ESPN - College football coaches make a lot of money
Article talks about Harbaugh, Meyer, Saban, and others.
In just about all coaches' contracts nowadays, it's standard for them to receive use of dealer automobiles, country club memberships and tickets (usually including a suite) to all home football games. Some even get the use of a private plane for so many hours per year for personal use.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^
March 30th, 2015 at 12:22 PM ^
Other headlines I saw today:
CNN - Presidents of the United States Get to Live in Pretty Sweet House
ESPN - Mike Trout: Pretty Good at Baseball
Scientific American - Things Get Wet When You Drop Them in Water
March 30th, 2015 at 12:46 PM ^
I don't know. I think this is a pretty big issue. Breaking news? No. But it's something that people should really probably be thinking about; that is a LOT of money being spent by universities. The inflation of coaching salaries has been outrageous.
Michigan's AD is self-funding. So are a lot of AD's around the country. Giving the coaches a cut is not a problem because of the revenue they are producing. Besides, coaching salaries aren't that big when compared with MLB pitchers winning 11 games and getting $15 million for the year.
I like to think that there's a difference between the athletic department of a university and a professional sports team. Not saying coaches don't deserve a cut, just that the comparison is a little flawed if you hold to the idea that college athletics is about more than money.
March 31st, 2015 at 10:47 AM ^
I don't know if I'd say "a lot" of athletic departments are self-funded.
Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Of that group, 16 also received some type of subsidy — and 10 of those 16 athletics departments received more subsidy money in 2012 than they did in 2011.
LINK - I know the methodology isn't perfect and their definition of "subsidy" is problematic, but I don't think they're so far off that the take away message is fundamentally different: most athletic departments operate by running deficits.
The Michigan Football program sucks in $85 million dollars of annual revenue on about $25 million in costs, bringing in a $60 million/year profit. Among other things, that money goes to fund the Taj-mahal facilities in non-revenue sports, as it has to go somewhere and the athletic department keeps its finances to itself as its own entity.
The first question that should be asked is "Should we be running the top football programs as $85 million cash cows and bearing the inevitable business pressures which will trump those of the student athlete?"
So far, the answer has been "Yes". It would be enormously difficult to say "No".
The second question then becomes, "to whom do those revenues go, especially in regards to those who generate them?" Presently, the answer is primarily to coaches, and in accordance with an archaic amatuer model, secondarily to the generating "scholar-athletes" in the form of scholarships and small living expenses.
If we stay with the status quo on both of those questions, then ask yourself, "Is it worth paying the going market rate ($5 mil/year) for an incredibly rare resource (a coach of Harbaugh's caliber) to protect and grow that $85 million annual revenue stream, or should we save a couple million a year on the salary and not worry about what would have happened to that $85 million/yr stream under a lesser-paid coach of a Hoke-like caliber?
If you are thinking in terms of cashflow alone (without considering the strings attached in the form of business pressures), then you have to consider Harbaugh a financial boon to the university at $5 million/year.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
I was reading some stuff about Bo this weekend (actually, forcing my wife to listen to me read Bo history to her), and coming across the part in which Texas A&M tried to woo him with the princely sum of a $3M, 10 year contract to be dual AD/HC (would have been the most lucrative contact in the NCAA at that time) really stuck me how far college football has gone down the big-money rabbit hole.
College football has become a very, very different animal over the years, even just in the last 10 or so years since I graduated.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
is stunning to see how the pay has increased. I can't think of another profession that has happened in so quickly.
Also, not sure how I would feel about it if I was a player. They're getting nothing, save for a free education and laid, while the coach is banking $4 million a year.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:44 PM ^
It's a big reason why any discussion of player compensation that references "when I was in school..." falls flat to me. The economic realities of college football have changed so drastically, it's a totally different world than the 90s or 70s or whatever bygone era people are referring back to.
Bloated salaries are also a harsh and daming indictment of all the schools that can't keep their finances in the black. There is no reason for an athletic department to be paying coaches anywhere near this much money if you're taking money from the university.
on player compensation has been evolving for quite a while and I now count myself in the "pay them, at least something" camp. If nothing else allow them to make endorsement deals and give them a cut of merchandise sales.
I always feel bad for the guys that are knocked out of ever playing in the NFL by a college injury.
Besides, paying players would be great for Michigan in the long run. Most schools wouldn't be able to afford the expense, which would take the lower tier schools out of the recruiting equation.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:53 PM ^
I think that the year before the overtures from Texas A&M, Schembechler's base salary in 1981 was something like $60,000, the equivalent of a little more than twice that in today's terms. He managed to get a 40% raise to stay at Michigan too. By the mid-1990s, Moeller was making $130,000 or so and maybe 7 or 8 years after that, Carr broke the $1 million per year plateau at Michigan. The progression has been interesting to watch certainly.
Now, one can certainly say (I say it myself) that JH is worth $5MM considering U-M football brings in $85MM. His $5MM salary, after all, is only 5.9% of what U-M football brings in.
But look at the above numbers: Moeller was making $130,000 (!!!) just 20 years ago. If we use that same 5.9% number, that would mean U-M football was only bringing in $2.21MM in 1995. HA HA HA, no, I think that 1995 revenue number was larger than $2.21MM.
That's only 2 data points, but college coaches' salaries as a percentage of program revenue do seem to be continually increasing. Don't know how long it can increase, but it can't increase forever, of course.
was probably $16.2 million or so.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 30th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^
Slow news day at ESPN after Sweet 16/Elite 8 weekend games, next on SportsCenter....
March 30th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^
there goes any hope of me getting some work done this afternoon. I'll be watching this for the next hour or so.
Its a lot of money, sure, but as the old saying goes, you've got to spend money to make money. Are guys like Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, and Jim Harbaugh all inherently worth the money they're paid? No, they're not inherently any better than the next hard-working American trying to go out and make a living.
But think about how much money they indirectly bring into the school through winning football games. Booster support, alumni donations (both to the athletic and academic side), increased media coverage, and of course, butts in seats. How much also that is intangible do they bring in that perhaps changes the culture and perception of the entire school? These coaches help bring in a crap ton of money for the school just by being there and coaching football. Hell, Nick Saban is indirectly responsible for heavily increased admission applications at Alabama. People want to go there, in part, because of him and wanting to be a part of the dominant football culture he's created. Not the best reason to choose a school, but still, that's more money for Alabama, thanks to Nick Saban.
Sure, its a lot of initial money, but ask what people at Alabama, OSU, and eventually, what people at Michigan will say about paying that money. It was worth every damn penny, and they'd do it all over again, twice on Sundays, if they had to do.
of these coaches are probably a bit overboard. That being said, if I had a first born son to give up to bring Harbaugh here, I would have done it. I will always be against the idea of college athletes being compensated beyond scholarship money and enough for them to have plenty of food to eat and gas money for their cars or to travel home and see their families. I don't want to get into the argument of fair or not fair based on the amount of money these universities make, nobody puts a gun to a kids head and tells them to play college football (no sane person anyways).
I can put myself in their shoes and think "Man, these athletic department and universities sure are making a bunch of money off of me, why can't I see some of that?" At the same time, there were students like me saying, "I'm going to graduate with student loan debt, wish I could have earned an athletic scholarship, an excellent free education is all I want". Before anybody says you could have praticed or studied harder, yeah, I get it, I'm not complaning, just trying to showcase both sides of the discussion.
I don't think there really is an equal or fair way to truly compensate college athletes for the revenue they generate that wouldn't cause some sort of extreme backlash from either the universities, its alumni or parents of students who suck at sports. How can you say, athlete x is worth this amount to the university but student or athlete y is worth only this amount? Then say the student-athlete gets hurt, are they still entitled to money or is it a yearly contract negotiated between the school and the student-athlete?
Here is a meme for your viewing pleasure:
TAMU's offer of $3 million in 1980 is the equivilent of $8.5 million today. Coaches salaries have just barely kept up with inflation.
Yes but that offer was $3 million for 10 years which is only $300,000 per year. $300,000 in 1980 is like $850,000 today which Troy Calhoun at Air Force is making.
I saw a meme of the highest paid public employee in each state and the overwhelming majority was a head coach at one of that state's public universities. Usually football, North Carolina was probably basketball. In reality, Hackett should make more than Harbough, because he is Harbough's boss and Schlissel should make more than Hackett because he is Hackett's boss. However, I do understand how it is, and even understand why it is. It would be funny to hear Harbough say something like, No, I can't decide that! That has to be decided by someone WAY BELOW my pay level!
You saw a meme? Don't you just mean diagram or infographic? Also, Harbaugh - not Harbough.
My question in return: "How much money does the top talent at ESPN make?"
One site I found lists Cowherd's annual salary at $2M.
Now I ask ... is that "too much?"
My answer: "No ... not if the numbers show that he brings in revenue to support that salary."
Ditto college football coaches.
Kirk Ferentz is the outlier here.