches. Maybe that’s part of their job, but it shouldn’t have to be. It’s certainly not all of their job or even the most important part. Instead of frequently handling coaching changes or, at the least, plentiful rumors, A.D.s should be able to focus elsewhere, because things like Mike Rice happen.

Mike Rice was fired Wednesday from his position as head coach of Rutgers basketball for his cruel, intense and vicious coaching habits and actions toward players. When a video was brought to athletic director Tim Pernetti’s attention displaying inappropriate actions – spiking players with basketballs, pushing and pulling them over the court while belittling them with profanity – Pernetti hired investigators while fining and suspending Rice for three games.

But the punishment – controversial in its extent – wasn’t enough to change Rice. Pernetti would peek his head into the gym, and Rice was on his best behavior. He would leave, and the true Rice would unveil.

Pernetti was the father tucking Rice into bed each night, just before Rice would crack the window and sneak out. Pernetti believed Rice and believed in him as a person. He believed that the man he hired to bring Rutgers from the cellar of college basketball could change his ways and his strategy of leading young men to grow as individuals and a group.

He believed too strongly, a recently unfortunate realization for A.D.s.

They are put into position to watch over it all, throw their trust at hundreds of employees and assume (actually hope) that they won’t be fooled. Would the situation be different if Rice was more focused on Rice himself or if he was less trustworthy? Probably, but only because of how swift the hindsight sword can swing.

Maybe A.D.s should be more thorough in their hiring process, but that might not be fair. If they wait but two weeks, everything can change. For this among other reasons, I would not want to be an athletic director. Dangle that money in my face. Even this college kid isn’t taking it.

Sean is a junior studying journalism. What would you change about athletic directors and their actions? Let him know with an email to [email protected] or on Twitter @sean_zak.