At first blush, Utah’s decision to fire Craig Smith on Monday seemed odd.
The Utes were one week removed from beating Kansas and Kansas State. They were a tick under .500 in Big 12 play, and they had a manageable stretch upcoming — so manageable that it was easy to envision the Utes, who were picked dead last in the Big 12’s preseason media poll, finishing as high as sixth or seventh place.
Put another way: Utah was tracking to fare as well in the rugged Big 12 as it did last season in the weaker Pac-12, an indisputable sign of improvement for Smith’s fourth season.
He never got the chance to ride out the final weeks. Athletic director Mark Harlan terminated Smith less than 24 hours after an overtime loss at UCF.
Odd timing, indeed. Unless …
Schools typically fire coaches during the season for one of three reasons:
— Losses are piling up, players are frustrated, and it’s beyond obvious that immediate change is needed. That wasn’t the case with Utah, which has more wins (15) than losses (12) and plenty left to play for.
— An off-the-court transgression violates contract terms and/or embarrasses the university. To the best of our knowledge, that was not the case with Smith, either.
— To avoid an upturn that could make the termination more difficult.
Clearly, the administration had concluded Smith would not return for next season, but it, too, saw the upcoming schedule, which includes home dates with Arizona State (conference record: 4-12) and West Virginia (7-9).
Retaining Smith for the final weeks of the season would offer him the opportunity to stack wins, build support and make the termination process far more contentious and controversial.
The Utes took advantage of the loss at UCF to make the move now, before Smith gained any leverage. From the outside, the timing seemed bizarre. From the inside, it was optimal.
At least, that’s the Hotline’s theory.
It’s the only explanation that makes sense. The Utes have improved under Smith, but the improvement has been more incremental than exponential.
In four seasons, he has zero NCAA Tournament appearances and a record of 30-46 in conference play (three years in the Pac-12, one in the Big 12).
Harlan issued a statement Monday that offered no specifics on the timing but did include these bar-setting sentences:
“We have greater aspirations for our men’s basketball program, both within the Big 12 Conference and nationally, and our expectation is to regularly compete in the NCAA Tournament. After evaluating our program under Craig’s leadership, I believe a change is needed to get us to where we want to go.”
But there is more to relevance than changing coaches.
More than ever, success is about resources. And the resources necessary to thrive in the Big 12 are vastly greater than what was required in the Pac-12.
For example, Smith’s salary of $2.15 million this season was projected to be the second-lowest in the conference, ahead of only UCF’s Johnny Dawkins, according to published reports.
The median compensation figure within the Big 12, based on USA Today’s database, is approximately $3 million annually — or almost 50 percent more than Smith’s salary.
There’s a simple explanation for that. When he was hired in the spring of 2021, Smith’s average annual salary of $2.1 million (over six years) was effectively fair market value given his resume. But because the Utes never experienced a breakthrough season, he lacked the opportunity to renegotiate the deal at a higher rate.
That’s on him, not the school.
Then again, the Utes must put their money where Harlan’s words are. They won’t compete consistently in the Big 12, increase their season-ticket base or qualify for the NCAAs without allocating more dollars to Smith’s successor.
For example, Utah spent $10.3 million on men’s basketball in the 2024 fiscal year, according to financial documents filed to the NCAA.
That’s roughly 60 percent of the amount plowed into the Arizona and Kansas programs. Do the Utes need to match those traditional powers on a dollar-for-dollar basis? Nope, but they cannot stand still and expect the wins to magically appear.
Roster construction in the current era also requires a major commitment from the community in the form of name, image and likeness (NIL) support. To date, the Utes seemingly have been a few dollars short on that front.
As ESPN analyst and former coach Fran Fraschilla noted Monday on the social media platform X:
“This has little to do with Craig Smith’s coaching. This is one of those few times that nobody in his right mind would take this job without saying, ‘Show me the (NIL) money.’ Coaching the team has much less to do with success today than ever before.”
The absence of a full-throttle NIL game could reflect tepid interest in Utah’s basketball program generally, a state-of-affairs that will make success elusive for Smith’s successor, as well.
Or it could indicate a lack of interest in contributing specifically to Smith’s program after three lackluster years. In theory, that suggests dollars are available for a new coach with new energy.
Our hunch: It’s a little of both.
Utah basketball doesn’t have the deep, passionate fan base to match some Big 12 programs, but there is more NIL money available in Salt Lake City than has been invested thus far.
If Harlan and the administration sensed dollars were being withheld and the prospects for a marked upturn under Smith were bleak, they would have viewed a coaching change as necessary.
With the right timing, of course.
Harlan’s statement included this, too:
“We have continued to invest in our men’s basketball program, adding staff, increasing compensation and significantly enhancing NIL opportunities with our partners for our student-athletes. And our investments will only grow.”
No other outcome is acceptable at this point.
In dismissing Smith a week after sweeping the Kansas schools — and with plenty left to accomplish — the administration has both opened the door for increases in NIL dollars and put itself on the hook for additional internal support.
If the Utes are in competitive purgatory three years from now, they won’t be able to blame the coach.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline