Quote:USA TODAY Sports examined the total compensation each of the Power Five public schools reported paying head coaches in 23 sports other than football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball in 2013 and 2018. Including salaries, benefits and bonuses, the combined compensation for those coaches grew by about 43% over that time.

The rate of increase those schools reported for their football head coaches over that time was almost 51%.

The figures come from schools’ annual financial reports to the NCAA that were compiled in partnership with Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20...946843001/

The schools that have tons of money lying around have increased the going rate for coaches in "Olympic" sports.

They mentioned the Texas softball coach in that article. I read in another article that when Texas first contacted him, he said no, and then they came back with an offer that more than doubled his Oregon salary, and then he said yes. And now Oklahoma's softball coach is making almost twice what the Texas coach is making, but then again she has won 4 national titles.

It's not so much of a risk if you have as much money as Texas, or if your coach has won 4 national titles. But in general you'd think that an athletic director, even at a P5 school, is taking a chance every time he or she asks donors for more money to pay an Olympic sport coach, because if you overpay for one of those and it doesn't work out, it gets harder to go back to the donors for other things.

I don't know about there being money just sitting out there. Higher ed is very deep in the business of development and fundraising, and some of these schools where athletics have great relationships with students, alumni, staff, and other stakeholders, these places have been able fill the coffers to meet the competitive needs for athletic success. But, it's almost a 24/7, 365-day a year operation. At some of these P5's, with solid media revenue buttressing what traditional intake and donations rake in, this isn't surprising at all.

Is it sustainable is what I wonder. And not just schools needing money from wherever it gets it, and then needing to increase those lines yearly, but the heightening of the necessity of near immediate success and constant marked improvement across the athletic department.

How do you staff this for the long haul? It's already a seasonal and nomadic lifestyle for coaches. Have to imagine there's a lot of burnout coming our way, if not there already.

(08-14-2019 03:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  some of these P5's, with solid media revenue buttressing what traditional intake and donations rake in

Texas' annual athletic revenue without including media money is $160 million. That's why they can look for top P5 head coaches in Olympic sports and offer to double their already sweet salaries.

But once you get outside Texas and Ohio State and a couple of others, even the most generous donors have limits when it comes to Olympic sports. As the linked article mentions, Oregon will pay whatever it takes for track and field, but when the softball coach is already one of your highest paid head coaches, and someone else offers him a raise of more than $250,000 and a guaranteed long term deal on top of that, then the donors say, The softball coach is already making a lot more than our best professors, even though there are fewer people at a softball game than in a freshman English class. Let's just find another coach who can do a good job for what we were already paying.

(08-14-2019 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 03:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  some of these P5's, with solid media revenue buttressing what traditional intake and donations rake in

Texas' annual athletic revenue without including media money is $160 million. That's why they can look for top P5 head coaches in Olympic sports and offer to double their already sweet salaries.

But once you get outside Texas and Ohio State and a couple of others, even the most generous donors have limits when it comes to Olympic sports. As the linked article mentions, Oregon will pay whatever it takes for track and field, but when the softball coach is already one of your highest paid head coaches, and someone else offers him a raise of more than $250,000 and a guaranteed long term deal on top of that, then the donors say, The softball coach is already making a lot more than our best professors, even though there are fewer people at a softball game than in a freshman English class. Let's just find another coach who can do a good job for what we were already paying.

And there is part of the down side of having a lot of money. AD's get lazy and throw money at problems instead of properly evaluating potential coaches. The other down side is that when non revenue salaries get elevated it gets risk heavy for downturns in the economy. Is a soccer or tennis coach really worth 7 figures, especially should the economy turn down and donations ebb? Long term elevating non revenue coaches salaries bakes in red ink in too many areas of the athletic department's budget.

(08-14-2019 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 03:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  some of these P5's, with solid media revenue buttressing what traditional intake and donations rake in

Texas' annual athletic revenue without including media money is $160 million. That's why they can look for top P5 head coaches in Olympic sports and offer to double their already sweet salaries.

But once you get outside Texas and Ohio State and a couple of others, even the most generous donors have limits when it comes to Olympic sports. As the linked article mentions, Oregon will pay whatever it takes for track and field, but when the softball coach is already one of your highest paid head coaches, and someone else offers him a raise of more than $250,000 and a guaranteed long term deal on top of that, then the donors say, The softball coach is already making a lot more than our best professors, even though there are fewer people at a softball game than in a freshman English class. Let's just find another coach who can do a good job for what we were already paying.

And there is part of the down side of having a lot of money. AD's get lazy and throw money at problems instead of properly evaluating potential coaches. The other down side is that when non revenue salaries get elevated it gets risk heavy for downturns in the economy. Is a soccer or tennis coach really worth 7 figures, especially should the economy turn down and donations ebb? Long term elevating non revenue coaches salaries bakes in red ink in too many areas of the athletic department's budget.

Right, and they spend above market to secure talent. Market adjusts to keep pace. But the underlying foundations of assessment and program infrastructure become details. And even more forgotten is whether the constant push and stress for donations need be such a priority. When you need so much money every year because you spend so much money every year, and the logic is that "if we don't, someone else will," it's sort of horrific.

It's gotten to a point in higher ed where some of these athletic and academic positions have a component of donor-facing responsibilities or expectations, including coaches. Much in the same way major athletics have added stress to university presidents as sole executors to process in their respective conferences, or even office support sop up HR and payroll functions. It naturally fractions functions and core responsibilities with these unique pivot points that are kind of exclusive to just college level athletics and overall operations. Where institutional mission and need meets traditional "do more with less" meets administrative bloat.

But, when you're a Texas, and the media money isn't even frosting on the cake, but more like the piping and other flourishes, who's going to tell them to stop doing this for some "greater good" or other normalcy?