Harbaugh over $9m???

KingDL1 · October 27, 2016

What was it, that very few programs are actually profitable? Or is it really the endowment they are working on?

TheTastyGreek · October 27, 2016

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

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.

1) Outside of Division 3 (and not everywhere, even at that level)... College sports are in no way designed to be a non-profit/not-for-profit. They haven't been for generations now.

2) Almost everywhere in the entertainment industry, talent earns income far and away above their titular bosses. Even the bosses of their bosses' bosses.

Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony's film division, had her salary leaked back in their big email hack. She made $3 million in salary the same year that (for example) Daniel Craig earned over $20 million just for acting as James Bond in "Spectre". That doesn't include his additional earnings for endorsements/promotions and almost as much over again in equity points. Meanwhile, his "boss" was the director (Sam Mendes), who didn't make even a tenth what Craig was paid for the shoot. And Mendes' "bosses" were the film's two producers, neither of whom made as much as Craig. And they were working for the president of Columbia Pictures, Doug Belgrad, who made $2.5 million that year. And Belgrad worked for Pascal.

Take Daniel Craig's boss, add his salary to the combined salaries of that guy's bosses, add all their salaries to the president of the company they were working for, and add all that to the salary of the chairman of the parent company... And it still doesn't even come out to 75% of what Craig was paid. Just for the shoot.

Sports, pro or "amateur", is an entertainment business. Money goes to the ones who generate the revenue, and it doesn't necessarily start at the "top" and work its way down. And when you can't pay the people who the fans are showing up to see, then apparently the money accrues to the guys who secure those people for their teams instead.

NCAA sports are not an academic enterprise. They're an entertainment business, and just like pro sports, television, films, music, or any other entertainment field... The "boss" isn't the one who generates the money, and they aren't going to be the one with the highest paycheck.

3) Pro sports don't limit salaries to promote competition. They limit salaries to promote profitability. Any "competitiveness" that results from it is purely a side-effect.

4) College sports already have salary limitations for the sake of self-preservation. Legal compensation for the athletes is capped. Only recently has it even risen above $0.

5) Coach contracts ARE strictly enforced. They are negotiated with pre-determined buyout agreements on both sides... There was actually a pretty comprehensive article from USA Today earlier that outlined every public school's coach buyout price. The flipside is what the coach has to pay to leave early, which is usually a much different price. For example, Arkansas State.

9 minutes ago, KingDL1 said:

What was it, that very few programs are actually profitable? Or is it really the endowment they are working on?

"Very few" college programs are profitable when you only look at the accounting shell game they're using to define profitability. College sports teams that are unprofitable (while also not serving as a Title IX bandage to sustain profitable men's programs) GET SHUT DOWN.

College programs crying poverty are as ridiculous as pro leagues crying unprofitability, then seeing the smallest and least profitable teams sell to multiple bidders for hundreds of millions of dollars. If D1 football and basketball were unprofitable, there wouldn't be 350+ D1 basketball teams and growing, and schools wouldn't have been tripping over their own dicks to get startup football programs established at the D1 level (or lower division teams moved up to full D1 status) over the past 10-15 years for fear of the entry requirements changing and freezing them out.

Texas A&M can't fake being unprofitable, like some other schools can pretend they are. They were the highest revenue program in college sports last year. When you count income vs. expenses the way they are at the athletics level, they only made $7 million on $193 million in total revenue. But that's counting each and every possible athletics expense, including long term debt and "special projects". And it doesn't factor in school revenue that doesn't flow directly to or through the athletics department. Like, for example, the year they joined the SEC and caught fire with Manziel mania, and the university raised $300 million MORE than they had in any other previous year. Not $300 million, $300 million MORE than their previous best year of revenue/gifts/earnings/donations. Not a dollar of the $740 million they raised that year that didn't go to athletics counts towards "profitability", but you can bet your ass they already know exactly how athletic failure or irrelevance impacts the university's real bottom line.

Frankly, it's amazing Harbaugh and Saban don't make multiple times what they do now. Because as long as schools can't or won't buy the players directly like a true semi-pro league, the proxy method is to buy the guys who bring those players in instead. And the chasm between the 1st or 2nd best guy in the world at it, vs. the 10th or 20th? It's enormous, and across the 5-10 year lifespan of a successful top level coach, it could mean the difference in BILLIONS of dollars for the institution.

Ben Gooding · October 27, 2016

Then let the 20 richest programs pay players and remove them from college athletics and into some kind of pseudo semi pro league. Let the others actually have some kind of resemblance of an even playing field. There are many programs in 'P5' that have the chips stacked against them in their own conference. It's out of control.

TheTastyGreek · October 27, 2016

For the record, I'm not saying that any of this is good, or likable, or appropriate.

But this is the game we're watching, and anyone who wants to pretend that it isn't reality is lying to themselves.

It's a bigger business than ever before, and it's more of a business at more schools than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago. But the changes are a matter of scope and scale, not a fundamental change in the sports themselves.

D1 schools are semi-pro sports franchises that happen to offer educational programs, mostly to non-athletes. Some of those D1 schools are fantastically successful at it, most are jockeying for position somewhere in the middle, and some are swimming along in the wake, gobbling up the leavings. Even the schools that historically suck at it all, like us, are far, far richer (financially and otherwise) for being at the bottom of that pile.

For example, my dad originally planned on being a doctor, so he used his GI Bill money to get a Biology degree (on a pre-med curriculum) at what's now a D3 school. If you go by rankings, his education kicks the crap out of mine. But, odds are that if he or Harrison Ford sees anyone else in a school t-shirt, that person bought it at the campus bookstore or through the school's website. One of his best friends graduated from their arch rival. Any of you that have met my "Uncle Danny" at a tailgate or a game know the guy. Back when I was born (a few years before the NCAA v. Oklahoma/Georgia Supreme Court ruling and the start of the TV arms race really accelerated things), that rivalry burned so hot that newborn me was just fodder for a school prank. Dan took me (less than a week old) away from my parents for an hour, dressed me in a custom t-shirt supporting his school and mocking my dad's, and had his wife take a bunch of pictures that still get brought up on an annual basis when we all get together.

Now, more than 35 years later (dear God, I'm going to die soon...), I know my dad hasn't attended one of his school's games since the mid 90's. I don't think Dan has been to a game for over a decade, and he lives a 2 and a half hour drive away. Meanwhile, he files down here once a year and watches North Texas play Marshall, or MTSU, or whoever fits into an October or November weekend. He and my dad plan it every year. Not a trip north to see their arch rival schools battle it out... A trip down here so they can watch a Todd Dodge or Dan McCarney team from a school they have little or no connection to play another school they have absolutely zero reason to care about. Dan watched us when we had those crappy Thursday night ESPN2 games. He follows us live on ESPN most weeks. But when he or dad want to know whether their own schools won or lost, they have to wait a day or more for the school website to update a full game report.

Meanwhile, my mom got a Philology degree from Kapodistriako (aka the University of Athens, formally named after Ioannis Kapodistrias... A man of diplomatic greatness rivaled only by the greatness of his first name). I'm sure I don't have to tell you all about the distinction of Kapodistriako or the challenges of the entrance exams... I'm sure that as passionate followers of colleges, we all know they outrank well respected US institutions like Temple and BYU.

Of course, Kapodistriako doesn't sponsor any sports. My mom thinks the whole concept of college sports is literally foreign, and indisputably ridiculous. Meanwhile, her Greek athletic affiliation is Olympiakos... Which is a club organization sponsoring teams in 18 different sports, where the intensity runs so deep and rivalries are so heated that a guy was literally stabbed to death by opposing fans over a women's volleyball game (and this happened during the Dodge era!). It's college sports without the college. Booster clubs, financing, and all. And, meanwhile, the colleges all go on being educational institutions, not semi-pro or pro athletics franchises.

Anyway... D1 sports is what makes us stand out, and historically, we suck at it in every conceivable measurable way. Despite it all, we're legitimate in a way we wouldn't ever be without them, and that includes financially (such as it goes for us).

With sports, we're an also ran at least proximally connected to the powerhouse educational and athletic programs of the state and the country.

Without it?

Well, just to leave the personal feelings out of it... Let's just say that the driving (no pun intended, as you'll see shortly) difference between Boise State (which was a JUCO during the lifetimes of many people on this board) and Richland College is that Richland doesn't play D1 football, and that you couldn't ever get a truck driving education at Richland. Which you COULD go to school for at Boise State, even two years AFTER their Fiesta Bowl win over Oklahoma.

EDIT: Spoke too soon! You *can* get a trucker education at Richland. Now, if they paint the parking lot blue, maybe THEY can be the next Boise State?

Edited October 27, 2016 by TheTastyGreek
Richland has a CDL program. This is what I get for not looking it up before clicking "post".

risinggreen · October 27, 2016

11 hours ago, Green Mean said:

Complete list

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

Tweet by Joel Klatt on this subject

It's getting to be like winning the lottery yearly.

Cerebus · October 27, 2016

3 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

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

All of pro sports. The players are usually paid much more than thier boss, the coach/manager.

3 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

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.

Coaches can leave because they have it written into thier contract. Do you really think SL would have given up that clause to come here when it's become the norm and every other school would give him that clause?

Ben Gooding · October 27, 2016

5 hours ago, Cerebus said:

All of pro sports. The players are usually paid much more than thier boss, the coach/manager.

Coaches can leave because they have it written into thier contract. Do you really think SL would have given up that clause to come here when it's become the norm and every other school would give him that clause?

Of the 128 D1 jobs available, did any other offer him the opportunity to be the HC at their univershty? Too often the problem is that schools bend over backwards to accommodate or add in contractual agreements, etc but the fact of the matter is that many times the school doesn't need to bend over at all. It's time they start taking over some of the power in these conversations and dictate certain aspects to protect their own interests.

UNT Mean Green · October 27, 2016

Interesting that there are some outstanding coaches who make <$1,000,000 annually in the MAC, MWC, CUSA, and Sun Belt.

One would have to think that if our success continues in the coming weeks, we (University and Athletics leadership) would re-do Littrell's deal and "up" the assistant pool to be higher on that list.

We should have full confidence in Wren Baker and his team's ability to take care of these coaches in this fashion.

GrandGreen · October 27, 2016

TastyGreek quote

1) Outside of Division 3 (and not everywhere, even at that level)... College sports are in no way designed to be a non-profit/not-for-profit. They haven't been for generations now.

Actually they are non-profits for tax purposes and that is exactly how they operate.

2) Almost everywhere in the entertainment industry, talent earns income far and away above their titular bosses. Even the bosses of their bosses' bosses.

Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony's film division, had her salary leaked back in their big email hack. She made $3 million in salary the same year that (for example) Daniel Craig earned over $20 million just for acting as James Bond in "Spectre". That doesn't include his additional earnings for endorsements/promotions and almost as much over again in equity points. Meanwhile, his "boss" was the director (Sam Mendes), who didn't make even a tenth what Craig was paid for the shoot. And Mendes' "bosses" were the film's two producers, neither of whom made as much as Craig. And they were working for the president of Columbia Pictures, Doug Belgrad, who made $2.5 million that year. And Belgrad worked for Pascal.

Take Daniel Craig's boss, add his salary to the combined salaries of that guy's bosses, add all their salaries to the president of the company they were working for, and add all that to the salary of the chairman of the parent company... And it still doesn't even come out to 75% of what Craig was paid. Just for the shoot.

Sports, pro or "amateur", is an entertainment business. Money goes to the ones who generate the revenue, and it doesn't necessarily start at the "top" and work its way down. And when you can't pay the people who the fans are showing up to see, then apparently the money accrues to the guys who secure those people for their teams instead.

I knew the entertainment industry would be used as a counter, but it is hardly the same thing. Yes, they have even more outrageous salaries, but unlike college sports; they are basically fairly high risk investments that have a strong profit motive.

NCAA sports are not an academic enterprise. They're an entertainment business, and just like pro sports, television, films, music, or any other entertainment field... The "boss" isn't the one who generates the money, and they aren't going to be the one with the highest paycheck.

3) Pro sports don't limit salaries to promote competition. They limit salaries to promote profitability. Any "competitiveness" that results from it is purely a side-effect.

Obviously curtailing cost helps profitability, but it also promotes competition. Different pro sports have different models, but the legal basis for curtailing salaries as well as other costs like number of coaches and players is that it is necessary to maintain fair competition.

4) College sports already have salary limitations for the sake of self-preservation. Legal compensation for the athletes is capped. Only recently has it even risen above $0.

That is exactly my point, there are already limitations on how much an athlete can be compensated, which supports the theory that it could be expanded to include other expenses such as coaches' salaries. I believe a big reason that colleges finally allowed the stipends was that it was impossible to support denying these payments when a single coach at many schools makes more than the entire cost of the stipends for the whole team.

5) Coach contracts ARE strictly enforced. They are negotiated with pre-determined buyout agreements on both sides... There was actually a pretty comprehensive article from USA Today earlier that outlined every public school's coach buyout price. The flipside is what the coach has to pay to leave early, which is usually a much different price. For example, Arkansas State.

Actually they generally are not, sure many current contract include limited buyouts for coaches who want to leave which is a relatively new development. Did UT, LSU or Aston and Jones compensate NT for leaving while still under contract? If Littrell took another job tomorrow, you really think NT would do anything to block him? It is very seldom that any university tries to enforce an employment contract. Yes, there may be some minimal buyout clause in the contract; but in general no coach is going to sign a contract that is going to severely limit his options.

Coach's contracts are very one-sided and rarely enforced because Universities are afraid that they will get a reputation that will impede the next coaches hire. The answer and solution should be that no college would go after a coach under contract, problem solved.

Wag Tag · October 27, 2016

17 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

TastyGreek quote

1) Outside of Division 3 (and not everywhere, even at that level)... College sports are in no way designed to be a non-profit/not-for-profit. They haven't been for generations now.

Actually they are non-profits for tax purposes and that is exactly how they operate.

2) Almost everywhere in the entertainment industry, talent earns income far and away above their titular bosses. Even the bosses of their bosses' bosses.

Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony's film division, had her salary leaked back in their big email hack. She made $3 million in salary the same year that (for example) Daniel Craig earned over $20 million just for acting as James Bond in "Spectre". That doesn't include his additional earnings for endorsements/promotions and almost as much over again in equity points. Meanwhile, his "boss" was the director (Sam Mendes), who didn't make even a tenth what Craig was paid for the shoot. And Mendes' "bosses" were the film's two producers, neither of whom made as much as Craig. And they were working for the president of Columbia Pictures, Doug Belgrad, who made $2.5 million that year. And Belgrad worked for Pascal.

Take Daniel Craig's boss, add his salary to the combined salaries of that guy's bosses, add all their salaries to the president of the company they were working for, and add all that to the salary of the chairman of the parent company... And it still doesn't even come out to 75% of what Craig was paid. Just for the shoot.

Sports, pro or "amateur", is an entertainment business. Money goes to the ones who generate the revenue, and it doesn't necessarily start at the "top" and work its way down. And when you can't pay the people who the fans are showing up to see, then apparently the money accrues to the guys who secure those people for their teams instead.

I knew the entertainment industry would be used as a counter, but it is hardly the same thing. Yes, they have even more outrageous salaries, but unlike college sports; they are basically fairly high risk investments that have a strong profit motive.

NCAA sports are not an academic enterprise. They're an entertainment business, and just like pro sports, television, films, music, or any other entertainment field... The "boss" isn't the one who generates the money, and they aren't going to be the one with the highest paycheck.

3) Pro sports don't limit salaries to promote competition. They limit salaries to promote profitability. Any "competitiveness" that results from it is purely a side-effect.

Obviously curtailing cost helps profitability, but it also promotes competition. Different pro sports have different models, but the legal basis for curtailing salaries as well as other costs like number of coaches and players is that it is necessary to maintain fair competition.

4) College sports already have salary limitations for the sake of self-preservation. Legal compensation for the athletes is capped. Only recently has it even risen above $0.

That is exactly my point, there are already limitations on how much an athlete can be compensated, which supports the theory that it could be expanded to include other expenses such as coaches' salaries. I believe a big reason that colleges finally allowed the stipends was that it was impossible to support denying these payments when a single coach at many schools makes more than the entire cost of the stipends for the whole team.

5) Coach contracts ARE strictly enforced. They are negotiated with pre-determined buyout agreements on both sides... There was actually a pretty comprehensive article from USA Today earlier that outlined every public school's coach buyout price. The flipside is what the coach has to pay to leave early, which is usually a much different price. For example, Arkansas State.

Actually they generally are not, sure many current contract include limited buyouts for coaches who want to leave which is a relatively new development. Did UT, LSU or Aston and Jones compensate NT for leaving while still under contract? If Littrell took another job tomorrow, you really think NT would do anything to block him? It is very seldom that any university tries to enforce an employment contract. Yes, there may be some minimal buyout clause in the contract; but in general no coach is going to sign a contract that is going to severely limit his options.

Coach's contracts are very one-sided and rarely enforced because Universities are afraid that they will get a reputation that will impede the next coaches hire. The answer and solution should be that no college would go after a coach under contract, problem solved.

Can't really compare to private industry. These institutions have some % of tax supported dollars.

How can there be a justification of $9m by the state with all other programs are being cut? Yes a chunk is being supplemented by donations but it is the University that is on the contract. How much did it cost UM when their major donor was convicted a crook? Who owns the land who underwrites the bonds.

Another example of tax dollars wasted !

oldguystudent · October 27, 2016

8 hours ago, TheTastyGreek said:

Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony's film division, had her salary leaked back in their big email hack. She made $3 million in salary the same year

I could probably send you some production K-1s with income not classified as salary that would dispute that figure considerably. Not to invalidate your point, but Hollywood accounting is notoriously shady.