Well, not always.

This information on UNT pay levels is from the conference board,



Dan McCarney was set to earn $721,600 in 2015, which was fourth in Conference USA, but he also had up to $945,000 in available bonuses, which was by far the most in the league. UNT will also have to pay McCarney about $3 million in buyout, so that will affect how much they can pay for the next head coach.

2. Assistant salaries are vital for head coaches.

UNT’s 2014 assistant salary pool of $1.14 million was second in C-USA, coming to an average of $127,588 per assistant. The highest-paid assistant was offensive coordinator / quarterbacks coach Mike Canales at $190,300.

some seem to think if we just offer a high salary and high assistant salaries, we will automatically get coaches who can and will "take us to the next level". Not so. Of course, if we offer a lot less it is even less likely that the Miracle Man will be our next coach.

The road is littered with expensive coaching mistakes. Chuck Fairbanks at Colorado, Dennis Franchione at aTm, Lane Kiffin at USC, lots of others. No, paying more does not ensure anything.

I think we have plateaued under Bailiff, but it's not a bad plateau. Give him the EZF and see if he can elevate things. If he can, great. If he can't, then the downside risk is not so bad. One guy who can't get us there is not hugely better or worse than another guy who can't get us there. The difference lies in finding a guy who can get us there.

(10-14-2015 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The road is littered with expensive coaching mistakes. Chuck Fairbanks at Colorado, Dennis Franchione at aTm, Lane Kiffin at USC, lots of others. No, paying more does not ensure anything.

I think we have plateaued under Bailiff, but it's not a bad plateau. Give him the EZF and see if he can elevate things. If he can, great. If he can't, then the downside risk is not so bad. One guy who can't get us there is not hugely better or worse than another guy who can't get us there. The difference lies in finding a guy who can get us there.

Notre Dame is still paying Charlie Weiss more than Brian Kelly.

There are always outliers, but I think generally teams that pay their coaching staffs more probably get better results. The problem with considering the salaries of the coordinators & assistants is that the head coach is 100% responsible for choosing those guys. So you have a great head coach that is not very good at choosing coordinators & assistants, but has the budget to overpay them, you might end up with some pretty ugly results. Of course, the converse is true as well.

Generally speaking, paying more is more likely to have better results. But neither high or low pay scales are directly proportional to results.
North Texas apparently fell victim to the idea that money solves problems, and for a while it looked like they might be right. I remember antiBailiff people here pointing out that we needed to do what UNT did and find somebody like their coach. well, he's available now.

I have faith Dr K would negotiate a fair deal for any new coach and not make a terrible deal like Notre Dame.

(10-15-2015 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Generally speaking, paying more is more likely to have better results. But neither high or low pay scales are directly proportional to results.
North Texas apparently fell victim to the idea that money solves problems, and for a while it looked like they might be right. I remember antiBailiff people here pointing out that we needed to do what UNT did and find somebody like their coach. well, he's available now.

(10-15-2015 01:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  There are always outliers, but I think generally teams that pay their coaching staffs more probably get better results. The problem with considering the salaries of the coordinators & assistants is that the head coach is 100% responsible for choosing those guys. So you have a great head coach that is not very good at choosing coordinators & assistants, but has the budget to overpay them, you might end up with some pretty ugly results. Of course, the converse is true as well.

IMO the bolded part is a self-contradiction. If a head coach is not very good at choosing assistants, then he is not a great head coach.

(10-15-2015 10:53 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  There are always outliers, but I think generally teams that pay their coaching staffs more probably get better results. The problem with considering the salaries of the coordinators & assistants is that the head coach is 100% responsible for choosing those guys. So you have a great head coach that is not very good at choosing coordinators & assistants, but has the budget to overpay them, you might end up with some pretty ugly results. Of course, the converse is true as well.

IMO the bolded part is a self-contradiction. If a head coach is not very good at choosing assistants, then he is not a great head coach.

I could have worded that better. I meant a head coach who is great at motivating, organizing, preparing team, recruiting, etc. The duties of a head coach other than hiring coordinators & assistants.

(10-15-2015 10:58 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I could have worded that better. I meant a head coach who is great at motivating, organizing, preparing team, recruiting, etc. The duties of a head coach other than hiring coordinators & assistants.

Okay, that makes sense.

(10-14-2015 08:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, not always.

This information on UNT pay levels is from the conference board,



Dan McCarney was set to earn $721,600 in 2015, which was fourth in Conference USA, but he also had up to $945,000 in available bonuses, which was by far the most in the league. UNT will also have to pay McCarney about $3 million in buyout, so that will affect how much they can pay for the next head coach.

2. Assistant salaries are vital for head coaches.

UNT’s 2014 assistant salary pool of $1.14 million was second in C-USA, coming to an average of $127,588 per assistant. The highest-paid assistant was offensive coordinator / quarterbacks coach Mike Canales at $190,300.

some seem to think if we just offer a high salary and high assistant salaries, we will automatically get coaches who can and will "take us to the next level". Not so. Of course, if we offer a lot less it is even less likely that the Miracle Man will be our next coach.

I don't think anyone really assumes this, OO... but the odds certainly favor that higher paid coaches become higher paid coaches because they are better than the ones that will work for less. OF COURSE it's not true all the time, but it certainly is far better than a 50/50 shot.

(10-15-2015 01:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  There are always outliers, but I think generally teams that pay their coaching staffs more probably get better results. The problem with considering the salaries of the coordinators & assistants is that the head coach is 100% responsible for choosing those guys. So you have a great head coach that is not very good at choosing coordinators & assistants, but has the budget to overpay them, you might end up with some pretty ugly results. Of course, the converse is true as well.

Very true.

What REALLY surprises me is that you have a head coach making potentially well over a million and his highest paid assistant makes less than 200k. It certainly seems that there is lots of room to improve the assistant's pay to get better coaches.


Let me say it differently...

If the coordinator at another school in g5 is making 190k like the UNT coach or a position coach is making 90k and DB has an opening on his staff that he thinks that guy is a good fit for, and he can offer him 250 or 125, then he has a better shot of hiring him than if he can only offer him 200 and 100. SImilarly, if David has a great assistant he's currently paying 90k who gets an offer to be OC in the belt for say $150, David can offer him 150 to stay... and the guy can hold out for an HC position in g5 or a coordinator position in p5.... meaning he's still got a big reason to want to be successful.

I don't think that David can simply decide to pay guys more without JK's approval... so I trust that between them they wouldn't simply pay guys only worth (on the market) 90k, 150k just because we can.... but if they get that offer, we can decide to match it, or we can decide to poach 'the best' from a broader pool of potentials. 50k per year is a big raise when you make 125k... and 50k X 9 assistants is less than 500k/yr. 500k/yr /6 home games at say $20 net per game is 4,000 more butts in the seats.

(10-15-2015 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Generally speaking, paying more is more likely to have better results. But neither high or low pay scales are directly proportional to results.
North Texas apparently fell victim to the idea that money solves problems, and for a while it looked like they might be right. I remember antiBailiff people here pointing out that we needed to do what UNT did and find somebody like their coach. well, he's available now.

I was one of them. After our loss in 2013 at UNT, I was strongly convinced that McCarney was a better coach than Bailiff. He had just out coached him in that game, and he had the B12 resume.

I whiffed on that one.

(10-14-2015 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The road is littered with expensive coaching mistakes. Chuck Fairbanks at Colorado, Dennis Franchione at aTm, Lane Kiffin at USC, lots of others. No, paying more does not ensure anything.

I think we have plateaued under Bailiff, but it's not a bad plateau. Give him the EZF and see if he can elevate things. If he can, great. If he can't, then the downside risk is not so bad. One guy who can't get us there is not hugely better or worse than another guy who can't get us there. The difference lies in finding a guy who can get us there.

Agree here.

I'm not sure we can say we've plateaued when the facilities are being upgraded, the recruits are getting better (or at least more NFL players than ever before), we won a conference title less than 2 seasons ago, and we could be in contention for another one this season. Let's not pretend like we're going to get better each and every season. Players graduate and we lost at least 2 star players on the defensive line alone, to NFL and a good job. Most programs have ups and downs, but Bailiff has improved our down years to where we won't go 2-10 and will still probably make bowl games. Crazy to think we don't appreciate that at Rice.

(10-15-2015 01:23 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The road is littered with expensive coaching mistakes. Chuck Fairbanks at Colorado, Dennis Franchione at aTm, Lane Kiffin at USC, lots of others. No, paying more does not ensure anything.

I think we have plateaued under Bailiff, but it's not a bad plateau. Give him the EZF and see if he can elevate things. If he can, great. If he can't, then the downside risk is not so bad. One guy who can't get us there is not hugely better or worse than another guy who can't get us there. The difference lies in finding a guy who can get us there.

Agree here.

I'm not sure we can say we've plateaued when the facilities are being upgraded, the recruits are getting better (or at least more NFL players than ever before), we won a conference title less than 2 seasons ago, and we could be in contention for another one this season. Let's not pretend like we're going to get better each and every season. Players graduate and we lost at least 2 star players on the defensive line alone, to NFL and a good job. Most programs have ups and downs, but Bailiff has improved our down years to where we won't go 2-10 and will still probably make bowl games. Crazy to think we don't appreciate that at Rice.

Does not matter when fan interest is not increasing (see the stands at home games) and significant revenue increases are unlikely. Re-read Owl40's excellent post. If Rice would like to increase both, a change is required.

Remember the energy and crowd of the first post-Hatfield home game? Although the first game was against Houston, there was buzz around the program and you could feel the excitement of the Rice crowd. Now you see the same excitement at UH and compare it to the crowd of the WKU game.