OT: LSU is paying big $$$ to their OC and DC
Details of Cam's contract was released pending approval by the Board of Supervisors (e.g. rubber stamp).
2013 $600k
2014 $1.3M
2015 $1.5M
The interesting thing is when you combine this with Chavis' remaining two years on his current contact as DC you get the following bill not counting any other assistants (and obviously Les)
2013 $1.7M
2014 $2.6M
It is not SEC speed, it is SEC spending.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/5237321-32/lsu-releases-details-of-cam
February 20th, 2013 at 4:45 PM ^
Most big college football programs spend big money on coaches. News at 11.
February 20th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^
February 20th, 2013 at 5:17 PM ^
Please note the word 'most' in my post. While Michigan is a clear exception to the 'big programs pay big money' rule, you could make the case both coordinators took less pay, relative to what they could get at other big programs. Our OC followed Hoke when Hoke was hired and our DC only came back to college since it was Michigan. Both coordinators could get much larger paychecks if they wanted larger paychecks.
Also, many other Big Ten programs doesn't count as a big time college football programs.
February 20th, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^
February 20th, 2013 at 6:26 PM ^
Don't let facts get in the way of David's ranting.
February 20th, 2013 at 5:36 PM ^
But why is it that way? Historically, LSU doesn't hold a candle to Michigan, Alabama, USC, OSU, etc. They've been a strong program for what, 20 years, if that? Maybe the Big Ten should learn a lesson and realize that opening your wallet shouldn't just be a response to success, but something done to insure success.
February 20th, 2013 at 6:38 PM ^
Wish I could upvote, was going to say something similar!
February 20th, 2013 at 6:49 PM ^
20 years is a long time since the average recruit is 17 or 18 years old.
February 20th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
What does that have to do with finding the funds to pay salaries? Michigan does not have less money than LSU, and they don't have an excuse based on the history of the program.
February 20th, 2013 at 7:26 PM ^
Not even 20 years. They were mediocre when Saban went there in 2000, and it took him a few years to reach elite status.
February 20th, 2013 at 6:51 PM ^
Wow, David, weather must be pretty crummy up in Wyoming because you're even grumpier than usual.
You think Michigan is an exception to the spending trend and that "most" schools spend what LSU does? The reason this is news, is that Michigan actually pays more than "most" and yet these LSU guys are making crazy money. So I'd say this is, in fact, news.
February 20th, 2013 at 6:54 PM ^
The LSU offensive and defensive coordinatiors COMBINED salary is $1.7 million for 2013.
Mattison makes $750K - $900K and Borges makes $700K for a combined $1.5 million. Really not a big difference.
February 20th, 2013 at 7:09 PM ^
That's not a huge difference, but the 2.6million number the year after is pretty drastic.
February 21st, 2013 at 4:18 PM ^
But the quote I was replying to stated that the defensive coordinator at LSU makes more than our coordinators combined, which is not true. I was just saying that I think he read the OP wrong if he thought that.
February 20th, 2013 at 5:11 PM ^
by above poster
February 20th, 2013 at 4:48 PM ^
Dat southern football obsession.
February 20th, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^
Why does he make so much less in 2013 than the following two years?
February 20th, 2013 at 5:09 PM ^
February 20th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^
Strangely enough, Cam Cameron will not be the first millionaire assistant. Chad Morris, the OC at Clemson, makes $1.3 million right now, I think, but the question I have this - how long is it before Kirby Smart starts talking to Nick Saban about how difficult it is to be the defensive coordinator of Alabama for $950,000 per year before bonuses.
There are some fairly high assistant salaries elsewhere too - Manny Diaz makes $700,000 and Luke Fickell makes $761,000 per USA Today's database of 2012 salaries.
February 20th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^
It is legal extortion and blackmail veiled under the guise of contract law.
February 20th, 2013 at 5:22 PM ^
Monte Kiffin was the first I believe. A million dollars a year to join Lane at Tennessee.
February 20th, 2013 at 5:38 PM ^
lol that worked out well
February 20th, 2013 at 6:10 PM ^
Before some goes all "won't somebody think of the children" ...
I'm starting to get OK with the idea of paying coaches high salaries. Bear with me for a second.
More and more college coaches are former players. Former players, while not "paid" during their playing years receive a unique internship experience for the future career of college coach, in addition to their free degree. This experience is always glossed over by "pay the players" advocates.
Take Mike Hart. Decided early on that he wanted to coach. Took full advantage of his playing days at Michigan, played some in the NFL, and started his coaching career. That coaching career would not have been possible without his "internship," if you will, as an NFL player.
I recently got to hear Ron English talk about climbing the sports ladder and he said something along the lines of "think of Mike Hart. I'm not just paying him to be the RB coach. I'm training him for my job at the same time."
So, when we lament the rising coaches salaries, just keep in mind that it is increasingly becoming a viable career path for former players as well. A career path for players that would not exist without the corporate machine that is the NCAA,
February 20th, 2013 at 7:37 PM ^
I don't think you need some moral rationalization for paying them more. Michigan's coaches aren't paid with tax dollars, and we want to beat the SEC. Seems like enough justification to me.
February 20th, 2013 at 7:59 PM ^
February 20th, 2013 at 8:04 PM ^
Gotta pay them or fall on your face like Wisconsin or MSU.
February 20th, 2013 at 8:25 PM ^
so I don't understand why the B1G refuses to spend any of it on football coaches. Where does all this money go? Building 50 million dollar indoor rowing facilities?
Football makes the money and we should spend some of that money like we realize it, otherwise the B1G is going to continue to be a laughingstock
February 20th, 2013 at 8:40 PM ^
I don't disagree with your overall point, but part of what makes the Big Ten so much better than a conference like the SEC is that it cares about more than just the revenue sports. Why is builing training facilities for other sports a bad use of the money? I think there is probably a happy medium somewhere in there where we can stay at the top of football and keep our other facilities top notch, but if the choice was simply to raise the salary for football coaches or upgrade athletic facilities that need it, it's not exactly a no-brainer.
In fact, if our coaching staff was making crazy money but our rowing team wasn't getting the facilities it needed, I'd probably be more upset about that.
February 20th, 2013 at 8:44 PM ^
But are we even good in the nonrevenue sports? Michigan is, but I don't see many other Big Ten schools in the Sears Cup standings.
Frankly, I think we should give up the ruse that all sports are equal and not try to give every varsity sports team great facilities. The ones that generate revenue should be entitled to better facilities. (If a donor wants to fork over a ton of money towards one specific program, that's obviously a different story.)
February 20th, 2013 at 10:23 PM ^
We should probably make sure the women hold bake sales of stuff they made in the kitchen to raise funds for uniforms and stuff too.
Sarcasm aside, if it were strictly a profit endeavor, there's few women's sports team that would be in existance, and many less men's teams.
The revenue generators always have better facilities, and when there's extra money, the others get upgrades to be nearly as good. Football, then bball, will always have the best facilities at Michigan and most other schools.
February 21st, 2013 at 12:43 AM ^
I'm not arguing against fielding money-losing teams. There are, however, reasonable limits as to how much money we want to throw down the hole. Do we really need video replay scoreboards for baseball and softball? Here's the thing: a lot of the upgrades we have planned do little or nothing for the athletes themselves - they're designed to enhance the fan experience. Why do we need such an enhanced fan experience for sports that very few people attend? Are fans going to flock to Ray Fisher Stadium if it has a new scoreboard?
Given that 1) tuition continues to skyrocket (and that the athletic department has to pay out-of-state rates for everyone) that 2) coaches' salaries also continue to skyrocket (see this thread) and 3) that we still owe tens of millions of dollars to pay off the stadium renovation, I'd prefer us not to be such spendthrifts with this so-called "extra money."
Our athletic department is extremely reliant on the football cash cow to fund everything. Right now things seem OK. But we know that we're going to have to raise ticket prices again eventually, and at some point, the ticket prices might finally cause supply to outstrip demand. My concern is that we may not be prepared for that day. IMO, we should be directing most of our annual surplus funds toward retiring the stadium debt and/or creating sufficient reserves in case of future rainy days. Fan amenities for low-attendance sports is pretty frivolous spending.
February 20th, 2013 at 11:14 PM ^
Michigan is, but I don't see many other Big Ten schools in the Sears Cup standings.
The B10 is the best wrestling conference. The B10 is the best volleyball conference (this says A LOT considering the west coast powers). The B10 is the best Gymnastics conference. The "B10" is the best/only hockey conference. With the addition of Maryland, the B10 is one of the men's soccer powers.
ETC, etc, etc. The Sears Cup standings are dumb and flawed. As a conference, the B10 and Pac-10 are really where it's at for non-revenue sports. And even a sport like Swimming which is predominantly a west coast sport is dominated by Michigan.
If the day comes where we forget about non-revenues, then I'm done loving college sports.
February 21st, 2013 at 12:27 AM ^
February 21st, 2013 at 8:33 AM ^
Then I don't understand your argument because football and basketball are already given all the biggest and best shiny toys. Once that's done, why not spend money on baseball and softball and soccer?
February 20th, 2013 at 9:14 PM ^
February 20th, 2013 at 11:16 PM ^
The day Michigan has a player - in the off-season no less - taking four online sports management classes is the day I'll agree with you.
B10 > SEC
as far as academic standards go.
February 21st, 2013 at 9:15 AM ^
If this forces an already constrained Marylandish like school into pulling non-revenue dollars to pay their loss leading FB coordinators that would make my head spin.
....uh...why is my head spinning.