I don't think the article specifically stated (I only skimmed it a bit, I could be wrong) who started the talks of the contract negotiations. If it were brought on by the new AD, I have mixed feelings about this. I like this decision because it does solidify RP's position as head coach. I don't like this decision because he hasn't proven that he can compete for even the north title yet and to give him an extension onto his original contract just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Now if this was of RP's asking for the extension, that makes me a little pissed off. More and more you hear about players and even coaches complain about their contracts. A lot of the big names in professional sports whine and even hold out of mandatory practices until they get the money and the years they want (mostly in the NFL). I find it ridiculous that these players/coaches feel the need to change their minds even after a few years into the long term contracts that they fought so hard to get in the first place.

I don't know if RP is behind all of this, but I have one message for all of the crybabies: After you negotiate an overpriced (which all of them are, but that's for another time) contract, SHUT UP AND PLAY/COACH THE GAME for that duration.

There are some potential pitfalls in the logic expressed in that article.

1.) Oklahoma took a while to re-right the ship, but they also went through more than one coach to do it...
1a.) Bob Stoops' teams showed dramatic improvement from the time he stepped in.
2.) KU has had 1 good season so far, in my opinion.  I would not use them as an example to justify contract decisions.

I honestly don't understand why high-profile coaching positions use contracts.  It's almost like 'at-will' employment with coaches leaving for another school after a good season or a school firing a coach after one bad season, etc.

I say it's too early for contract extensions at this point.  Let the season play out, re-evaluate, repeat.  If a trend of improvement develops, then talk about contract extensions.

Of course, I'm only basing my evaluation of a coach in regards to the team's wins and losses.  Perhaps our administration has other goals in mind.

I see several aspects of this worth discussing.

First, the recruiting issue.  I understand that in modern collegiate sports, recruits want certainty in the coaching situations.  Of course, as mystman pointed out, even guaranteed contracts don't provide that (see: Rich Rodriguez).

Further, Prince is already under contract for three more seasons.  I could understand extension negotiations if his contract was up in 2009, because that would hamstring his recruiting efforts for next year.  But I am hard-pressed to see how 'only' having three years left is showing we aren't committed to Prince long-term.

If the argument is that we're just doing this negotiation for show, to make recruits think we're committed to Prince, I don't see much good in that sophistry either.  What does it say if we, say, sign Prince to a two-year extension with a really low buyout, and then give him the hook after 2008 or 2009?  It says we'll make it look like we're committed to a coach when we're really not, hardly a good recruiting strategy.

MadCat brings up a good point in mentioning OU's situation.  We can't get stuck in the vicious cycle where we fire-and-hire a coach every three years.  But Prince's future here probably does fairly strongly depend on what happens this year.  Stoops was probably able to come in and have success at OU because John Blake left him good players, but Stoops actually knew how to coach.  The cupboard wasn't exactly empty when Prince got here, but it was hardly stocked, either.  So far, Prince hasn't blown me away as either a recruiter or a gameday coach (the Texas games excepted).  I understand we will never compete with the USC's and Texas's of the world for five-star talent, but we need to show an ability to bring in solid three-and-four star kids and then develop them.

Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth.