According to USA Today, here's the football staff salaries for the MAC. Click the link to see individual coaches' pay.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...assistant/

$886,000 Akron
$852,797 Ohio
$849,030 Northern Illinois
$842,870 Ball State
$835,350 Miami
$826,660 Bowling Green
$825,00 Buffalo
$817,206 Central Michigan
$795,500 Western Michigan
$772,700 UMass
$754,750 Toledo
$729,276 Eastern Michigan
$691,000 Kent State

Value- cost/win
$70,753 Northern Illinois
$82,666 Bowling Green
$84,287 Ball State
$103,125 Buffalo
$107,821 Toledo
$121,828 Ohio
$136,201 Central Michigan
$172,750 Kent State
$177,200 Akron
$364,368 Eastern Michigan
$772,700 UMass
$795,500 Western Michigan
$835,350 Miami

You have to travel pretty far down the list to find the first MAC ass't on the list.

Top three for the MAC:

Amato $196K
Elmassian $168K
Niemann $160K

That is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I can now see our problem at Kent State.

$7.0m-$7.5m Reported salary of Alabama's Head Coach

$4,801,867 salary of all 13 MAC Head Coaches
$4,462,700 salary of Alabama's assistant coaches

Interesting find. Good to see BSU towards the top. Now if only we could put a bit more into our stadium...

That's crazy when you compare to Alabama's salaries, holy smokes.

It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

(12-14-2013 11:42 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

It can't and won't. Like you, I love MAC football and I really look forward to football Saturdays at BSU. However, the MAC has thrown a crazy amount of money the last 15-20 years at a sport it won't be able to sustain much more than 5 more years. This has also come at a very high cost to the other sports. Not to start a dumpster fire conversation, but there is a harsh reality associated with MAC level football that most people are turning the cheek to.

(12-13-2013 05:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  According to USA Today, here's the football staff salaries for the MAC. Click the link to see individual coaches' pay.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...assistant/

$886,000 Akron
$852,797 Ohio
$849,030 Northern Illinois
$842,870 Ball State
$835,350 Miami
$826,660 Bowling Green
$825,00 Buffalo
$817,206 Central Michigan
$795,500 Western Michigan
$772,700 UMass
$754,750 Toledo
$729,276 Eastern Michigan
$691,000 Kent State

Value- cost/win
$70,753 Northern Illinois
$82,666 Bowling Green
$84,287 Ball State
$103,125 Buffalo
$107,821 Toledo
$121,828 Ohio
$136,201 Central Michigan
$172,750 Kent State
$177,200 Akron
$364,368 Eastern Michigan
$772,700 UMass
$795,500 Western Michigan
$835,350 Miami

Your numbers are a little off on that list, it assumes that Miami won a game. Technically we have an undefined amount of cost per win...

(12-14-2013 11:21 PM)BSU4U Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:42 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

It can't and won't. Like you, I love MAC football and I really look forward to football Saturdays at BSU. However, the MAC has thrown a crazy amount of money the last 15-20 years at a sport it won't be able to sustain much more than 5 more years. This has also come at a very high cost to the other sports. Not to start a dumpster fire conversation, but there is a harsh reality associated with MAC level football that most people are turning the cheek to.

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with you.

The MAC has been known for producing good results for minimal amount of cost (excellent benefits for dollar invested).

NOW, the MAC is on a UPSWING as far as revenues are concerned.

1). As have been the case for a while, road game guarantees have gotten very high. A typical school can earn 1 - 1.5M per season from the big boys. Occassionally schools like Toledo, CMU, etc. make big bucks off of a B1G home game.

2). Even though NIU's loss to BG REALLY hurt the MAC this year, last year we got big bucks from the BCS for NIU's game vs. FSU. Starting next year we will get big bucks from the college FB playoff system. Est. as high as 1M / school / year.

3). There are reports that the MAC will be getting some significant $ from ESPN (not the chump change of previous years) from a new contract.

Sure coaching salaries have gone up. The $ to improve facilities is also increasing. Otherwise, the costs are probably going up with inflation.

I thought the 'dark (financial) days' of the MAC was in say the mid-90s where the MAC was more like D-I-AA than true D-I.

Things are getting better.

(12-14-2013 11:21 PM)BSU4U Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:42 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

It can't and won't. Like you, I love MAC football and I really look forward to football Saturdays at BSU. However, the MAC has thrown a crazy amount of money the last 15-20 years at a sport it won't be able to sustain much more than 5 more years. This has also come at a very high cost to the other sports. Not to start a dumpster fire conversation, but there is a harsh reality associated with MAC level football that most people are turning the cheek to.

The MAC and Kent State in particular have been pretending for a long time at an unreasonable cost.

(12-15-2013 09:08 AM)The Flash Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:21 PM)BSU4U Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:42 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

It can't and won't. Like you, I love MAC football and I really look forward to football Saturdays at BSU. However, the MAC has thrown a crazy amount of money the last 15-20 years at a sport it won't be able to sustain much more than 5 more years. This has also come at a very high cost to the other sports. Not to start a dumpster fire conversation, but there is a harsh reality associated with MAC level football that most people are turning the cheek to.

The MAC and Kent State in particular have been pretending for a long time at an unreasonable cost.

Agreed. I don't understand why KSU and most other MAC schools are so hung up on football? Plenty of other schools don't play football at all and they seem to be getting along just fine (Xavier, Wichita State, etc). I doubt KSU would suffer much (if at all) just because we don't have a football team. Based on attendance, the vast majority of the students at most MAC level schools could care less anyway.

(12-15-2013 09:34 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:08 AM)The Flash Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:21 PM)BSU4U Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:42 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

It can't and won't. Like you, I love MAC football and I really look forward to football Saturdays at BSU. However, the MAC has thrown a crazy amount of money the last 15-20 years at a sport it won't be able to sustain much more than 5 more years. This has also come at a very high cost to the other sports. Not to start a dumpster fire conversation, but there is a harsh reality associated with MAC level football that most people are turning the cheek to.

The MAC and Kent State in particular have been pretending for a long time at an unreasonable cost.

Agreed. I don't understand why KSU and most other MAC schools are so hung up on football? Plenty of other schools don't play football at all and they seem to be getting along just fine (Xavier, Wichita State, etc). I doubt KSU would suffer much (if at all) just because we don't have a football team. Based on attendance, the vast majority of the students at most MAC level schools could care less anyway.

You're comparing Kent State to Xavier and Wichita State but a better comparison would be Wright State and Cleveland State.

Kent State's problem with football is that they are near the bottom in terms of spending and that is reflected in Kent State also being near the bottom in career winning percentage among FBS schools. Ether get in or get out, because sorta/kinda committing to athletics is just bleeding cash.

beware though, a better comparison for Kent would be Wright State and Cleveland State, not X and Wichita.

college athletics is an expense, not a for profit venture. Each university needs to determine the value of regular national exposure.

(12-15-2013 01:02 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:34 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:08 AM)The Flash Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:21 PM)BSU4U Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:42 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

It can't and won't. Like you, I love MAC football and I really look forward to football Saturdays at BSU. However, the MAC has thrown a crazy amount of money the last 15-20 years at a sport it won't be able to sustain much more than 5 more years. This has also come at a very high cost to the other sports. Not to start a dumpster fire conversation, but there is a harsh reality associated with MAC level football that most people are turning the cheek to.

The MAC and Kent State in particular have been pretending for a long time at an unreasonable cost.

Agreed. I don't understand why KSU and most other MAC schools are so hung up on football? Plenty of other schools don't play football at all and they seem to be getting along just fine (Xavier, Wichita State, etc). I doubt KSU would suffer much (if at all) just because we don't have a football team. Based on attendance, the vast majority of the students at most MAC level schools could care less anyway.

You're comparing Kent State to Xavier and Wichita State but a better comparison would be Wright State and Cleveland State.

Kent State's problem with football is that they are near the bottom in terms of spending and that is reflected in Kent State also being near the bottom in career winning percentage among FBS schools. Ether get in or get out, because sorta/kinda committing to athletics is just bleeding cash.

beware though, a better comparison for Kent would be Wright State and Cleveland State, not X and Wichita.

college athletics is an expense, not a for profit venture. Each university needs to determine the value of regular national exposure.

I agree. Kent can't afford to compete in football so I wish they would get out! There are plenty of other schools that can't afford it as well but they all still go on (what I consider) wasting tax payers and students/parents money!

I made the comparison to Xavier and Wichita State because those are programs I think Kent State should aspire to become. If KSU didn't spend half of it's athletic budget on football they could invest a lot more in men's hoops and significantly improve that program. Football is clearly more important to area fans than hoops but the costs of winning in football are prohibitive so I'd rather have an excellent hoops program than a poor football and a mediocre to good basketball program. Apparently I'm in the minority with this thinking as some KSU fans get angry when I bring it up and year after year school officials insist that they are committed to football.

Oh boy, here we go again. Even if they disbanded the football program and funneled that money into hoops, it wouldn't make that program much better. When they run the MAC every single season and fill the arena on a nightly basis you'd have more reason to focus on such a move. The football program went on one run in 40 years and garnered far more national attention than the basketball squad does winning 20+ every year. We have a good basketball program, yet nobody cares to watch them outside of when we host Akron.

http://recordpub.com/sports/2013/12/16/k...g-scribe-s

(12-15-2013 06:32 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  Oh boy, here we go again. Even if they disbanded the football program and funneled that money into hoops, it wouldn't make that program much better. When they run the MAC every single season and fill the arena on a nightly basis you'd have more reason to focus on such a move. The football program went on one run in 40 years and garnered far more national attention than the basketball squad does winning 20+ every year. We have a good basketball program, yet nobody cares to watch them outside of when we host Akron.

http://recordpub.com/sports/2013/12/16/k...g-scribe-s

So you think things are fine the way they are? Do you think paying football coaches at the very bottom of FBS is going to produce a consistent winner? If it was your own money (as a business man) would you continue to spend half of a $19MM budget on football? I'm interested to hear any ideas that you have.

(12-14-2013 11:21 PM)BSU4U Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:42 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

It can't and won't. Like you, I love MAC football and I really look forward to football Saturdays at BSU. However, the MAC has thrown a crazy amount of money the last 15-20 years at a sport it won't be able to sustain much more than 5 more years. This has also come at a very high cost to the other sports. Not to start a dumpster fire conversation, but there is a harsh reality associated with MAC level football that most people are turning the cheek to.

Total non-sense. The MAC has not been breaking even for 67 years of playing football and will be around for another 67 years. What has changed? In the 1970's they still had to travel to the same schools, still had to buy helmets, and still had to give scholarships. In fact back then they had to pay for 10 EXTRA scholarships as the limit was 95 instead of 85. Did you think travel was free back then? Nothing has changed except now we actually make "some" revenue from the BCS, TV, and higher pay-day games that we didnt make back then. That extra revenue and fewer scholarship costs are just being funneled back into the programs now with some nicer facilities.

"the sky is falling" types are wrong.

.

(12-16-2013 09:06 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  So you think things are fine the way they are?
Do you think paying football coaches at the very bottom of FBS is going to produce a consistent winner?
If it was your own money (as a business man) would you continue to spend half of a $19MM budget on football?

Yes.
I do think they need to increase the salaries, it's a bit embarrassing to pay what they pay yet expect better results.
Yes.
And on the flip side, how would putting those funds into an above average basketball program with a below average following make them more relevant? When we win the MAC year in and year out and play to capacity on a nightly basis then we can consider going all in on one sport. In the meantime, football is huge in these areas and the school shouldn't even think twice about the need to continue with it.

(12-15-2013 09:08 AM)The Flash Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:21 PM)BSU4U Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 11:42 AM)Flash Freak 3 Wrote:  It's amazing that with this much $$ disparity that MAC football is as good & competitive as it is. Though I love watching it, football for most MAC schools is a big loser financially. It's held up on props from playing "money games" and "student activity fees." I wonder how much longer it can survive in this environment or if it makes sense to?

It can't and won't. Like you, I love MAC football and I really look forward to football Saturdays at BSU. However, the MAC has thrown a crazy amount of money the last 15-20 years at a sport it won't be able to sustain much more than 5 more years. This has also come at a very high cost to the other sports. Not to start a dumpster fire conversation, but there is a harsh reality associated with MAC level football that most people are turning the cheek to.

The MAC and Kent State in particular have been pretending for a long time at an unreasonable cost.

Frankly, so has your basketball from a cost perspective. If you REALLY want to make it mandatory that all sports pay for themselves, just totally dismantle all athletics period as all of them are a "Net Drain".

I think it is a strange time to be saying we should stop trying to do football. The MAC is at its most competitive nature since the 70s and late 90s/early 2000s. Same with Kent State oddly. If we were all playing like we were in the 80s-early90s I think you would have a point but that is not the case.