Harbaugh over $9m???

[Wag Tag]

Just saw info on FBS coaches salaries with Harbaugh being over 9m!!!! WOW!

Seth is ranked 80 at $815,000

Skip Holtz is 104 at $500,000  he may be the bargain !

How high can this go?

[Ben Gooding]

1 minute ago, Wag Tag said:

Just saw info on FBS coaches salaries with Harbaugh being over 9m!!!! WOW!

Seth is ranked 80 at $815,000

Skip Holtz is 104 at $500,000  he may be the bargain !

How high can this go?

It's out of hand and has been for some time now. Schools have to get together and create a non-competitive agreement to traject these salaries downward and level them out. These bluelood programs (even top 30-40 salaries) remind me of a douche bag buying into a 100 dollar game of holdem with 2k in chips. AKA, the chips being stacked against us (and 75-85 other programs as well). It HAS to stop. It must. 

[Green Mean]

Complete list

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

Tweet by Joel Klatt on this subject

 

[forevereagle]

2 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Schools have to get together and create a non-competitive agreement to traject these salaries downward and level them out.

Besides this being collusion, I just don't see how this would ever work. What is the incentive for the big programs that can afford it for participating? Until revenues no longer meet the value of a good coach, they are going to keep paying top dollar. I would say that programs should not offer a coach big money before he proves that he can be successful at that school. If he proves that he can win there and he brings in revenue, then it is worth having a discussion about paying big money based on performance.

[Green Mean]

Many/most of these coaches are worth it because the revenue these schools generate from athletics far far outweigh what they pay the head coaches.  9 million a year for Michigan and schools alike is nothing.  I'm glad we upped our game but even then we're still at 80.  The more success we as in UNT has on the field/court the more people will be interested and the more overall money the school will generate from athletics, donations, advertising etc.  At that point the value of our coaches increase and therefore warrants more money in hopes of keeping the train going.

[Ben Gooding]

8 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Besides this being collusion, I just don't see how this would ever work. What is the incentive for the big programs that can afford it for participating? Until revenues no longer meet the value of a good coach, they are going to keep paying top dollar. I would say that programs should not offer a coach big money before he proves that he can be successful at that school. If he proves that he can win there and he brings in revenue, then it is worth having a discussion about paying big money based on performance.

They have the money bc of their exposure (high value TV deals) over time and the fans they have been able to build off said exposure. It's a pendulum setup to swing in there way and never swing back. And the NCAA has turned their back to it (us). 

[MeanGreen_MBA]

I made the wrong career choice for sure....is it too late to get into big time college coaching I wonder???

[Green Mean]

1 minute ago, MeanGreen_MBA said:

I made the wrong career choice for sure....is it too late to get into big time college coaching I wonder???

If you get into and master data analytics there has to be a place where you can get in.  But I don't imagine it'd be super hard getting on the athletics administration side if you're willing start really small like d2 or d3.

[forevereagle]

5 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

They have the money bc of their exposure (high value TV deals) over time and the fans they have been able to build off said exposure. It's a pendulum setup to swing in there way and never swing back. And the NCAA has turned their back to it (us). 

I don't entirely disagree, but if schools get together and agree to set a cap on salaries, then they are colluding and it becomes a legal issue and it goes away. The money has to dry up to make it change.

[Wag Tag]

29 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

It's out of hand and has been for some time now. Schools have to get together and create a non-competitive agreement to traject these salaries downward and level them out. These bluelood programs (even top 30-40 salaries) remind me of a douche bag buying into a 100 dollar game of holdem with 2k in chips. AKA, the chips being stacked against us (and 75-85 other programs as well). It HAS to stop. It must. 

What happens when ESPN is gone? Streaming is the future and ESPN is history !

[Green Mean]

14 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

They have the money bc of their exposure (high value TV deals) over time and the fans they have been able to build off said exposure. It's a pendulum setup to swing in there way and never swing back. And the NCAA has turned their back to it (us). 

And they have the high TV deals because people are interested in them and want to watch them which the networks have decided and agreed that they want to pay what they want to pay because of the network's benefit.  And regardless of the TV money these schools make a boat load of money and are a money making machine across the board.

1 minute ago, Wag Tag said:

What happens when ESPN is gone? Streaming is the future and ESPN is history !

ESPN already streams.  They're already preparing themselves and getting ahead of the curve. They'll still have the broadcasting rights etc if they so wish to do so.

[Ryan Munthe]

Can't wait for the natural leveling of college football to occur. Asinine.

You've seen it in the NBA, now the NFL, time for college sports.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Ryan Munthe

[Withers940]

Well You could be Texas Paying Charlie Strong $5.2 Million for a 14-18 record on its way to a 3rd straight losing season.

[Wag Tag]

19 minutes ago, Green Mean said:

And they have the high TV deals because people are interested in them and want to watch them which the networks have decided and agreed that they want to pay what they want to pay because of the network's benefit.  And regardless of the TV money these schools make a boat load of money and are a money making machine across the board.

ESPN already streams.  They're already preparing themselves and getting ahead of the curve. They'll still have the broadcasting rights etc if they so wish to do so.

Agree but by streaming you have slashed your audience which means revenue!

[Green Mean]

1 minute ago, Wag Tag said:

Agree but by streaming you have slashed your audience which means revenue!

Streaming is only getting bigger.  Several people are cutting the traditional cord and going streaming via apps etc.  I'm considering doing that as well because I can watch all my local sports teams via the apps/channels on Roku etc. 

I don't believe the audience will be slashed unless if the overall product gets bad or people's taste and priorities change and they opt for other viewing entertainment.  The money is still there...will it hit a wall at some point? Of course I'm sure it will be the money will probably be really big and lucrative still.

[Ben Gooding]

28 minutes ago, Ryan Munthe said:

Can't wait for the natural leveling of college football to occur. Asinine.

You've seen it in the NBA, now the NFL, time for college sports.

Natural? That would infer that it happens organically. That is not what I am proposing, smart ass. 

[Army of Dad]

49 minutes ago, Green Mean said:

Streaming is only getting bigger.  Several people are cutting the traditional cord and going streaming via apps etc.  I'm considering doing that as well because I can watch all my local sports teams via the apps/channels on Roku etc. 

I don't believe the audience will be slashed unless if the overall product gets bad or people's taste and priorities change and they opt for other viewing entertainment.  The money is still there...will it hit a wall at some point? Of course I'm sure it will be the money will probably be really big and lucrative still.

Even as more people stream it will still lead to smaller revenue since ESPN can't force as many people to pay for it like when it's included in basic cable packages.

[Wag Tag]

54 minutes ago, Green Mean said:

Streaming is only getting bigger.  Several people are cutting the traditional cord and going streaming via apps etc.  I'm considering doing that as well because I can watch all my local sports teams via the apps/channels on Roku etc. 

I don't believe the audience will be slashed unless if the overall product gets bad or people's taste and priorities change and they opt for other viewing entertainment.  The money is still there...will it hit a wall at some point? Of course I'm sure it will be the money will probably be really big and lucrative still.

To me that is the purpose of streaming audience specific! You will not be channel surfing to c what is on or hit a show by mistake! It will be geared towards my specific interest. My kids don't watch TV They use net flix and Hulu!

[Ben Gooding]

1 hour ago, Army of Dad said:

Even as more people stream it will still lead to smaller revenue since ESPN can't force as many people to pay for it like when it's included in basic cable packages.

That's not necessarily true. They can lock or blackout whatever game they want unless you actually have a cable subscription to tie yourself to (which is absolute BS). Just another way to rig things for themselves. 

 

*I'm so glad NFL ratings are plummeting. 

[GangGreen]

Thought it was interesting that Urban Meyer was making $1.5MM in 2006 with Florida. Just ten years later, he is at $6MM with Ohio State. 

Butterteeth is making 3 times what Meyer made in 2006.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Didn't Harbaugh show interest in our job at some point in the past?

GMG!

[VideoEagle]

While I think the salaries are crazy, no one is holding a gun to any of the school's boards. They could say no if they wanted to. Even members of some of the big time alumni associations have questioned the salaries but no one has the guts to say "stop." 

35 minutes ago, PlummMeanGreen said:

Didn't Harbaugh show interest in our job at some point in the past?

GMG!

It was rumored that he was interested in interviewing, but no one was sure how serious he was. 

[MeanGreen13]

We'll be joining the million + club at the end of next season, which would only make us #71 on that list. Either that, or we will be looking for a new coach... and I still think we will pay over a mil by 2018. 

[Ryan Munthe]

1 hour ago, VideoEagle said:

While I think the salaries are crazy, no one is holding a gun to any of the school's boards. They could say no if they wanted to. Even members of some of the big time alumni associations have questioned the salaries but no one has the guts to say "stop." 

It was rumored that he was interested in interviewing, but no one was sure how serious he was. 

Not being willing to keep up with the salaries nowadays is football suicide. So yes, there are guns being held.

Until ratings fall (which will happen) you'll see salaries rise.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Ryan Munthe

[GrandGreen]

6 hours ago, forevereagle said:

Besides this being collusion, I just don't see how this would ever work. What is the incentive for the big programs that can afford it for participating? Until revenues no longer meet the value of a good coach, they are going to keep paying top dollar. I would say that programs should not offer a coach big money before he proves that he can be successful at that school. If he proves that he can win there and he brings in revenue, then it is worth having a discussion about paying big money based on performance.

Don't believe this for a minute.  First and foremost, college athletics are supposed to be non-profit institutions; making these salaries even more ridiculous.  There are very few universities that actually generate any surplus funds that are funneled back to any non- athletic department uses.  Most lose millions of dollars trying in vain to catch the top echelon money programs.

I can't think of any other occupation were the standard is that an employee (head coach) is paid much more than their boss.   

I do think there is a path that could be pursued that would negate any free enterprise arguments.  Just like pro sports can put some limits on players salaries to further competition so could the NCAA limit overall expenditures on the same basis.   Not likely to happen, because the NCAA is much more interested in self-preservation than true competition.  

A humble beginning would be for Universities to actually enforce employee contracts and not let coaches go to other schools while under contract.   I have never understood why schools must honor contracts and coaches can change at will.