Oklahoma shelled out $325,000 for Jerry Montgomery

Submitted by Leaders And Best on March 27th, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Football salaries were released today for Oklahoma when they went for approval to Board of Regents. Jerry Montgomery got a pretty sizable deal making $325,000 per year--making him the highest paid non-coordinator assistant on the staff (4th highest behind Mike Stoops, Josh Heupel, and Jay Norvell)




March 27th, 2013 at 11:39 PM ^

Keep in mind, if we matched that offer we'd probably also have to give Mallory, Smith, Funk, etc. all the same raise.  They were all making the same amount (except for Jackson and Heck, I think).  You'll still say that we can match that; but do we think it's worth it?  I mean, we got Roy Manning.  Montgomery was great, but Montgomery or Manning + $500,000 a year, you tell me what you choose.


March 28th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^

but I know I've seen quotes from recruits and/or their families extoling how awesome of a recruiter Montogmery was. I think he and Greg were definitely our top 2 but I think it'd be hard to say who's actually a better recruiter. All Mattison has to do is walk into a guys house and say "You equals Ray Lewis. Michigan. Goodbye" whereas Montogomery apparently impressed a lot of people too.

So anyway, Mattison rules, but Montogmery is excellent as well


March 28th, 2013 at 2:20 PM ^

Montgomery was the only young relatable guy on our staff, so he was an asset in recruiting. However, he contributed little beyond being young relatable guy.

Not knowing much about his coaching ability (though it sounds strong), Manning is at least young relatable guy who played in the NFL and fucking loves Michigan. Boom.


March 28th, 2013 at 8:30 AM ^

Obviously market forces drive salaries, and football is a big business. But maybe the poster has a point that someone who contributes so very little to the benefit of society (most big time coaches, and Montgomery isn't the only one) shouldn't be valued so high, especially when compared to our educators. Now that wild require a re-examination of society starting with us, the consumers that make this possible, and what we should truly value, but he does have a point.


March 28th, 2013 at 8:34 AM ^

In an idealistic society, yes.  

The reality is that revenue drives salaries.  The football team is, by far, the largest source of annual revenue at the university, so the university will spend to keep that cash cow humming.  

If this professor worked in a department that delivered similar revenue dollars, I'm sure he would be making as much, if not more, than a D-line coach.  If that were the case, I would not begrudge him one bit.  I'm sure he would have earned it, just as I'm sure the football coaches earn it.  


March 28th, 2013 at 9:14 AM ^

Too often in society today maximizing short term profits has become the top priority but also the only measure of someone's worth. The words of Gordon Gekko that "greed is good" which when he uttered them were supposed to scandalize the audience are becoming the view of society.

The mission of the University of Michigan is not to maximize football profits. The mission of the university has nothing to do with winning football games.

Attracting and keeping the most talented faculty and students is critical to the university. Because they are the university. The football team is not. At all.

I'm not saying that Michigan shouldn't pay football coaches. Although, I do think that you're forgetting about the concepts of supply and demand with regards to salary. Are there any DL coaches making +$300 in college football other than Montomgery? Is he really the best in the country and can therefore able to command such a salary? I doubt it.

And as far as departments at the university bringing in similar money. I can say that I worked in one of the departments that brought in the most grant money and your statement is totally ridiculous. None of the faculty were making $300K in salary from the university (except probably MD's who also had clinical responsibilities somewhat tangential to their duties as faculty.) Most were making far less and the graduate students and post docs were paid on par with what the original poster described.

I do not begrudge Montgomery or any college football coach their salary. Thats just how things work. But please stop judging value and worth by salary alone. Without the faculty, graduate students, and post docs the University of Michigan would not exist.

I refuse to let the University of Michigan be reduced to a platform for a football team because of money. By the same token, we need to keep the football players and coaches in proper perspective. Their salaries reflect the market and not their value to the mission of the University of Michigan.


March 28th, 2013 at 9:38 AM ^

People are reacting to an economic statement and little else (professor saying "that lowly coach makes too much more than me!", which is itself a biased statement of value).  We don't need a lecture on who's more valuable - in your view - to the university or the greater world at large.


March 28th, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^

By the same token, we need to keep the football players and coaches in proper perspective. Their salaries reflect the market and not their value to the mission of the University of Michigan.

You are splitting hairs. The fact is, the football program is an enormous recruiting tool for the university. If the mission of the university is to attract the best and brightest, then yes, the football program holds great value to our mission. Without it, we would not attract as many potential students, especially from out-of-state.

And yes, an individual football coach is far more valuable than an individual faculty member, because the success of the football team is much more statistically demonstrable. An unsuccessful football coach's record is out there for the entire world to see. Evaluating a faculty member is trickier. By and large, students take courses to fulfill requirements, not because they specifically are interested in that particular instructor. And (again, by and large), if they get a good grade, they'll be satisfied. Whether or not our molecular biology professor is better than his/her equivalent at Case or Oberlin or whatever hardly matters to anyone. To the average person, college instructors are interchangeable, because what matters to them is their grade. Football coaches OTOH are clearly not interchangeable and a bad one can have a seriously detrimental effect on students' experience.


March 28th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^

No none football player ever attended the University of Michigan because it was where Montgomery coached. Right? Because that is who we are talking about here.

I also disagree with your suggestion that any serious person is more inclinded towards Michigan because of the football team rather than the academics. Smart people go to Michigan because it is a great school with great faculty not because they played in a BCS bowl.


March 28th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^

Football players primarily come for the coaches. The LEVEL of player you get has to do with the program level, but individual players come to play for coaches. I'm sure one was wow'd by a Montgomery, or a Mattison.

And smart people go to Michigan because it's Michigan...but what made them pick Michigan over Harvard or MIT? Are you saying you just ranked all your schools by the US News and World Report rankings, and applied to them and the best one who accepted you, you went there?  Kids go because of academic standing, but much like how a kid chooses to play football at Michigan over Alabama, they then take into consideration of location, cost, family tradition, and yes, sports and activities. If all that didn't matter the school wouldn't be turning dorms into five star hotels.  

Why did I go to Michigan instead of Yale or something? I'd have to say having great academics AND great sports was a part of it.


March 28th, 2013 at 1:52 PM ^

Theoretically I wouldn't disagree with your points, but it is worth noting that while attending informational sessions for the Ross MBA program they make Michigan athletics and the football Saturday experience a very tangible selling point.  It does make an impact on individual decisions to attend the University, and more broadly impacts the Michigan brand that is amongst the most well-known and highly regarded globally.  If you eliminated football, Michigan would still be a top notch educational institution, but more akin to prestigous liberal arts schools on the East Coast that don't hold the same global regard.






March 28th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^


I also disagree with your suggestion that any serious person is more inclinded towards Michigan because of the football team rather than the academics. Smart people go to Michigan because it is a great school with great faculty not because they played in a BCS bowl.


This is pretty demonstrably false. Ask any group of Michigan students/alumni how they ended up here, and many will tell you that they were first attracted to Michigan because of its sports teams.   Our sports are a big factor that helps to differentiate us from most of our academic peers.  It absolutely was a factor for me personally.  I wanted to go to a good school, and I also wanted to cheer for big sports programs.  I felt I would be missing out at a non-sports school.




March 28th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^

Similar story.  The deciding factor in choosing Michigan for me over other similar insitutions was athletics.  Period.  No other factor was close.  I could not name one Michigan professor before arriving on campus, but knew all the players on the football team.

EDIT: Now that I am thinking about it, I can only name five professors/GSIs that taught me during my four years.


March 28th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^

The hospital finances makes the Athletic Department  budget look like chump change. But likening a post doc or grad student to an assistant coach isn't really equivalent. More like a grad assistant to the football team. And they don't make dick either. A football head coach is the lead professor or even really a division head in a department, and assistants are your top professors...because there are so few of them. 


March 28th, 2013 at 9:30 AM ^

Not even in an ideal society. I'll avoid going into politic on the board, but I think it's pretty clear that college football brings a lot more joy, motivation, and enrichment to people's lives than the minions in an overpopulated academic department (and they're pretty much all overpopulated these days) - even at one of the best academic institutions in the world.


March 28th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^

by calling teachers "minions in an overpopulated academic department." Look, university professors work incredibly hard to give students a valuable education. Calling them minions is hitting below the belt.

I love college football and it brings me a lot of joy but I'd rather have a degree from a good university with a bad football team than one from a football factory that doesn't have good academics. The beauty of Michigan is that we can have both.


March 28th, 2013 at 8:32 AM ^

...but more about contributing to society....we are all fans, but you guys disrespecting a teacher is out of bounds...people coaching (in any major sport) at this level are vastly over-paid compared to many scientists and physicists, but that is the nature of the beast...however there is no need to put down a professor by saying a football coach should earn more money, that is not even close to true nor rational


March 28th, 2013 at 9:05 AM ^

The person we entrust to keep our environments clean for our precious students?  Do you value a professor more than the janitor?  Maybe they both should make $300K.  

The OP was silly, and dismissed even rudimentary understanding of economic forces.


March 28th, 2013 at 9:55 AM ^

And of course it's fine to have your view.  But someone could argue a FB line coach has more value to society: if he teaches his players football, but even more about life/responsibility/charity/accountabilibuddy, those players go on to fame and fortune, giving back to society on a nationwide stage, espousing FB coach's beliefs, collectively inspiring millions of children who grow into accountabilibuddy adults, and those players also give $ back to the school (ala Woodson), helping to build hospital wings and fund research that saves thousands of lives.

I'm not making that argument, but it could be made.  And they're both fine.  But on an economic basis, which is what started this string of replies, it's naive for a professor to decry his relative $ worth vs. a DL coach.


March 28th, 2013 at 10:04 AM ^

The current head coach at my high school's favorite saying is "Football is the most important class you'll take in high school."  And we don't have it as a class; it's just a sport.  In my life, the lessons of teamwork, accountability, respect, etc. have been much more valuable than any individual academic course I've taken.

I'm not saying that the average football coach is more valuable to society than the average teacher/professor, but that will certainly be true for some kids.


March 28th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^

We're all on a site dedicated to football.  Nobody is on the Calc 101 blog. 

You'll use what your learn in school to make a living, but the actual day to day events, does anyone remember what happened in a mid-October Econ class of their sophomore year?  
But we'll have 200 comment threads on "what game do you remember good/bad..."


March 28th, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^

...the value of a good coach's ability to help shape a kids life, i had a few good football coaches throughout my highschool career and couple of really bad basketball and hockey coaches that were complete assholes who cheated on their wives and none of us kids could stand being around them...a coach telling a kid to do the right thing is expected....my point is most of the time it doesn't matter how good of a coach you have, it is how your family/parents raise you