A handy chart, courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel
The median coaching salary is $1,100,000. In the MAC, only Al Golden makes even half of that.
The highest non-BCS coach is Gary Patterson at TCU, making $1,300,000.
The lowest BCS coach is Paul Wulff at Washing State, making $600,000.
Look at the salaries of the MAC compared to the C-USA or the WAC. The lowest paid CUSA coach would be the 4th highest paid in the MAC.
3 thoughts
The MAC gets what they pay for.
I will be shocked the day a MAC coach turns down an opportunity to go somewhere else.
How is Butch Jones still at CMU for $275,000?
Who would you rank as most overpaid?
Weis,Petrino,Nutt,Ferentz
(09-28-2009 04:17 PM)huskie1stdown Wrote: [ -> ]3 thoughts
The MAC gets what they pay for.
I will be shocked the day a MAC coach turns down an opportunity to go somewhere else.
How is Butch Jones still at CMU for $275,000?
Well Here are the MAC Coaches
88 Al Golden Temple MAC $575,000
92 Tim Beckman Toledo MAC $450,000
94 Frank Solich Ohio MAC $400,000
102 Jerry Kill Northern Illinois MAC $300,000
102 Dave Clawson Bowling Green MAC $300,000
107 Butch Jones Central Michigan MAC $275,000
107 Bill Cubit Western Michigan MAC $275,000
110 Turner Gill Buffalo MAC $265,000
111 Stan Parrish Ball State MAC $250,000
111 Ron English Eastern Michigan MAC $250,000
114 J.D. Brookhart Akron MAC $245,000
117 Mike Haywood Miami (OH) MAC $200,000
120 Doug Martin Kent State MAC $170,000
80 Kyle Whittingham Utah MWC $700,000
82 Bronco Mendenhall BYU MWC $650,000
Biggest bargains in sports.
(09-28-2009 04:25 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]80 Kyle Whittingham Utah MWC $700,000
82 Bronco Mendenhall BYU MWC $650,000
Biggest bargains in sports.
That's a "home-town discount" if ever there was one. It would take a gargantuan amount of money to get them to move away.
Frankly, even at 120, Doug Martin might still be overpaid...
(09-28-2009 04:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]111 Stan Parrish Ball State MAC $250,000
111 Ron English Eastern Michigan MAC $250,000
114 J.D. Brookhart Akron MAC $245,000
117 Mike Haywood Miami (OH) MAC $200,000
120 Doug Martin Kent State MAC $170,000
Hmm, how good are these teams? Without looking, I assume the bottom Sun Belt teams fill in the gaps between 111-120.
Until there are more resources for MAC teams, this is quality we will have, save the occasional team finding lightning in a bottle for a season or so.
(09-28-2009 06:00 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2009 04:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]111 Stan Parrish Ball State MAC $250,000
111 Ron English Eastern Michigan MAC $250,000
114 J.D. Brookhart Akron MAC $245,000
117 Mike Haywood Miami (OH) MAC $200,000
120 Doug Martin Kent State MAC $170,000
Hmm, how good are these teams? Without looking, I assume the bottom Sun Belt teams fill in the gaps between 111-120.
Until there are more resources for MAC teams, this is quality we will have, save the occasional team finding lightning in a bottle for a season or so.
Those resources come from TV contract money. The BCS allowance for the MAC is a pittance, and no school makes enough money from athletics to bump up the salaries.
Unfortunately, Chryst locked us into a very bad long-term contract with ESPN before he left us.
The only other possible source of funds would come from the NCAA itself, from tournament rewards. If the MAC can start having good showings in March Madness and make some noise in other non-revenue sports it could provide for a little bit more cash.
(09-28-2009 02:55 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]A handy chart, courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel
The median coaching salary is $1,100,000. In the MAC, only Al Golden makes even half of that.
The highest non-BCS coach is Gary Patterson at TCU, making $1,300,000.
The lowest BCS coach is Paul Wulff at Washing State, making $600,000.
Look at the salaries of the MAC compared to the C-USA or the WAC. The lowest paid CUSA coach would be the 4th highest paid in the MAC.
I think SMU is paying June Jones $2MM a year or something like that, I don't think Patterson is the highest non-BCS.
SMU is the biggest joke in college football. 2 million bucks as a starting salary. If he wins he's gone to the Big 12 or SEC. If he doesn't your our 2 million.
(09-28-2009 11:38 PM)OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote: [ -> ]SMU is the biggest joke in college football. 2 million bucks as a starting salary. If he wins he's gone to the Big 12 or SEC. If he doesn't your our 2 million.
Thats the same AD that gave O'Leary a long term contract at about a million a year at UCF.
-Haywood @ Miami for $200k is that right? That seems so LOW especially for a program that is traditionally STRONG. Are they trying to de - emphasize football at Miami?
There is no need to pay coaches more in the MAC unless they prove themselves by winning MAC Championships, bowl games, and finishing in the top 25.
Paying more is not going to keep our coaches. We pay them what they are worth and if they do well they will always leave.
CUSA is paying their coaches way too much money and they still are barely better than the MAC on the playing field.
The NCAA needs to step in at some point and put a cap on coaching salaries because there is no reason these BCS coaches should be making $2+ million a season. These salaries are sickening.
(09-29-2009 09:26 AM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ]There is no need to pay coaches more in the MAC unless they prove themselves by winning MAC Championships, bowl games, and finishing in the top 25.
Paying more is not going to keep our coaches. We pay them what they are worth and if they do well they will always leave.
CUSA is paying their coaches way too much money and they still are barely better than the MAC on the playing field.
The NCAA needs to step in at some point and put a cap on coaching salaries because there is no reason these BCS coaches should be making $2+ million a season. These salaries are sickening.
That logic is exactly why the MAC is where it is. The MAC takes proven winners at lower levels, pays them the bare minimum to justify them leaving their old job, but doesn't reward them when they win. They move on to other schools willing to pay more for the same product and so the MAC has some of the worst turnover rates in the country.
CUSA is paying coaches more, and over time that will allow them to pull away by drawing in more successful coaches. The MAC isn't trying to compete, and so they will fall behind.
(09-29-2009 10:13 AM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 09:26 AM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ]There is no need to pay coaches more in the MAC unless they prove themselves by winning MAC Championships, bowl games, and finishing in the top 25.
Paying more is not going to keep our coaches. We pay them what they are worth and if they do well they will always leave.
CUSA is paying their coaches way too much money and they still are barely better than the MAC on the playing field.
The NCAA needs to step in at some point and put a cap on coaching salaries because there is no reason these BCS coaches should be making $2+ million a season. These salaries are sickening.
That logic is exactly why the MAC is where it is. The MAC takes proven winners at lower levels, pays them the bare minimum to justify them leaving their old job, but doesn't reward them when they win. They move on to other schools willing to pay more for the same product and so the MAC has some of the worst turnover rates in the country.
CUSA is paying coaches more, and over time that will allow them to pull away by drawing in more successful coaches. The MAC isn't trying to compete, and so they will fall behind.
The MAC is where it is because Ball State and Temple are losing to 1-AA teams and then we have other losses to Idaho, UCF, North Texas, Army, Indiana, Marshall, etc.
It has nothing to do with coaching salaries. CUSA is paying their coaches a ton more and where has it gotten them? Just barely ahead of the MAC and SBC and still below the MWC and WAC.
Don't think for a minute that their coaches aren't leaving if they get offered BCS jobs. Heck, Houston's last coach left for Baylor of all places.
It's not like MAC coaches are leaving to go coach in the SBC, CUSA, or WAC.
I have no problem paying coaches more by redoing their contracts if they are winning bowl games, championships, and finishing in the top 25. But we should not be paying unproven coaches high salaries. That's how you end up like UCF or Memphis paying coaches way more than they are worth.
(09-29-2009 11:03 AM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 10:13 AM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 09:26 AM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ]There is no need to pay coaches more in the MAC unless they prove themselves by winning MAC Championships, bowl games, and finishing in the top 25.
Paying more is not going to keep our coaches. We pay them what they are worth and if they do well they will always leave.
CUSA is paying their coaches way too much money and they still are barely better than the MAC on the playing field.
The NCAA needs to step in at some point and put a cap on coaching salaries because there is no reason these BCS coaches should be making $2+ million a season. These salaries are sickening.
That logic is exactly why the MAC is where it is. The MAC takes proven winners at lower levels, pays them the bare minimum to justify them leaving their old job, but doesn't reward them when they win. They move on to other schools willing to pay more for the same product and so the MAC has some of the worst turnover rates in the country.
CUSA is paying coaches more, and over time that will allow them to pull away by drawing in more successful coaches. The MAC isn't trying to compete, and so they will fall behind.
The MAC is where it is because Ball State and Temple are losing to 1-AA teams and then we have other losses to Idaho, UCF, North Texas, Army, Indiana, Marshall, etc.
It has nothing to do with coaching salaries. CUSA is paying their coaches a ton more and where has it gotten them? Just barely ahead of the MAC and SBC and still below the MWC and WAC.
Don't think for a minute that their coaches aren't leaving if they get offered BCS jobs. Heck, Houston's last coach left for Baylor of all places.
It's not like MAC coaches are leaving to go coach in the SBC, CUSA, or WAC.
I have no problem paying coaches more by redoing their contracts if they are winning bowl games, championships, and finishing in the top 25. But we should not be paying unproven coaches high salaries. That's how you end up like UCF or Memphis paying coaches way more than they are worth.
YEAH! Screw us for not scheduling Southern Illinois, Tennessee Tech and Indiana State instead of Villanova!
(09-29-2009 11:59 AM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 11:03 AM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 10:13 AM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 09:26 AM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ]There is no need to pay coaches more in the MAC unless they prove themselves by winning MAC Championships, bowl games, and finishing in the top 25.
Paying more is not going to keep our coaches. We pay them what they are worth and if they do well they will always leave.
CUSA is paying their coaches way too much money and they still are barely better than the MAC on the playing field.
The NCAA needs to step in at some point and put a cap on coaching salaries because there is no reason these BCS coaches should be making $2+ million a season. These salaries are sickening.
That logic is exactly why the MAC is where it is. The MAC takes proven winners at lower levels, pays them the bare minimum to justify them leaving their old job, but doesn't reward them when they win. They move on to other schools willing to pay more for the same product and so the MAC has some of the worst turnover rates in the country.
CUSA is paying coaches more, and over time that will allow them to pull away by drawing in more successful coaches. The MAC isn't trying to compete, and so they will fall behind.
The MAC is where it is because Ball State and Temple are losing to 1-AA teams and then we have other losses to Idaho, UCF, North Texas, Army, Indiana, Marshall, etc.
It has nothing to do with coaching salaries. CUSA is paying their coaches a ton more and where has it gotten them? Just barely ahead of the MAC and SBC and still below the MWC and WAC.
Don't think for a minute that their coaches aren't leaving if they get offered BCS jobs. Heck, Houston's last coach left for Baylor of all places.
It's not like MAC coaches are leaving to go coach in the SBC, CUSA, or WAC.
I have no problem paying coaches more by redoing their contracts if they are winning bowl games, championships, and finishing in the top 25. But we should not be paying unproven coaches high salaries. That's how you end up like UCF or Memphis paying coaches way more than they are worth.
YEAH! Screw us for not scheduling Southern Illinois, Tennessee Tech and Indiana State instead of Villanova!
The point is, if the MAC wants to move up in stature we should not be losing to 1-AA teams. No matter who they are. Do you think it is ok to lose to 1-AA teams?
(09-29-2009 01:05 PM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 11:59 AM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 11:03 AM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 10:13 AM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 09:26 AM)epasnoopy Wrote: [ -> ]There is no need to pay coaches more in the MAC unless they prove themselves by winning MAC Championships, bowl games, and finishing in the top 25.
Paying more is not going to keep our coaches. We pay them what they are worth and if they do well they will always leave.
CUSA is paying their coaches way too much money and they still are barely better than the MAC on the playing field.
The NCAA needs to step in at some point and put a cap on coaching salaries because there is no reason these BCS coaches should be making $2+ million a season. These salaries are sickening.
That logic is exactly why the MAC is where it is. The MAC takes proven winners at lower levels, pays them the bare minimum to justify them leaving their old job, but doesn't reward them when they win. They move on to other schools willing to pay more for the same product and so the MAC has some of the worst turnover rates in the country.
CUSA is paying coaches more, and over time that will allow them to pull away by drawing in more successful coaches. The MAC isn't trying to compete, and so they will fall behind.
The MAC is where it is because Ball State and Temple are losing to 1-AA teams and then we have other losses to Idaho, UCF, North Texas, Army, Indiana, Marshall, etc.
It has nothing to do with coaching salaries. CUSA is paying their coaches a ton more and where has it gotten them? Just barely ahead of the MAC and SBC and still below the MWC and WAC.
Don't think for a minute that their coaches aren't leaving if they get offered BCS jobs. Heck, Houston's last coach left for Baylor of all places.
It's not like MAC coaches are leaving to go coach in the SBC, CUSA, or WAC.
I have no problem paying coaches more by redoing their contracts if they are winning bowl games, championships, and finishing in the top 25. But we should not be paying unproven coaches high salaries. That's how you end up like UCF or Memphis paying coaches way more than they are worth.
YEAH! Screw us for not scheduling Southern Illinois, Tennessee Tech and Indiana State instead of Villanova!
The point is, if the MAC wants to move up in stature we should not be losing to 1-AA teams. No matter who they are. Do you think it is ok to lose to 1-AA teams?
I think we should ignore the label. We lost to a good football team that is very well coached. It took them 5 turnovers to do it, so it's not as if we got demolished like you're acting like. You should probably look at your own team, since you lost to Southern Illinois in 2007.
I dont want to lose to anyone whether they're FCS FBS BCS MAC ACC LOL OMG WPIAL, etc.