C.M. Newton, who chairs the NIT Selection Committee, has an impressive history in intercollegiate athletics, having coached at Alabama and Vanderbilt and having been the athletics director at Kentucky and Transylvania. As campuses begin preparing for another exciting season of college basketball, Newton spoke with The NCAA News for a three-part series about the state of the men’s game, from the new three-point line to how sports betting threatens the game. In Part 2, Newton talks about how coaches’ jobs and expectations have changed over time, particularly with the latest cycle of academic reform. For Part 1 of the series on the new three-point line for this season, click here.

Q  From a rules and policy perspective, coaches have become more involved over the last several years in the governance of the game (primarily through the urging of the NABC and NCAA President Myles Brand). That collaboration has mitigated what had been perceived as a trust gap between those who coach the game and those who administer it. How would you advise today’s college coaches to keep that collaboration strong?

Newton:  The role of the administrator has changed dramatically – in fact, Division I intercollegiate athletics has changed dramatically. We’ve gone away from the trend of hiring the ex-coach or the “lifer” – moving the old football coach into the AD job – we now hire more CEO types, people who primarily are hired as business people. We do that because more and more universities are mandating that athletics be self-sufficient. That has put the administrator as a bottom-line guy. His first and most important priority is to balance the budget.

Couple that with the crazy salaries that schools are paying coaches. In so doing, we have eliminated a lot of the loyalty on both sides. These buyout and incentives clauses – why would you pay a basketball coach and then introduce incentives for graduating players or for winning a conference championship? Coaches are supposed to do those things – that’s what the salary is for.

The other thing that has developed is the whole arms race for facilities. I grow weary of hearing that in order for us to recruit and be like so-and-so, we need a new practice facility. The reality is that if you need a new facility, you need it because it benefits students, not to benefit recruiting.

So we’ve lost the built-in loyalty we once had with coaches, and some mistrust between coaches and administrators has developed. Frankly, presidents talk about wanting coaches to get athletes who behave themselves and be good students and, oh, win games, too. Then you get a coach who has good kids, graduates them and doesn’t win – he’s gone. You’ll have some presidents and administrators who will be supportive in those lean years – I had some of those myself when I was coaching and going through some rebuilding years.

As for what I would advise coaches these days: Remember first of all who you work for – you work for the university and the athletics director. Coach Bear Bryant told me once, ‘Know you hired you because that’s who’s going to fire you.’ Also, know what the expectations are and meet them.

Q  And from the other side, how would you advise college presidents and ADs along those lines? Do you think administrators have a good understanding of what Division I men’s basketball coaches are up against on a regular basis?

Newton:  You can’t have it both ways. You can’t insist that a coach recruit student-athletes who are all qualifiers and will graduate and will be model citizens and at the same time if he doesn’t win the conference championship then you go hire someone else. You have to support the coach. That doesn’t mean you have to accept mediocrity – you should expect to win – but you also have to recognize the realities. I’ve seen a lot of presidents get overwhelmed by the whole Division I sports scene. Something that takes 4 percent of the budget takes 60 or 70 percent of their time, and they are worried. It shouldn’t be that way, but it often is.