When colleges and universities hire football and basketball coaches, their choices reflect their priorities and goals. As we have seen, Division I and Division III schools have very different views of the role of athletics, and their choices in coaches confirm those differing athletic purposes. Similarly, the types of presidents colleges and universities hire reveal aspects of their mission that are otherwise difficult to observe. We can discern some patterns of choice, and thus goals, that the nonprofit, public, and for-profit schools and that the research universities, four-year colleges, and two-year schools make via the presidents they choose.

The contracts with athletic coaches and presidents provide an especially rich and revealing contrast. These contracts, and what they reward, tell a great deal more than do broad public statements about what the school really sees as important, though in sometimes complex ways, as we will show. In addition, when we examine the backgrounds of experience and training that presidents have, and how they differ among types of schools and over time, we see more evidence of what various kinds of schools judge to be important leadership qualities. Both backgrounds and contracts, in short, tell a story of what schools truly value in their presidents and coaches.

We begin by contrasting the contracts and rewards offered to coaches at Division I schools and at Division III schools to infer what the two types of schools are looking to their coaches to accomplish.