ACC HC Salaries

[GTRX7]

Not quite. I think the fact that CPJ acts like an OC enables us to pay roof that much money. Otherwise I think you'd be looking at 4-500k per coordinator, not 750k.

Here is some data from a year ago on coordinator salaries in the ACC:

ACC offensive coordinators
No. Name Team Total pay pre-bonus
1 Chad Morris Clemson $1,301,250
2 Garrick McGee Louisville $650,000
T-3 Matt Canada N.C. State $500,000
T-3 Randy Sanders* Florida State $500,000
5 Steve Fairchild Virginia $450,000
6 Scot Loeffler Virginia Tech $400,000
7 Lawrence Dawsey* Florida State $370,000
T-8 Gunter Brewer* North Carolina $250,000
T-8 Chris Kapilovic* North Carolina $250,000
*Co-offensive coordinator
**Georgia Tech has no offensive coordinator on staff as head coach Paul Johnson runs the offense. Offensive line coach Mike Sewak is the highest-paid offensive assistant at $222,450.

ACC offensive coordinators in the database make an average of $519,027.78.

Source: http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb..._football_assistant_coaches_make_in_2014.html

 

[Legal Jacket]

Here is some data from a year ago on coordinator salaries in the ACC:

ACC offensive coordinators
No. Name Team Total pay pre-bonus
1 Chad Morris Clemson $1,301,250
2 Garrick McGee Louisville $650,000
T-3 Matt Canada N.C. State $500,000
T-3 Randy Sanders* Florida State $500,000
5 Steve Fairchild Virginia $450,000
6 Scot Loeffler Virginia Tech $400,000
7 Lawrence Dawsey* Florida State $370,000
T-8 Gunter Brewer* North Carolina $250,000
T-8 Chris Kapilovic* North Carolina $250,000
*Co-offensive coordinator
**Georgia Tech has no offensive coordinator on staff as head coach Paul Johnson runs the offense. Offensive line coach Mike Sewak is the highest-paid offensive assistant at $222,450.

ACC offensive coordinators in the database make an average of $519,027.78.

Source: http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb..._football_assistant_coaches_make_in_2014.html

That's mostly because of Morris, who was a huge outlier (and is now a head coach). My guess is if we had an OC he'd make a little bit over 400k

 

[AE 87]

Yeah you missed it but I love input. Techstar got me. Enjoy your day.

Yeah, I had seen Techster's post. I guess that I was just unsuccessful in trying to use your logic back at you.

 

[AE 87]

So, (too quick?) HC and top Off Assis
FSU: 5.5 mil
CU: 4.4 mil
Lou: 3.65 mil
GT: 3.25 mil
vpi: 3.2 mil
uva 2.85 mil

 

[TechPhi97]

Missing a few:

• Jimbo Fisher, FSU, $5 million
• Dabo Swinney, Clemson, $3.39 million
• Paul Johnson, Georgia Tech, $3.02 million
• Bobby Petrino, Louisville, $3 million
• Frank Beamer, Virginia Tech, $2.67 million
• Mike London, Virginia, $2.4 million
• Al Golden, Miami, $2.3 million
• David Cutcliffe, Duke, $1.84 million
• Larry Fedora, North Carolina, $1.83 million
• Dave Doeren, N.C. State, $1.8 million

Worth every penny?

http://collegefootball.blog.ajc.com...fsus-jimbo-fisher-is-accs-highest-paid-coach/

Divide that number by division championships, then by conference championship games played in, then by conference championships. For each of those guys.

 

[Leonard Larramore]

No brother you missed to even think that i would think anyone on this site was stupid let's me know you took the comment the wrong way. It's also clear that you don't know me so let's end it this way. GT has the best of both worlds. A great coach and great players. Go Jackets.

 

[TechPhi97]

I know this is going to open a can of worms but coaches does play a significant role in getting a team ready to play but to be honest remove the players and you have nothing. I'm just saying. As you stated a skilled doctor ability to being in money is a big factor in determining his pay but remove his tools that he needs to operate and his skills means nothing. Let's be honest. Would you show up on a game day to see a coach, a marching band, hype music and videos on a Jumbo Tron, cheerleaders, concessions, etc..... I would not. Or would you show up to see a bunch of young men on the side lines running around with their heads cut arguing about who plays, what play to run or better yet players in the office trying to recruit other plays. All I am saying is that some coaches are overpaid but they are not the main reason why people fill stadiums. Now let the fireworks begin!!!! lol lol. If I missed your point then forgive a brother in advance.

I would say that the players aren't the main reason why people fill the stadium, either. The tradition at the school, the years and history associated with the program, are huge reasons why people buy tickets year after year. Individual players have some sway, but I think the effect is greater after they are gone. I bet more people buy season tickets off of the memory of Joe Hamilton than they do off of the play of Justin Thomas.

I do think great players can sway people to buy tickets, because the expectation of being better will get more people to attend. But that might add an incremental 5% to season ticket holders - those season ticket holders are much more likely to cancel tickets because they've had enough of a coach (see: Georgia Tech basketball).

All in all, the coach and tradition are much more important for keeping the seats full than the current crop of players, who will be gone in 2-3 years but I'll still be here rooting on the Jackets.

 

[takethepoints]

It's all about Economics. Coaches that are proven winners bring in a lot of money for their schools. In turn the market will give those coaches a lot of money because of the ROI for coaches who can win and win big. Let's not kid ourselves, CPJ isn't paid that kind of salary because he's a good guy and GT wants to win some games (to an extent). CPJ is paid that salary because when he wins, the program brings in more money for the athletic department.

In terms of the real world, is their work as important as a doctor or a teacher or a police officer or someone in the military? Probably not. But if you notice one thing about real world salaries (salaries the "common people" make), it's all based on ability to generate revenue. Why are doctor's paid so highly? It's not because they're saving lives or helping with illness, it's because their skills generate a large amount of revenue. When I had my tonsils removed, it took the doctor all of 30 minutes to do it, and I had to pay him $25K, and the anesthesiologist $3K. That one relatively minor procedure generated almost $1K per minute.

Now you look at teachers and the military. Arguably two of the most important jobs. They both generate no revenue, and they both are paid some of the worst salaries in terms investment in education (for teachers) and risk (for those serving in the military). They most definitely should be paid more, but unfortunately, their field just doesn't generate the revenue to sustain what they deserve.

Well, there's a lot to reply to here.

First, it isn't revenues to the athletic programs that drive the proliferation of college sports. Most football programs don't pay for themselves, not to mention the "non-revenue" sports. So why have them? Competition for students and the need to retain those you have. A lot of what goes on in modern post-sedondary education is the functional equivalent of cruise ship activities. You get students "engaged" (i.e. entertained) and you'll attract more of them and, not coincidentally, get more money from the alums. State funding for colleges and universities is down substantially and the administrations have to make up the slack. Sports programs, even operating at a loss, can help to do that.

Second, doctors are a particularly bad example of a sometimes valid point. Why are doctors paid so well? Because the state, for really good reasons, drastically restricts the supply. Same for the supply of hospitals; that's pretty carefully regulated in most states. If the example had been pro basketball players the point would be more valid, though even there it's the taxpayer that picks u a lot of the tab by providing venues.

Third, teachers and the military do, in fact, generate revenue, largely by providing public goods that have general benefits. Problem = it is pretty hard to put a figure on their contribution since the services they provide can't be priced efficiently by markets. Consequently, we turn to a single price (taxes) that everybody has a personal interest in reducing. And, since in the US the mantra is always "Swedish level social services; Mississippi level taxes", we always have problems attracting and keeping any personnel in either calling that doesn't feel a professional obligation to keep at it.

This isn't intended as a put down, btw; these ideas are fairly widespread. But I had to reply to this. Oh, and Coach is worth every penny. The big surprise is how little Duke is paying Cutliffe.

 

[AE 87]

No brother you missed to even think that i would think anyone on this site was stupid let's me know you took the comment the wrong way. It's also clear that you don't know me so let's end it this way. GT has the best of both worlds. A great coach and great players. Go Jackets.

No worries. I don't know why you seem to be getting so upset. When you said that you were going to open up a can of worms, I thought I'd respect you enough to engage the substance of your post. It's like you wanted to open up a can of worms without opening up a can of worms. Anyway, I failed to get you to discuss what you wrote. Have a good one.

 

[Leonard Larramore]

Not upset brother. Just wanted you to know that I am open to discussion but I respect others opinion. Thats it brother. If we can't handle something as simple as this forum without feelings reeling out of control then we will be in trouble dealing with what life throws us. I love to engage in great discussions. Take care But know I am far from being upset.

 

[AE 87]

Not upset brother. Just wanted you to know that I am open to discussion but I respect others opinion. Thats it brother. If we can't handle something as simple as this forum without feelings reeling out of control then we will be in trouble dealing with what life throws us. I love to engage in great discussions. Take care But know I am far from being upset.

Good to know. Take it for what it's worth, but for what it's worth, it hasn't seemed to me that you respect my opinion or that you love to engage in great discussions (unless you deem me not fit or capable of one). Your last two posts in response to me have included, what seemed to me to be a dismissive "Enjoy your day," and then "let's end it this way," and here you say, "Take care" in a way that also seems designed to stop conversation. Well, I take those statements as not being open to discussion, but maybe I'm alone in that.

Also, in none of your posts, did you say, "Hey, you misunderstood me, so let me try to put it a different way" or "This is the point that I was trying to make in different words." In other words, you haven't tried to make me understand your post, so it doesn't seem like you are open to discussion. You did say that Techster got you, but Techster was talking about pro players getting paid. Was your point that the college game is the same as the pro game so that college players should get paid (or that surgical instruments should get paid since coaches are like doctors and doctors need tools)? Yet, I think that everybody knows that players need to be and are compensated for their participation. So, unless you assumed we didn't know that players need to be compensated (and they are), then your post wasn't clear.

Anyway, I'm glad that you're not upset, and I recognize that I could easily not be worth trying to have a discussion with. No hard feelings, Go Jackets!

 

[kyle.smith828]

Sentiment?

To be fair, he is from UGA, per his handle.

 

[Skeptic]

To be fair, he is from UGA, per his handle.

Now, play nice.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Second, doctors are a particularly bad example of a sometimes valid point. Why are doctors paid so well? Because the state, for really good reasons, drastically restricts the supply.

I'm curious as to what these are.

 

[takethepoints]

I'm curious as to what these are.

To insure that the doctor you get in the hospital or office exam won't kill you outright. That's surprisingly easy to do and is the reason why the state promotes a guild in medicine. The way you get people to go through the hell of medical education is by promising them boatloads of money when they get through. By that time you have inculcated most of them with a professional ethos that makes the delivery of medical services much more efficient and with skills that make it very unlikely that they will kill patients unintentionally. Throw in the institutional practices in hospitals and you get a health service that actually works. In many countries - not in poor ones yet - this particular intervention has pretty much killed off one of the Four Horsemen.

 

[Skeptic]

To insure that the doctor you get in the hospital or office exam won't kill you outright. That's surprisingly easy to do and is the reason why the state promotes a guild in medicine. The way you get people to go through the hell of medical education is by promising them boatloads of money when they get through. By that time you have inculcated most of them with a professional ethos that makes the delivery of medical services much more efficient and with skills that make it very unlikely that they will kill patients unintentionally. Throw in the institutional practices in hospitals and you get a health service that actually works. In many countries - not in poor ones yet - this particular intervention has pretty much killed off one of the Four Horsemen.

Understand to a point. But new medical schools are virulently opposed by those existing, while "beds" -- hospital space to help recovery -- are rationed and dispensed by the state (in our case anyway) and standalone surgical centers and such are throttled with requirements to prove "need" are often impossible to meet. All this supported by hospitals -- also monopolies in most areas -- and insurance companies that despite demands for efficiency, jack up rates to pay their expenses ... none of this, to me, promotes good medicine. Having said all that I have almost, almost, always, had good care in whatever regard.

 

[Lawyer mark]

Due to "state" limiting spaces, folks go to second rate med schools on some island south of us and then take boards and practice medicine here. Would be better to educate them here

 

[alaguy]

Haha...I get what you're saying. That's why NFL players, well, professional athletes get paid millions of dollars. We all know who really puts butts in the seats. Unfortunately, American college sports is the most unique "system" (*wink, wink*) there is in the sports world.

To open another can of worms--pro athletes get pd huge sums because the owners don't have to pay for stadiums--the public,WE DO. Take that away and ( the owners) and players get a lot less.
the College game has a related story also but less obvious.

 

[takethepoints]

Understand to a point. But new medical schools are virulently opposed by those existing, while "beds" -- hospital space to help recovery -- are rationed and dispensed by the state (in our case anyway) and standalone surgical centers and such are throttled with requirements to prove "need" are often impossible to meet. All this supported by hospitals -- also monopolies in most areas -- and insurance companies that despite demands for efficiency, jack up rates to pay their expenses ... none of this, to me, promotes good medicine. Having said all that I have almost, almost, always, had good care in whatever regard.

It is true that many of the practices of American medicine probably don't have much effect on medical care. But it's a trade-off: allowing a free market for providing medical services would be much, much worse. For instance, the regulations on hospital establishment are there in part to combat what I once heard called the "dark dialysis" problem. If you allow hospitals to proliferate freely they will, of course, locate in areas with lots of insured and wealthy people. They will all try to have similar kinds of equipment, all state of the art, to attract patients. That will include dialysis machines. Lots of dialysis machines. More dialysis machines then the patient base can use. Dialysis machines that are shut off ("dark dialysis") a good part of the time. Since there aren't patients to charge for dialysis, the hospitals jack up the fees for all other patients to cover amortization of the dark dialysis machines. The result = higher hospital fees, higher insurance premiums for everybody (the insurance companies are not charities), fewer insured people, and worse overall public health. Similar problems proliferate all over health care. Like I said, it's a trade-off. I'll take the regulations myself.

 

[Boomergump]

How did we go from HC salaries to the challenges facing the medical care industry? Oh wait. I know how. I read the thread. Back on topic please.