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

82nd for Bailiff gets us about 82nd best team in the country. Sounds right

Yep.

82nd highest salary... and we perform a bit above there. Also, second highest in CUSA. Marshall seems to be getting more for their money... SMU clearly got far less.

A case can be made in either direction... but it's really pointless. We aren't going to pay millions. We just aren't. We have to find ways to win against 'better' teams that don't involve having higher paid coaches.

Actually more like 90th, if you assume the schools with no info at the bottom of the list pay more than Rice.

Marshall's getting bang for its buck!

AAC coaches:
44, 48, 58, 62, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 83

CUSA coaches:
79, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 93, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 110

The five highest paying AAC schools are 8-12 OOC, with two FCS wins; and they have no team in the running for an access bowl slot.

I'm still not feeling the envy.

This goes to ya's gets what's ya's pay for. The amazing one (without detailed analysis-just saw it) is UL-Lafayette-geesh.....

Look at Notre Dame

(11-19-2014 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Look at Notre Dame

I noticed that as well. That seems like an aberration.

Pretty sure that Baylor is now paying Briles north of $4 million. He got two raises before the Fiesta Bowl last year.

I know this will never work because of revenue sharing and what not, but here is a crazy idea: Base salary of 250K or whatever. Now here is the kicker, depending on what bowl you get the team to that is where the rest of your salary comes from. The coach and staff would get a nice fat slice of that paycheck. IOW, the better you play, the better your pay! How's that for incentive?

(11-20-2014 02:16 AM)Chef Owl Wrote:  I know this will never work because of revenue sharing and what not, but here is a crazy idea: Base salary of 250K or whatever. Now here is the kicker, depending on what bowl you get the team to that is where the rest of your salary comes from. The coach and staff would get a nice fat slice of that paycheck. IOW, the better you play, the better your pay! How's that for incentive?

Are you suggesting this just for Rice, or for every G5 school, or for every Division 1 school?

The answer doesn't really matter. But the reason that kind of system won't work is a little different for each frame of reference, and the frame of reference wasn't clear from your post.

Incentive compensation makes sense, but you don't want to go overboard with it, especially with the incentive tied to one particular milestone. Because incentive compensation creates a lot of, um, incentive to have the end justify the means. I'm not talking about Rice or Bailiff in particular; I'm just speaking generally.

(11-20-2014 10:29 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Incentive compensation makes sense, but you don't want to go overboard with it, especially with the incentive tied to one particular milestone. Because incentive compensation creates a lot of, um, incentive to have the end justify the means. I'm not talking about Rice or Bailiff in particular; I'm just speaking generally.

Plus if there are 125+ jobs available, and you have a unique contract structure that could limit your compensation (and you feel that some factors - i.e. facilities, recruiting restrictions, limitations on assistants salaries - are out of your control), you are going to limit the available pool of coaching applicants. Yes, someone will be willing to take a shot, but a truly hot commodity, up and coming young assistant will be able to wait for a better contract/offer. And guys like the recently canned Florida coach would never even consider it (not that I think he would be a fit here anyway).

Some major discrepancies between usatoday and coacheshotseat. For example, Notre Dame and Mich St have very different rankings.. Assuming it comes down to how you calculate comp as there are many components...

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/CFBCoachesSalaries.htm

(11-20-2014 10:25 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:29 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Incentive compensation makes sense, but you don't want to go overboard with it, especially with the incentive tied to one particular milestone. Because incentive compensation creates a lot of, um, incentive to have the end justify the means. I'm not talking about Rice or Bailiff in particular; I'm just speaking generally.

Plus if there are 125+ jobs available, and you have a unique contract structure that could limit your compensation (and you feel that some factors - i.e. facilities, recruiting restrictions, limitations on assistants salaries - are out of your control), you are going to limit the available pool of coaching applicants. Yes, someone will be willing to take a shot, but a truly hot commodity, up and coming young assistant will be able to wait for a better contract/offer. And guys like the recently canned Florida coach would never even consider it (not that I think he would be a fit here anyway).

I think this is a good point, even if the contract structure applied across the board. There would be a reverse incentive to go to schools where it's easier to place in a bowl game - if 80% of the conference goes to bowl games (with higher payouts because of P5 contracts), versus maybe 50% in low paying bowls, how would you hire a coach that would leverage the school from G5 to P5? You would be less able to compete for high quality coaches than you are now.

(11-21-2014 09:40 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:25 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 10:29 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Incentive compensation makes sense, but you don't want to go overboard with it, especially with the incentive tied to one particular milestone. Because incentive compensation creates a lot of, um, incentive to have the end justify the means. I'm not talking about Rice or Bailiff in particular; I'm just speaking generally.

Plus if there are 125+ jobs available, and you have a unique contract structure that could limit your compensation (and you feel that some factors - i.e. facilities, recruiting restrictions, limitations on assistants salaries - are out of your control), you are going to limit the available pool of coaching applicants. Yes, someone will be willing to take a shot, but a truly hot commodity, up and coming young assistant will be able to wait for a better contract/offer. And guys like the recently canned Florida coach would never even consider it (not that I think he would be a fit here anyway).

I think this is a good point, even if the contract structure applied across the board. There would be a reverse incentive to go to schools where it's easier to place in a bowl game - if 80% of the conference goes to bowl games (with higher payouts because of P5 contracts), versus maybe 50% in low paying bowls, how would you hire a coach that would leverage the school from G5 to P5? You would be less able to compete for high quality coaches than you are now.

I think y'all have pretty much settled this, but I'll pile on with one more: Too much of the bowl selection process is out of the coach's hands. In many cases, your record only gains you access to the post-season. From there the ADs, Conference Commissioners, and Bowl Reps do the horse trading to decide who goes where. Hard to imagine a coach agreeing to assign a significant portion of his compensation to such an arbitrary process.