WTF is happening with the Assistant Coaching arms race?
I missed this one, but happened to catch it on Dr. Saturday (whose text is below). It is bad enough USC stomps the Big Ten, do they have to eff up the coaching ranks as well? Carroll's $1M OC, Sarkisian's $900k DC and now this with Kiffin at UT? $400k for an OLB coach? Isn't that more than we will pay our new DC?
"Clearly, though, UT is committed to fortifying that limb, as its final push to fill out Kiffin's coaching staff proved late last week. Consider that at the start of last season, the most expensive assistant coach in the country was Florida State's offensive coordinator/coach-in-waiting Jimbo Fisher, at a base salary of $600,000. Tennessee not only nearly doubled that for Kiffin's grizzled dad, Monte, to come on as defensive coordinator (he'll make a little more than $1 million), but also topped it for Ed Orgeron's noted recruiting prowess (Coach O will bring in $650,000 as recruiting coordinator and defensive line coach). Last week, they went for broke to lure Alabama's ace recruiter, Lance Thompson, for $400,000 -- as an outside linebackers coach who'll play second fiddle to Orgeron on the recruiting trail. That's well over $2 million for three assistants, more than most schools -- even SEC schools -- allocate for their entire staff of assistants."
January 21st, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
Look, Michigan is actually a University that has a historically elite football program. Alabama, Tennessee, Florida St. - they are, academically, vastly inferior schools. The fact that the university may actually spend money on being an educational instituion rather than hiring a linebackers coach doesn't bother me in the least.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
Isn't the Michigan athletic department completely self-sufficient though? So all money spent by the department comes from ticket sales and licensing and such, and not a penny from tuition. Which means hiring a linebackers coach doesn't affect being an educational institution.
Of course, it probably does affect smaller sports. So I suppose the university would spend money on excelling in many sports rather than hiring a linebackers coach.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:27 PM ^
Do Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida State have self-sufficient athletic departments? This could give them a competitive advantage relative to Michigan.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:38 PM ^
I don't think that's a problem for us. We've been in the black financially for the last several years under Martin. We probably could match these salaries, but have chosen not to thus far.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:32 PM ^
It's self sufficient, yes - it's actually a CONTRIBUTOR to the university, and that's my point. According to their 2007 budget (most recent I could find - just google "Michigan athletic department budget), the AD is essentially at a wash right now. They made $4 million and change in operating income which is going to fund Capital expenditures - the new football facility, renovation at the tennis facility, etc. When Martin took over they were operating at a loss WITHOUT funding Capital expenditures - Martin slashed costs without increasing revenues to essentially put the university on a level where they could fund projects through savings.
So, there isn't really that much wiggle-room, considering the fact that we've already undertaken these projects, and will be paying the debt-service on them for years on end. So, a dramatic increase in salaries (say we paid Robinson $1 million instead of $200 like people want, and hire some $500 grand LB coaches) would either:
a) stop them from building and maintaining facilities
b) stop them from giving financial contributions to the school
Or both. The point here is this - Michigan's AD is one of the few (2 or 3) around that ACTUALLY MAKES MONEY. It being self-sufficient is exactly what stops it from offering exorbitant salaries. Michigan wants the AD self-sufficient so it won't take money from the school - like what Tennessee is doing.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
Other than paying tuition for athletes on scholarship, our athletic department does not contribute to the university financially. All profits flow back into the AD. (Unless you're talking about the phenomenon in which winning sports teams tend to induce more people to donate to their universities.)
Also, there are more profitable athletic departments than you think. A study found that for a recent fiscal year (2006-07, I believe), every Big Ten athletic department was profitable except MSU and one other school (Indiana?) - and MSU was at a loss only because they'd given Izzo a seven-figure bonus.
We are one of the few schools to field 20+ varsity sports teams and be profitable. That's probably the statistic you were thinking of. Most of our conference brethren field fewer teams than us as a cost-cutting measure.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
I'm moderately sure that the AD has supported the library in the past.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:50 PM ^
There is nothing to indicate that the Athletic Department spending more money on an assistant coach has an adverse effect on the university's ability to "spend money on being an educational institution" (I'm not sure exactly what that means). That's a complete false choice.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
Ohhhhh, good catch. Should be interesting to see Chitownblue's reply.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:06 PM ^
If they're taking money that was not generated by the athletic department to pay for assistants, isn't there now less money for the rest of the university to spend on the educational side?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:20 PM ^
...is that the Athletic Department is self-sufficient, and is not taking money away from the rest of the University to pay for assistant football coaches. My understanding is that the athletic department, at least recently under Bill Martin, has been operating in the black.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:28 PM ^
Is there anything to show that those other athletic departments have been running in the black as well? Doesn't it make sense that part of the reason the athletic department isn't drawing money from the rest of the university is because they don't do things like this?
Saving up extra money for later gives them greater ability to start major projects, like a basketball practice facility with no major donors, without taking on a large amount of debt.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:34 PM ^
That's exactly it - those other AD's AREN'T running in the black. There are less than 5 in the nation that are. The fact that the AD isn't funded by the University at large is EXACTLY what is stopping them from offering asinine salaries - they actually have to turn a profit at the end of the year. Failure to do that is what got Goss canned.
UT (Tennessee), for instance, has an AD that received $2.5 Million from the University in 2007 and LOST $10 million.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:42 PM ^
Then paying an excessively large salary to assistant coaches would adversely effect the Athletic Department's ability "to start major projects, like a basketball practice facility[.]" There is nothing to indicate that excessive salaries would harm the University's ability "to be an educational institution," or whatever Chitownblue's wording was. The initial choice presented was a false one. That was my point.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:48 PM ^
So we'll just start screwing the other sports teams instead?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^
Having costs exceed revenue would require that the AD take money from the University at large.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
That is eye-popping.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:23 PM ^
They're paying their new OC around $300K and the Broncos are responsible for paying the difference to the $1M he had left on his contract.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^
I have lived in Atlanta for 18 years and there is a completely different mentality when it comes to college football. For years, there was no major sports franchises in the south and that's one of the reasons that college football and NASCAR are such huge sports in this region as it was the only option for many many years. That being said, the metality towards college football is more akin to something you'd see in the business of pro sports where we somtimes complain we're not spending enough to get one athlete or complaining we are paying too much for another. UT would gladly pay all of their assitants $1M salaries to guarantee Championships because that's the mentality of the fan base, the shool administrators, etc. They put more of a premium on football than there is on education starting in the pee wee leagues and it carries right through to HS and into their regional Universities.
Let's just see if all this money to the Kiffins and their staff pays off because you still need to go out there on Saturday afternoon and beat the man in front of you no matter how much more money your position coach makes than his does.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:51 PM ^
Yes, its just a TV show (formerly a book), but it does a pretty good job of exposing the levels of interest in academics vs athletics.
Agree with your assesment of the situation. At times its ridiculous, but other times I am in awe of just how important is down there and the ends they go to achieve it.
Crazy stuff.
In unrelated news, what happened to your diary from yesterday. I thought it was well written and sparked some good discussion. I turned away for an hour and it dosappeared. Regardless, I hope you put together more diaries in the future.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:19 PM ^
Good points. I have family at U of Arkansas, and they both have told me that the difference in focus between athletics vs. academics is jarring initially. People in the South don't dislike education - many of these schools have fine students and solid programs - but sports is such a communal activity that everything is forgotten during football season. Movies like FNL and Varsity Blues captured the Texas mentality, but that type of fanaticism permeates the South. Thus, I'm not surprised that schools are willing to invest so much money into coaches, but it is a little scary to see what happens when that investment doesn't pan out (e.g. Spurrier kicking kids out after signing letters, Nutt at Arkansas, the bloodbath at UT if Kiffin fails, etc.).
January 21st, 2009 at 5:07 PM ^
While I am not one to complain too much about a functioning free market economy as it applies to compensation of college coaches (yay alliteration!), I do think that the NCAA needs to look at some of these salaries and determine whether or not a cap of some sort should be placed on salaries, at least for assistants. Sure, UT, USC, UM, etc. can afford to pay coaches whatever they (reasonably) want, but most schools simply don’t enjoy that luxury. There are now major college programs with Recruiting Coordinators and Linebacker Coaches who make more than a significant chunk of college head coaches, and I see this chasm between the haves and the have-nots (in terms of facilities, recruiting prowess, name recognition, etc.) that will only continue to grow when the top teams can set the salary bar to unattainable heights.
Sure, most top-25 teams will simply dip further into their AD coffers, cut a few non-revenue programs if necessary, and stay the course. But what about most D-1 schools in smaller conferences, like the MAC, WAC, Mountain West, etc., or even weaker/smaller schools in BCS conferences (e.g. Duke, Indiana, Northwestern, Vandy, etc.) who don’t have massive budgets and rely more heavily on general university funds? We’ve already seen the disparity between coaches’ salaries and those of other individuals at universities, and this uptick will only exacerbate this more.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the NCAA look deeper into this issue, maybe setting ceilings on salaries for certain coaching positions, at least initially, as a means to temper this rampant inflation. I’m not calling for OCs to receive $50-100k a year, but a reasonable salary that most programs could afford. While I wouldn’t be against HCs also falling under such a cap, I doubt that would ever happen. Still, I think something needs to be done sooner rather than later, or college football will become even more polarized than it already is.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:40 PM ^
Communist
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
Realist
January 21st, 2009 at 5:40 PM ^
According to MGoBlue site, we have 10 assistant coaches/coordinators. MDaily lists:
Shaffer 265 K$
Magee 275
Barwis 190
Gibson 190
Tall 180
Frey 180
Smith 170
Jackson 170
Dews 170
Hopson 170
Assistant Strength Coaches (7 of them) total of 330 K
That adds to $2,300,000 (rounded)
Texas (highest in Big12) is listed at $2,380,000 here:
http://newsok.com/article/3272541
BTW, the Texas figure is up 53% from 2005. So, it looks like the salary war started a year or so ago.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^
"Barwis 190"
Should read:
Barwis 190 confirmed kills
January 21st, 2009 at 7:02 PM ^
Brian - there are playoffs in many European leagues. The Eredivisie in the Netherlands, for instance, has both a yearly tournament (concurrent to the normal league), as well as a tournament for determining who gets the leagues 2nd Champions League slot. They're not playoffs per se, because they don't out and out determine the league champion, but they may as well be.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:10 AM ^
Chitown is right that Michigan's Athletic Department puts additional money into the University's general fund that is above and beyond just paying for student-athlete scholarships.
UM is also one of the few schools who pays "market rate" for their athletic scholarships -- meaning the University charges the AD whatever the cost out of state tuition is these days for all of those Florida recruits (some schools allow the AD to pay in-state tuition for out of state athletes). Let's also not forget that UM's tuition for a public school is much higher than it's peer institutions.
Here's another fact that most people don't know: the Big Ten has revenue sharing for its conference home games, so the Michigans and Penn States and Ohio States of the conference have to essentially give gate revenue to the Indianas, Northwesterns, Purdues and Minnesotas of the conference, so even the advantage of having a large stadium does minimal good when you have to re-distribute the wealth.
All of those costs add up, and although UM does pretty well for itself in regards to licensing revenue, other schools also fatten up on in-stadium advertising.
If Michigan has to get into a bidding war for coaches, they will lose unless they sell their soul to the devil in some fashion.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:17 AM ^
According to this article:
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0708/Jun23_08/22.php
The Michigan AD give approximately $1.5 million dollars per year to the University's general fund - the majority of which goes to general student financial aid.
So, last year, about 20% of their operating surplus was a gift to the University. The rest essentially went to fund future capital expenditures.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
You and your fucking "facts" can piss off.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 AM ^
I just find it funny that there were 3 people ready to jump down my throats and "get me" for being wrong, and then the second facts come out, it's deathly silent.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
Crickets
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 PM ^
Mmmm...crickets.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 PM ^
Except that your original statement was: "The fact that the university may actually spend money on being an educational instituion (sic) rather than hiring a linebackers coach doesn't bother me in the least."
The release you cited states that the Athletic Department provides a gift to the University's General Fund out of its yearly budget surplus (which I think is fantastic). So while spending more money hiring a linebackers coach might affect the amount of the gift provided to the University at large, there is nothing to indicate that the University is unable to "spend money on being an educational institution" (mmm...vague generalities) in the absence of the Athletic Department's gift, unless the University stupidly builds that anticipated "gift" from the athletic department into its operating budget. The "gift" is just that - it's frosting for the University.
More importantly though, it's not even clear that spending more money on an assistant coach would even affect the gift provided to the University at all. Perhaps the Athletic Department would offset the cost by spending less on its own capital expenditures for a given year. Or on the men's soccer team. Or maybe the Athletic Department would raise the price of hot dogs sold at the Big House concession stands (which, in my opinion, are excellent). Who knows?
The release you posted also indicates that the Athletic Department expects a $10.3 million surplus in FY 2009, and anticipates providing $1.5 million of that to the University's general fund. There is nothing to indicate that if that surplus went from say, $10.3 million to $9.9 million, the gift to the University would decrease. The Athletic Department provided a $1.5 million gift to the general fund in FY 2008 as well, even though the AD's surplus for that year was $14.2 million. Perhaps Bill Martin has decided that regardless of the size of the surplus, he's going to give a $1.5 million gift to the general fund each year.
I think it's great that the athletic department provides a surplus to the University, and I hope the practice is able to continue for the foreseeable future. My point was that the gist of your original comment: spending more money on assistant coaches comes at the expense of the University's ability to "be an educational institution," presented a false choice (unless we're talking about paying an assistant coach a salary that would eat the entire AD budget surplus. If that was the case, I'd imagine Rich Rod would be pissed, because one of his assistants was making WAY more than he was).
Given that you've taken it upon yourself to police these boards with a vigilance that borders on retardation, you should probably be more careful when you make your own vague statements.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 PM ^
Well, obviously, it's 100% impossible to predict from which pocket they'd take the money - would it be the gift to the general fund, from CapEx, whatever. My point, I suppose, is that the AD operates as a financially self-sufficient entitity - this is a limiting constraint, not a liberating factor. Most AD's in the nation cost their Universities money - whether it be directly taking cash to pay expenditures or paying a severely discounted tuition rate for athletic scholarships. Our does neither. By not leaching money from the University, and actually ADDING money and facilities to the University as whole, the AD benefits the University as a whole. I would rather see a continuation of that policy than a $400,000 LB coach.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:23 PM ^
Uh, I don't know if you are counting me as one of the three who was out to get you, but even if the AD sends money back to the rest of the University, I still think the women's soccer team is more likely to be affected by extravagant spending on a linebacker coach before any money comes out of the donations to the general fund. So any lack of noise from me is because showing the AD donates money to the general fund doesn't mean academics will be affected by spending more on assistant coaches.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^
No, I guess it was two. I didn't count.
Anyway, it's impossible to tell what they'd stop spending money on in order to cover the salary. So, yeah, they could cut spending elsewhere to increase a salary - like fire an assistant soccer coach or something. This is slowly turning into the "Football makes all the money, we should do what they want" argument.
I'm only attempting to say that the AD isn't exactly flush with cash - every dollar of profit is being either given to the University or saved to add facilities. Substantially increasing the salaries of our assistant coaches by, collectively, $1 million (made up hypothetical number) requires a tradeoff. Either they cut funding to another sport, cut the gift to the University, or borrow more money at worse rates when doing improvements (which is self-defeating, as that, in the long-term, would cost more money). Given that array of options, I have no problem with their choice not to offer $1 million salaries to coordinators.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^
But the point you're making now is far different (or at least far better articulated) than the vague one you made originally. Given how obnoxious you and the "Army" are in calling people out on these boards, it's certainly fair to call you out when you make a statement that doesn't exactly make sense.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
No, Blue. I said that I thought that the money would be better spend towards the betterment of the University (not exact words). Right now, the excess revenue is being spent towards facility upgrades (usable by the entire University), and doing such lessens their future financial commitment; and a gift to the University. Again, a usage of money that betters the school as a whole. Increasing costs would decrease the surplus. Decreasing the surplus would make them either stop giving money to the school, or borrow more money which would have bad fiscal repurcussions in the future.
For the record, I wasn't trying to berate or "police" the original poster, as he didn't really advance an argument - he was just noting the trend.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
Indeed.
The fact that the university may actually spend money on being an educational instituion rather than hiring a linebackers coach doesn't bother me in the least. -- not really true.
Substantially increasing the salaries of our assistant coaches by, collectively, $1 million (made up hypothetical number) requires a tradeoff. Either they cut funding to another sport, cut the gift to the University, or borrow more money at worse rates when doing improvements (which is self-defeating, as that, in the long-term, would cost more money). Given that array of options, I have no problem with their choice not to offer $1 million salaries to coordinators. -- I'm on board with this
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 PM ^
Well I guess it's not "deathly silent" anymore :).
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^
I'm trying to concentrate.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 AM ^
that if the women's soccer team was negatively impacted by the College Football arms race that would be a bad thing? I'm trying to think of a reason why that would be bad
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
If you're committed to offering a wide swath of college sports to a large number of people, yes.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
j/k. just trying to add a little levity.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 PM ^
Due51, I think we are going to have to include guidance for many folks on any sentence that is not meant literally:
(Humor)
(Levity)
(Sarcasm)
(Ironic)
etc.
I laughed at your initial post. I was sure it was levity.
Because, we all know ALL women's sports are completely immaterial (Humor, Levity).
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 PM ^
OK, I'll jump right in and ask Chitownblue:
"Alabama, Tennessee, Florida St. - they are, academically, vastly inferior schools."
Really? What is the source for this statement?
Plus, next: "The fact that the university [i.e. U/M] may actually spend money on being an educational instituion (sic) rather than hiring a linebackers coach doesn't bother me in the least."
This sounds like an inference that Alabama, Tennessee, Florida St. DO spend money on hiring linebackers rather than on education.
Source?
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 PM ^
Source for academic is the US News and World Report rankings. All three are outside the top 100.
The second piece is inference. I couldn't find operating budgets for FSU or Alabama, but at Tennessee, the AD actually takes money out of the University's General Fund (IE, they are not academically self-sufficient, like UM), and STILL lost approximtely $15 million dollars. Because they take money from the General Fund, there is less money to spend on financial aid, teachers salaries, etc.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:45 PM ^
Thanks.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 PM ^
This is my first post so please cut me some slack if I make a fool of myself, but I have two points/questions, here goes:
1. Isn't there some return to the AD if they hire the expensive assistants? Maybe paying the extra cash results in better recruits/better coaching/more wins/more revenues/more contribution to the general fund.
2. To what extent are assistant coaches hired for their skills as a coach vs as a recruiter? It sounds like schools should consider hiring recruiting specialists.
Comments