Head Coaches salaries

[a5ehren]

No, they don’t. Paul Johnson is not paid by Georgia Tech. He is paid by the Georgia Tech Athletic Association ... which owns and operates the athletic facilities. It is NOT part of the school administration. UGA is likewise.

The only schools I know where the athletic program is part of the school administration is Tennessee and Notre Dame. I’m sure there are more, but those I am familiar with.

http://www.open.georgia.gov/index.html

Our athletic coaches draw a portion of their salary from the school, which is the typical arrangement. CPJ got $380k in 2016.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Imo college football need to have a lot more regulations to even the playing field. I have a family member who is a Bama fan and he said he has not watched a game before because Bama was just blowing the other team out, I understand you can’t make every team even and this will still happen some but you can definitely even some things out. It just becomes boring to watch. I think there should be a cap on what a coach can be paid, as well as a cap for the entire coaching and support staff at a college, the coach could decide how much to spend per coach or support member, but he would have that cap. A kid should be able to sign at any point in his senior year, and only get out of it if the head coach is fired or leaves. No grayshirts so a team cant over recruit. All these things imo would change college football majorly and make it ten times more competitive. Oh, I almost forgot, there should be someone who can be over a region and pop in at any school at anytime to make sure the kids are actually being student athletes and not skipping class, he can make sure the support staff isn’t on the field helping coach or doing anything else illegal ect. And someone that doesn’t mind cracking down on the obvious cheating schools out there.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

I like the last idea you posted. Just the fear that a school might get a surprise " audit " might clean up some things. The bad publicity afterwards could be devestating.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I like the last idea you posted. Just the fear that a school might get a surprise " audit " might clean up some things. The bad publicity afterwards could be devestating.

Yep, and it’s not like the NCAA doesn’t have the money to pay people to do so. I’ll even do it for $150,000 a year and I’ll promise to crack down on Bama, Auburn, and UGA for my region lol ill even throw in UNC.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Jeremy Pruitt is getting paid 4.1-4.2 million a year for 6 years by Tennessee. Tennessee wanted to pay him a million to a million and a half more but Jeremy Pruitt wanted that to go to hiring top notch assistant coaches.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Yep, and it’s not like the NCAA doesn’t have the money to pay people to do so. I’ll even do it for $150,000 a year and I’ll promise to crack down on Bama, Auburn, and UGA for my region lol ill even throw in UNC.

I'll cover OSU, Michigan, ND and Louisville .......

 

[tech_wreck47]

Who wants FSU, Florida, Miami, and LSU?

 

[stech81]

Yep, and it’s not like the NCAA doesn’t have the money to pay people to do so. I’ll even do it for $150,000 a year and I’ll promise to crack down on Bama, Auburn, and UGA for my region lol ill even throw in UNC.

You wouldn't have time to add unc .

 

[Lavoisier]

The accrediting agencies are about the only real power left to level the playing field. They need to do what the NCAA did to SMU and set an example and revoke the accreditation of a major school for having joke classes for their athletes. Nobody is going to be able to cap salaries, and there's always ways around it (private deals to advertise, Arizona's stock options deal with their coaches etc.). $7million is a drop in the bucket for a lot of schools compared to what they get for research funding and tuition. If an accreditation agency makes Alabama degrees void and research funding dries up then the Alumni would want Saban fired immediately. Not only that, but I don't know if they would be able to compete in any sports if they aren't an accredited university and their players' credits wouldn't transfer. It would be harsh but they really need to send a message and they are the only groups who have any power imo.

 

[GT_05]

The accrediting agencies are about the only real power left to level the playing field. They need to do what the NCAA did to SMU and set an example and revoke the accreditation of a major school for having joke classes for their athletes. Nobody is going to be able to cap salaries, and there's always ways around it (private deals to advertise, Arizona's stock options deal with their coaches etc.). $7million is a drop in the bucket for a lot of schools compared to what they get for research funding and tuition. If an accreditation agency makes Alabama degrees void and research funding dries up then the Alumni would want Saban fired immediately. Not only that, but I don't know if they would be able to compete in any sports if they aren't an accredited university and their players' credits wouldn't transfer. It would be harsh but they really need to send a message and they are the only groups who have any power imo.

I like this thought but UNC had some fairly serious academic findings and SACSCOC, their main accrediting body, only put them on probation for a year. The SACSCOC president said it was the first time in 10 years that a school was put on probation for academic integrity. If what UNC did only warrants probation, I’m not sure what would warrant an academic “death penalty”. I’m honestly having difficulty thinking of anything worse than what UNC did academically. Maybe professors could have a “if you don’t like your grade, choose your own grade” policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[takethepoints]

I have to say it: this whole thread is playing around at the margins.

You want to reform college football before the Feds decide to do it for us? (They will, btw.) The answer is two fold. First, remove the incentives for using sports programs to make up the shortfalls in public financing. Public higher education has been underfunded relative to demand for over 50 years. We want young people to go to school, but we put substantial barriers of financing in their way and we don't build campuses to accommodate them. Instead, we ask them to take out loans that leave them indebted at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Then we tell higher education administrations that they need to "compete" for funds from private sources to make up for the differences between tuition receipts (still too low) and what they need to run the schools. What's the obvious way to attract such donors? Big time college sports would be my goto option for that. The donors to the sports programs get hit up all the time for other funds related to, you know, actually educating young people. (That's why we have colleges and universities, in case anybody forgot.) So … our first step has to be going back to the UC model: low tuitions and substantial building programs so that students who want to can go to school and colleges and universities can get back to Job One.

Second, turn every football (and other major sport) program in the country into Div. 3. There is no reason to have athletic scholarships at the public expense at all. If the pros want to put together a minor league football program and winnow out prospects, then let them pay for it. Public colleges and universities will field teams and play ball. They will also, of course, find ways to give "academic" scholarships to good players; I'm not denying that. Still, all the needless - entertaining, but needless - hoopla that now accompanies college athletics will be relegated to the sidelines. It'll stile on TV, of course - Ivy League games are - and there will still be conferences and TV contracts and some of the rest of it; I think we would be surprised at how quickly the entertainment side would adapt, especially if the pros don't field minor league teams.

Now, admittedly, step 2 here might actually require federal intervention. But make no mistake: the day is coming when the playing field will become so tilted that there will be irresistible pressure on them to act. All we have to do is keep on doing what we are already doing.

 

[WreckinGT]

I really wonder how this arms race can continue at the pace it is going. ESPN is now at a 14 year low in subscribers and continues to drop. This is going to hit television revenues eventually. Stadium attendance has dropped for 6 consecutive years. We have a new tax bill that basically imposes a luxury tax on the salaries of head coaches. Hopefully for us, spending comes down, because we simply can't compete in the arms race that is currently going on. If things keep going the way they are going then we will eventually be paying our head coach less than the power factories are paying their assistant coaches.

 

[Skeptic]

I'd give TCU and Stanford a decent shot. TCU was the first team out in 14 and Stanford is a Pac 12 contender meaning they have a shot

Oklahoma State was thought to be a contender this year. Kansas State probably peaked under Snyder a few years back. He's definitely on his way out and I don't think he'll contend for much before he goes.

KU was optimistic they would get Venables from Clemson -- he was an all-conference LB there in the '90s -- to succeed Snyder. But Venables wants to win a NC coaching at least one of his sons, just recruited into the 2018 class as a LB, and his youngest son already has an offer as a HS sophomore, supposed ti be a big hitter. So Clemson is where he can do it again -- his 3rd after one at Oklahoma, a very interesting factoid. And he already has expressed concern for anybody following Snyder.

 

[Skeptic]

I have to say it: this whole thread is playing around at the margins.

You want to reform college football before the Feds decide to do it for us? (They will, btw.) The answer is two fold. First, remove the incentives for using sports programs to make up the shortfalls in public financing. Public higher education has been underfunded relative to demand for over 50 years. We want young people to go to school, but we put substantial barriers of financing in their way and we don't build campuses to accommodate them. Instead, we ask them to take out loans that leave them indebted at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Then we tell higher education administrations that they need to "compete" for funds from private sources to make up for the differences between tuition receipts (still too low) and what they need to run the schools. What's the obvious way to attract such donors? Big time college sports would be my goto option for that. The donors to the sports programs get hit up all the time for other funds related to, you know, actually educating young people. (That's why we have colleges and universities, in case anybody forgot.) So … our first step has to be going back to the UC model: low tuitions and substantial building programs so that students who want to can go to school and colleges and universities can get back to Job One.

Second, turn every football (and other major sport) program in the country into Div. 3. There is no reason to have athletic scholarships at the public expense at all. If the pros want to put together a minor league football program and winnow out prospects, then let them pay for it. Public colleges and universities will field teams and play ball. They will also, of course, find ways to give "academic" scholarships to good players; I'm not denying that. Still, all the needless - entertaining, but needless - hoopla that now accompanies college athletics will be relegated to the sidelines. It'll stile on TV, of course - Ivy League games are - and there will still be conferences and TV contracts and some of the rest of it; I think we would be surprised at how quickly the entertainment side would adapt, especially if the pros don't field minor league teams.

Now, admittedly, step 2 here might actually require federal intervention. But make no mistake: the day is coming when the playing field will become so tilted that there will be irresistible pressure on them to act. All we have to do is keep on doing what we are already doing.

goo points all and worth pondering. But the most direct to me is our abysmal support for public education, and in the south generally and NC particularly a real aversion to it particularly post-HS. Shameful.

 

[Lavoisier]

TV money will decline over time, and you can only hike up ticket prices to a certain amount before people stop going (the NFL is starting to learn this) so that just leaves donors. You either have to have a large base like Big10 schools or a small but generous/rich base. There's also the chance we get an NFL development league or kids are allowed to sign out if highschool. This will position the better academic schools to do well in recruiting because the blue chippers will all go pro and you will have kids who basically get told they don't have a great shot at the NFL so they will likely be looking at backup plans outside of sports.

 

[LongforDodd]

... There's also the chance we get an NFL development league or kids are allowed to sign out if highschool. ...

That big-mouth Ball dude wants to start a B-ball league for kids that don't want college but have to wait one year to be eligible for the NBA. I like that idea and maybe some disgruntled father with three potential NFL sons will do the same with football. Evander Holyfield comes to mind but only potentially fits the "three (or more) sons criteria.

 

[Lavoisier]

Everyone would benefit except the NFL which would probably have to put up the money to start it. Kids who don't care about school won't have to deal with it, schools won't have to babysit kids to keep them eligible, coaches won't have to worry about losing a starter to a bad GPA.

 

[awbuzz]

Won’t matter. Most coaches don’t work for the school. They work for the Athletic Administration.

It's for Non profit organizations...
"Major-college athletics programs are facing significant increases in the cost of already highly paid coaches and administrators due a tax that will be imposed on the compensation of all non-profit organizations’ most highly paid employees." ..."a 21% excise tax on annual compensation above $1 million that goes to any of the organization’s five most highly compensated employees."

 

[Skeptic]

It's for Non profit organizations...
"Major-college athletics programs are facing significant increases in the cost of already highly paid coaches and administrators due a tax that will be imposed on the compensation of all non-profit organizations’ most highly paid employees." ..."a 21% excise tax on annual compensation above $1 million that goes to any of the organization’s five most highly compensated employees."

Am I the only one who thinks that is an odd clause to add to any bill? Almost as though they were as usual after education and got the coaches by mistake -- yeah, like a history teacher makes $3 mil, though his or her value is greater -- and now can't figure out how to explain it. Well, they can't explain any of it for that matter. it is just odd.

 

[awbuzz]

Am I the only one who thinks that is an odd clause to add to any bill? Almost as though they were as usual after education and got the coaches by mistake -- yeah, like a history teacher makes $3 mil, though his or her value is greater -- and now can't figure out how to explain it. Well, they can't explain any of it for that matter. it is just odd.

Maybe it was to hit the Clinton Foundation...