[/quote]

I just don't see this happening. There is more money at stake in the NFL than college, so any time an NFL team wants a college coach, they'll get him. The thing about college coaches is - most of them are state employees. At some point I expect to see some form of cost-control on their salaries.
[/quote]

For some schools, at the top tier of pay, booster donation money can be contributed to coaching salary...........if it makes things look better.
But at an Alabama, OSU, Michigan it really doesn't matter.

Other examples,
According to a report from AL.com, the Crimson Tide Foundation paid off Saban's $3.1 million home in January 2013 even though the organization was under no obligation to do so.

The Sabans, who bought the 8,759-square-foot home in 2007, continue living there with the foundation picking up the tab for property taxes each year.
espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11772033/alabama-crimson-tide-boosters-pay-coach-nick-saban-home

(08-11-2015 12:07 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 08:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 06:32 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 06:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 06:36 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Well it's a little more complicated than that. It's 7 million with the signing bonus.

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/colleg.../22227589/

He said he didn't want to make it about money, and now I think the experts -- who said it would only happen for money -- get it now.

Yeah, when I first heard, wasn't it somewhere around 5.4 million? I will check the link after writing this response.

As I said, the only surprise in the Harbaugh situation was how little he was getting paid. That definitely tells us that he wanted this job. A lot of people are having to get a grip with the new reality due to the paradigm shift happening with big money in college sports.

College Coaches will be paid more than NFL coaches and they should be. Why? Because they do more than NFL coaches, it is a more difficult job. They are both the Head Coach and General Manager which suits personalities like Harbaugh.

I know a lot of people that work their ass off and don't get paid sh!t. Its not just about effort. Its all about supply and demand. The NFL has more money to pay coaches, therefore the NFL will continue to have the ability to pay more.

The NFL has more money yes, but in case you didn't know...the NFL pays it's players a whole lot more AND they are getting a rather large cap increase very soon. They have more expenditures AND as I stated before, the NFL has two positions handling the responsibilities that the Head Coach in college football handles himself.

You can make your argument but actual happenings and facts point to the opposite. College coach pay is rising above NFL head coach pay and it will continue to.

I just don't see this happening. There is more money at stake in the NFL than college, so any time an NFL team wants a college coach, they'll get him. The thing about college coaches is - most of them are state employees. At some point I expect to see some form of cost-control on their salaries.

Back when Ferentz was having success before his big payday, he was at the top of the list of coaches being looked at and talked to by NFL teams. He didn't go.

This is just symptomatic of that old mentality that the NFL can take and keep any coach that they want and any others that are at the college level, simply aren't desired by the NFL.

That's simply not true.

Your expectation is that status quo will win out. You are ignoring what is happening if you think status quo will remain.

Not every NFL coach is cut out for being a college head coach. The amount of work required at the college level far surpasses what an NFL coach has to do and THAT is why the NFL is often appreciated more by head coaches than the college level. The money thing? That's not the big deal.

http://coacheshotseat.com/NFLCoachesSalaries.htm

These numbers aren't that far out of reach. There are still more changes coming that will increase the amount of money the schools bring in from football.

1. It's going to take a few years of improved recruiting and a change in attitude to get UMich back in the position where the UMich-OSU game is for all the marbles - and there's the little issue of PSU and MSU being involved there too. In the 1970s - there was UMich and OSU (Bo and Woody) - and 8 little also-rans. Even if/when UMich gets back - it doesn't mean the others will fade away (MSU) or stay down (PSU). Plus - the end of the year UMich-OSU game only allows a team (if they are in contention) to play for all the marbles anyway. It won't be the same as the Bo-Woody era.

2. I'm in the group that wonders how long Harbaugh stays at UMich. It may take longer to get it down to UMich and OSU than Harbaugh ends up staying.

Still, it's a good hire and he will improve their recruiting, performance, interest and attendance.

(08-11-2015 09:06 PM)nert Wrote:  1. It's going to take a few years of improved recruiting and a change in attitude to get UMich back in the position where the UMich-OSU game is for all the marbles - and there's the little issue of PSU and MSU being involved there too. In the 1970s - there was UMich and OSU (Bo and Woody) - and 8 little also-rans. Even if/when UMich gets back - it doesn't mean the others will fade away (MSU) or stay down (PSU). Plus - the end of the year UMich-OSU game only allows a team (if they are in contention) to play for all the marbles anyway. It won't be the same as the Bo-Woody era.

2. I'm in the group that wonders how long Harbaugh stays at UMich. It may take longer to get it down to UMich and OSU than Harbaugh ends up staying.

Still, it's a good hire and he will improve their recruiting, performance, interest and attendance.

I don't understand why Penn State is being included already in all this big time talk. Penn State has been having their jock handed to them on the field while Wisconsin has been carrying the conference. I wish Nebraska and Penn State played this year. I would put my money on Nebraska.

(08-11-2015 09:28 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 09:06 PM)nert Wrote:  1. It's going to take a few years of improved recruiting and a change in attitude to get UMich back in the position where the UMich-OSU game is for all the marbles - and there's the little issue of PSU and MSU being involved there too. In the 1970s - there was UMich and OSU (Bo and Woody) - and 8 little also-rans. Even if/when UMich gets back - it doesn't mean the others will fade away (MSU) or stay down (PSU). Plus - the end of the year UMich-OSU game only allows a team (if they are in contention) to play for all the marbles anyway. It won't be the same as the Bo-Woody era.

2. I'm in the group that wonders how long Harbaugh stays at UMich. It may take longer to get it down to UMich and OSU than Harbaugh ends up staying.

Still, it's a good hire and he will improve their recruiting, performance, interest and attendance.

I don't understand why Penn State is being included already in all this big time talk. Penn State has been having their jock handed to them on the field while Wisconsin has been carrying the conference. I wish Nebraska and Penn State played this year. I would put my money on Nebraska.

Based off what exactly? An unproven first year coach? Unproven talent (especially at skill positions)?

Nebraska was 1 play from getting beat by an FCS team last year. PSU challenged the future champions. Programs are going opposite directions. PSU has bottomed out and is on the rise. Nebraska is still on a long slow decline with no end in sight. Quite frankly I think they have a bottom half of the conference coach who will make the program even more obscure as schools like tOSU, Michigan, PSU, etc hire better coaches and get better talent.

But on the bright side there are a bunch of crap teams that Nebraska can still beat on a regular basis so wins against Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, etc.. should keep a few numbers in the W column.

The last time they were relevant these recruits were in or barely out of diapers. Not a single BCS win. No conference championships since the 90's. Seriously. What's sexy about that to a 18 year old kid? Little Bible schools like Baylor are much more impressive to those kids. New stadium, cool gold helmets, good coach, good looking women, etc..

(08-11-2015 10:25 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 09:28 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 09:06 PM)nert Wrote:  1. It's going to take a few years of improved recruiting and a change in attitude to get UMich back in the position where the UMich-OSU game is for all the marbles - and there's the little issue of PSU and MSU being involved there too. In the 1970s - there was UMich and OSU (Bo and Woody) - and 8 little also-rans. Even if/when UMich gets back - it doesn't mean the others will fade away (MSU) or stay down (PSU). Plus - the end of the year UMich-OSU game only allows a team (if they are in contention) to play for all the marbles anyway. It won't be the same as the Bo-Woody era.

2. I'm in the group that wonders how long Harbaugh stays at UMich. It may take longer to get it down to UMich and OSU than Harbaugh ends up staying.

Still, it's a good hire and he will improve their recruiting, performance, interest and attendance.

I don't understand why Penn State is being included already in all this big time talk. Penn State has been having their jock handed to them on the field while Wisconsin has been carrying the conference. I wish Nebraska and Penn State played this year. I would put my money on Nebraska.

Based off what exactly? An unproven first year coach? Unproven talent (especially at skill positions)?

Nebraska was 1 play from getting beat by an FCS team last year. PSU challenged the future champions. Programs are going opposite directions. PSU has bottomed out and is on the rise. Nebraska is still on a long slow decline with no end in sight. Quite frankly I think they have a bottom half of the conference coach who will make the program even more obscure as schools like tOSU, Michigan, PSU, etc hire better coaches and get better talent.

But on the bright side there are a bunch of crap teams that Nebraska can still beat on a regular basis so wins against Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, etc.. should keep a few numbers in the W column.

The last time they were relevant these recruits were in or barely out of diapers. Not a single BCS win. No conference championships since the 90's. Seriously. What's sexy about that to a 18 year old kid? Little Bible schools like Baylor are much more impressive to those kids. New stadium, cool gold helmets, good coach, good looking women, etc..

Awww, angry little Okie State fan still pissing and moaning about Nebraska leaving? Angry about how everyone is saying that Oklahoma State isn't good enough for an invite?

(08-11-2015 01:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Back when Ferentz was having success before his big payday, he was at the top of the list of coaches being looked at and talked to by NFL teams. He didn't go.

This is just symptomatic of that old mentality that the NFL can take and keep any coach that they want and any others that are at the college level, simply aren't desired by the NFL.

That's simply not true.

Your expectation is that status quo will win out. You are ignoring what is happening if you think status quo will remain.

Not every NFL coach is cut out for being a college head coach. The amount of work required at the college level far surpasses what an NFL coach has to do and THAT is why the NFL is often appreciated more by head coaches than the college level. The money thing? That's not the big deal.

http://coacheshotseat.com/NFLCoachesSalaries.htm

These numbers aren't that far out of reach. There are still more changes coming that will increase the amount of money the schools bring in from football.

I wouldn't say that the amount of work for a college coach surpasses that of an NFL coach. The work is simply different - a college coach might need to a spend a large amount of time recruiting and attending alumni events, but an NFL coach is going to have a significant amount of more hands-on football responsibilities (i.e. just look at a pro practice schedule compared a college practice schedule). Plus, the highest-paid NFL coaches have also been taking on GM responsibilities that would constitute a full-time job on its own. Don't get me wrong - they're both extremely hard, where we're basically comparing how hard it is to be a first-year investment banker versus how hard it is to be a first-year large law firm associate. In both cases, they have to work so many hours that whether one technically works more than the other is virtually irrelevant.

I'd agree that there are a handful of programs (i.e. Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, etc.) that can legitimately pay NFL-level salaries. However, I think that universe is relatively small compared to having to compete with the 10 or 15 NFL teams that are searching for new coaches every year. Even the *least* valuable NFL franchises are now worth $1 billion each and the TV money that each team is receiving makes everything that we're discussing at the college level look like a rounding error.

When I hear from coaches that have worked in the NFL versus college, I have never heard them state that one is "easier" than the other, as you basically have to be an insane workaholic that never sleeps to do either job. Instead, the primary differences (besides money) are that colleges give you much more complete control over your personnel and program overall, but the NFL allows coaches to spend 100% of their time purely on football (i.e. there are no worries about grades, recruits or alumni functions). Each coach then falls on a spectrum on how important those factors are to them personally (once again, besides money).

Job security is also generally a factor, as NFL coaches are basically on a cycle of only 2 years to prove themselves or else they'll be on the chopping block. There's usually a lot more leeway given to college coaches (although you can see that there's a short-term pro mentality permeating at more places in college football - see how Gene Chizik got whacked only 2 years after winning a national championship at Auburn).

What makes Jim Harbaugh unusual (and, for that matter, probably the only example of this in the modern era) is that he was unambiguously successful as an NFL coach and willingly chose to leave to go back to college. Harbaugh would have been the #1 target of every NFL team looking for a coach this offseason if it wasn't for the fact that the 49ers contract prevented him from being a true free agent at the pro level. Even Nick Saban wasn't a great NFL coach overall, so his departure back to college was eventually going to be forced upon him if he didn't choose it himself. When you're successful in the NFL, I don't believe that there has been a coach other than Harbaugh that has made the choice to willingly go back to college in the modern era.

Did Hoke have a bunch of really good, on paper, recruiting classes? I mean has elite talent yes no?

(08-12-2015 10:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Did Hoke have a bunch of really good, on paper, recruiting classes? I mean has elite talent yes no?

I think there is a bunch of talent at Michigan, I just don't his coaching staff could grow those players into elite talent ready for the NFL. Plus his undying loyalty to some of the seniors at Michigan really crushed them too.

(08-12-2015 10:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Did Hoke have a bunch of really good, on paper, recruiting classes? I mean has elite talent yes no?

I think he had highly rated classes straight through ... whether he was doing less with them than other coaches with similar talent, or whether they were being over-rated because they were name-brand school recruits, I wouldn't know.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...rdan-brand


Here you go, add a little more hype.

Fox Sports literally made a Harbaugh themed bus to promote their game against Utah. Literally. Now you tell me FOX isn't going to want B1G Tier 1 rights.......

http://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Ass...84246.jpeg