Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
Author Message
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 38,378
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1270
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #21
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-17-2019 11:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well...does it make a difference that coaches in the vast majority of cases are state employees?

Also, there should be a cap on professer salaries also. That is the biggest costs of tuition increases even if some are endowed.

No. Biggest growth is in the number and the salaries of non-value added administrators. Facilities's costs are also rising.
12-17-2019 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Online
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,085
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 767
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #22
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-17-2019 12:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(12-17-2019 11:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well...does it make a difference that coaches in the vast majority of cases are state employees?

Also, there should be a cap on professer salaries also. That is the biggest costs of tuition increases even if some are endowed.

No. Biggest growth is in the number and the salaries of non-value added administrators. Facilities's costs are also rising.

Some not all of those non-value added administrators do have a value, the value is their role is complying with state or federal mandates to keep the money spigot open and head off litigation. But they certainly hold positions that did not exist 10 or 20 years ago and don't benefit students.
12-17-2019 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,693
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 180
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #23
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
Universities have shown little interest in reigning in costs for the school itself. Of course they have no self discipline in Athletics. Why should we expect that department operate any differently or with any more fiscal discipline than other departments?
12-17-2019 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
kevinwmsn Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 650
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 15
I Root For: South Alabama
Location:
Post: #24
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
Schools are building new buildings for Academic departments and new housing to recruit new students to keep enrollment increasing and to attract students with great grades like they do with athletes. It's all an arms race and it is just not about athletes.
12-17-2019 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #25
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
Quote:Earlier this month, Senators Chris Murphy (D – Conn) and Mitt Romney (R – Utah) formed a bipartisan working group to review issues related to student-athlete economic rights. A potential result of their work is legislation to provide a national framework for name, image, and likeness compensation.

This article outlines the benefits that would accrue to college athletics if lawmakers also developed federal legislation to limit excessive spending on salaries and facilities...

Quote:...It is almost always in the personal job-security interest of athletics directors to pay highly popular coaches whatever it takes to retain them, lest they be blamed by influential constituents for allowing a beloved coach to get away...

Blue's ADU piece reminds me of something Bowlsby said last week. (5:00) He said the underbelly of the NIL discussion is the comparison of coaches' salaries to what players get, acknowledging that "commissioners make a lot of money too". He said "The escalation of salaries is real" and "if we don't find a way to slow it down and maybe slow down the proliferation of expansive facilities, we're going to find ourselves with a $20M coach before long..." He added that "ADs and presidents are really not capable of saying 'no' to a popular coach."

Bowlsby did not specify how they might achieve that but...I doubt Blue is the only one who wants what he proposes. 01-wingedeagle
12-17-2019 10:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 22,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2172
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-17-2019 10:41 PM)chester Wrote:  
Quote:Earlier this month, Senators Chris Murphy (D – Conn) and Mitt Romney (R – Utah) formed a bipartisan working group to review issues related to student-athlete economic rights. A potential result of their work is legislation to provide a national framework for name, image, and likeness compensation.

This article outlines the benefits that would accrue to college athletics if lawmakers also developed federal legislation to limit excessive spending on salaries and facilities...

Quote:...It is almost always in the personal job-security interest of athletics directors to pay highly popular coaches whatever it takes to retain them, lest they be blamed by influential constituents for allowing a beloved coach to get away...

Blue's ADU piece reminds me of something Bowlsby said last week. (5:00) He said the underbelly of the NIL discussion is the comparison of coaches' salaries to what players get, acknowledging that "commissioners make a lot of money too". He said "The escalation of salaries is real" and "if we don't find a way to slow it down and maybe slow down the proliferation of expansive facilities, we're going to find ourselves with a $20M coach before long..." He added that "ADs and presidents are really not capable of saying 'no' to a popular coach."

Bowlsby did not specify how they might achieve that but...I doubt Blue is the only one who wants what he proposes. 01-wingedeagle

That's just helping to form clear points of demarcation for a future split. It's just one of many. The heavily subsidized versus those subsidized by about 25% versus those subsidized less than 20% are easy points of separation between the bottom feeders of the FBS, the true G5's and the P conferences. State budget cuts are going to eventually hone in on subsidized athletics for campuses that can't support even what amounts to the money making sports at other schools. That will form a point of separation that is already seeing widening gap between the G5 and those who can't keep up. Paying for image sand opting to pay what it takes to retain coaches will see a growing divide between 25% subsidized G5's that can't afford further escalation and the P programs.

The future tiers will be decided economically. And if you can't afford to play at some level you won't be expected to compete in it but you also won't be able to claim discrimination by exclusion. It's one thing to be shut out. It's quite another to not be able to afford it. Network money is driving that gap wider now and it will accelerate. Those who invest in a better product will get the most money. The rest will be filler.

And you know something, this debate will be healthy for the country as a whole. We have class distinctions in every facet of society from what subdivision one lives in to what kind a car one drives to what brand of clothes you wear, and long ago to what kind of University you attend. The football divide is only going to cement the reality of it and then the nation is going to have to grasp reality. If you can't afford something your life is better off without it. Once the nation learns that lesson the personal debt crisis will start to subside, people will once again live within their means, and they may once again actually start to save which is the only behavior besides getting a better education that can help most vault into the next tier of revenue.

Nobody promises you equal results (which is where we are stuck now within our national insanity) just an equal chance (which is not to say your chances aren't weighted, they are). But we are one of the few nations in which one can change his/her status with determination, hard work, and a little bit of luck. And once we grasp that again and get over Disney's version of fairy tale life the better off we'll all be. And truth be told the Cal Davis AD Mr. Blue only wishes he had a coaching salary problem. His gripe is nothing more than sour grapes born of envy.
12-17-2019 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 218
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 17
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #27
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-16-2019 10:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is a simple fix.

Quit being a dumb*** when you hire.

Most coaches hired to multi-million dollar deals in the Power 5 would accept significantly less if that were the offer.

Arkansas hired Chad Morris at $3.5 million, Pittman came in for less. AState hired Harsin and Anderson for less than what they paid Malzahn.

Most schools think if you fire a $3 million coach you need a $4 million coach this time even though the hiring pool is going to look very similar.

Mizzou paid $4 million to hire Eli Drinkwitz. I like Eli, he's great guy loved visiting with him at AState but he went 12-1 with a squad that went 11-2 under Scott Satterfield and still has the bulk of production coming back next year. Without ever having recruited a full class as head Drink gets a $3.2 million raise.

You can easily out-pay any G5 and most any G5 can easily out-pay an FCS but don't freaking spend millions because you can or because your fans are wondering why you paid $3 million when your rival is paying $6 million. There are tons of good coaches out there who will gladly take a nice raise and bonus laden contract that rewards success.

Most contract bonus provisions are so small in proportion to the salary that they appear to be after thoughts thrown in for the sake of the fans. Hey look he gets $100k for making the playoff, that's some nice juice, yeah to you and me, guy making $120,000 every two weeks? He's less likely to notice.

Anyone who thinks Gus Malzahn would have said no thanks when Auburn called him at AState if they had offered to double his salary instead of offering to triple it is badly mistaken.

Missouri can be case study #1. Fired a reasonably successful head coach after three years, and paid him $3M not to coach there anymore. Then they paid $1.7M to App State for the privilege of taking their coach, a guy with one year of experience, giving him a 430% raise, all while guaranteeing him $17M even if he wins 0 games at the school. Wow!
12-18-2019 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #28
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-17-2019 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-17-2019 10:41 PM)chester Wrote:  
Quote:Earlier this month, Senators Chris Murphy (D – Conn) and Mitt Romney (R – Utah) formed a bipartisan working group to review issues related to student-athlete economic rights. A potential result of their work is legislation to provide a national framework for name, image, and likeness compensation.

This article outlines the benefits that would accrue to college athletics if lawmakers also developed federal legislation to limit excessive spending on salaries and facilities...

Quote:...It is almost always in the personal job-security interest of athletics directors to pay highly popular coaches whatever it takes to retain them, lest they be blamed by influential constituents for allowing a beloved coach to get away...

Blue's ADU piece reminds me of something Bowlsby said last week. (5:00) He said the underbelly of the NIL discussion is the comparison of coaches' salaries to what players get, acknowledging that "commissioners make a lot of money too". He said "The escalation of salaries is real" and "if we don't find a way to slow it down and maybe slow down the proliferation of expansive facilities, we're going to find ourselves with a $20M coach before long..." He added that "ADs and presidents are really not capable of saying 'no' to a popular coach."

Bowlsby did not specify how they might achieve that but...I doubt Blue is the only one who wants what he proposes. 01-wingedeagle

That's just helping to form clear points of demarcation for a future split. It's just one of many. The heavily subsidized versus those subsidized by about 25% versus those subsidized less than 20% are easy points of separation between the bottom feeders of the FBS, the true G5's and the P conferences. State budget cuts are going to eventually hone in on subsidized athletics for campuses that can't support even what amounts to the money making sports at other schools. That will form a point of separation that is already seeing widening gap between the G5 and those who can't keep up. Paying for image sand opting to pay what it takes to retain coaches will see a growing divide between 25% subsidized G5's that can't afford further escalation and the P programs.

The future tiers will be decided economically. And if you can't afford to play at some level you won't be expected to compete in it but you also won't be able to claim discrimination by exclusion. It's one thing to be shut out. It's quite another to not be able to afford it. Network money is driving that gap wider now and it will accelerate. Those who invest in a better product will get the most money. The rest will be filler.

And you know something, this debate will be healthy for the country as a whole. We have class distinctions in every facet of society from what subdivision one lives in to what kind a car one drives to what brand of clothes you wear, and long ago to what kind of University you attend. The football divide is only going to cement the reality of it and then the nation is going to have to grasp reality. If you can't afford something your life is better off without it. Once the nation learns that lesson the personal debt crisis will start to subside, people will once again live within their means, and they may once again actually start to save which is the only behavior besides getting a better education that can help most vault into the next tier of revenue.

Nobody promises you equal results (which is where we are stuck now within our national insanity) just an equal chance (which is not to say your chances aren't weighted, they are). But we are one of the few nations in which one can change his/her status with determination, hard work, and a little bit of luck. And once we grasp that again and get over Disney's version of fairy tale life the better off we'll all be. And truth be told the Cal Davis AD Mr. Blue only wishes he had a coaching salary problem. His gripe is nothing more than sour grapes born of envy.

JR, I do hope that the P conferences are gearing to split. It's silly to have a gazillion programs competing for the same national championships, especially when there is massive disparity between the revenues of some and the revenues of others. However, if by "split" you mean an NCAA exit, I don't think that the Ps want to do that at this time. I don't think that will happen until after the courts require the allowance of player pay or until the Ps are otherwise compelled to pay players because of some successful outside competition that beats them to the punch and eats into their revenue. (Possible example)

I think the NCAA is planning something rotten behind the scenes....

I've seen three or for interviews of Mark Emmert since the current NIL debate began. In each one, he purposely mischaracterized NIL bills, pretending that they require NCAA schools to lineup endorsement deals for their athletes. In reality, there are no NIL bills that require schools to do that and there are no NIL bills that prevent the NCAA from prohibiting the same. Emmert does this so that he can obfuscate the point by bringing up "employer/employee relationships" between schools and athletes, knowing that there is less public support for employing athletes than there is for letting them make money from 3rd parties. The NCAA as a whole, including the P schools, remain adamantly opposed to direct pay. No surprise.

Just yesterday, Dec 17, Emmert flat out lied to an audience, saying that "the Ninth Circuit has said 'anything student athletes receive has to be tethered to education.'" That isn't what the Ninth Circuit said... Legally, NCAA schools are perfectly free to pay athletes in ways that nothing at all to do with education. What the Ninth Circuit said in O'Bannon 2 was, essentially, "if you DO pay athletes in ways untethered to education, you will lose your claim on amateurism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRj8zrM6...e=youtu.be

Emmert went on to say that "legal precedent" is partial to why the NCAA is conversing with Congress.

Later in that same interview, Emmert was asked what the NCAA wants from Congress and whether it is seeking an antitrust exemption. Emmert didn't offer specifics in his answer and he didn't deny that the NCAA would seek an antitrust exemption. He did say that "the Board and I have put together a group of university presidents...to try and craft exactly what that is over this holiday period going into our national meeting in January."

Okay, great. Except, back in October, the NCAA gave itself until January 2021 to adapt new NIL rules. Now the NCAA is seeking to fast-track things through federal legislation. What changed between October and today?

I'll tell y'all what changed. A couple of weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit announced that it will hear oral arguments on Alston in early March 2020. That same court took 6 months to decide O'bannon after oral arguments, and the approximate might be expected for Alston. Of course, the NCAA appealed and wants the district court's ruling on overturned.. That's not going to happen. The best the Cartel can hope for is that the Ninth doesn't grant plaintiffs broader relief – an injunction against all NCAA compensation caps. This might actually happen, as the district court (Judge Wilken) rightly pointed out in her ruling that the NCAA already pays some athletes in ways that are untethered to education. (You guys see the connection here?) Example: some schools dig into their SAF funds to pay athletes' disability and/or loss of value insurance premiums. Seriously, no one can claim with a straight face that paid LOV premiums are "tethered to education." What's more, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas will be part of the Alston 2 panel. Judge Thomas is the one holdover from O'Bannon 2 and he is also the dissenter of that case – the one who would have allowed direct NIL-related payments to athletes, payments that would not have been related to education. So..

Anyway, I'm starting to think that the NCAA – the NCAA in all its arrogance and continual disregard for antitrust law – will actually seek an antitrust exemption from Congress 03-lmfao03-lmfao

Like maybe "Hey! We'll let P5 athletes profit from their NIL in any way they like. Just give us that exemption." lol
12-18-2019 05:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,020
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 130
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #29
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-16-2019 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 12:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought this article was interesting. lol...sounds kinda like "Please Please Please---protect us from ourselves!!

Salary market inefficiency is especially apparent when athletics directors and presidents find themselves renegotiating contracts to retain successful coaches. The non-profit structure creates an odd principal-agent dilemma: It is almost always in the personal job-security interest of athletics directors to pay highly popular coaches whatever it takes to retain them, lest they be blamed by influential constituents for allowing a beloved coach to get away. Agents representing coaches understand this negotiating dynamic, and are thus able to extract exceptional value for their clients. Negotiating circumstances are different in professional sports, where management is closely supported by an owner with a personal incentive to optimize financial efficiency and maximize return on investment.

Off the record, ADs will admit it’s ridiculous that the fourth best coordinator in a conference can earn $1.7 million for a head coach that earns $6 million a year, but, well, you try being the first to draw the line in the sand.



https://footballscoop.com/news/d1-ad-arg...athletics/

Okay, so the likely progressive socialist AD at UC Davis wants to spout off about coaches salaries? Next.

I'll listen when the AD of one of the P5 wants to bellyache about some aspect of college sports because their butts will be on the line. But Mr. Blue can take a hike. When UC Davis actually competes for something wake me up!

[Image: 5e3.jpg]
12-18-2019 06:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 22,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2172
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-18-2019 05:24 AM)chester Wrote:  
(12-17-2019 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-17-2019 10:41 PM)chester Wrote:  
Quote:Earlier this month, Senators Chris Murphy (D – Conn) and Mitt Romney (R – Utah) formed a bipartisan working group to review issues related to student-athlete economic rights. A potential result of their work is legislation to provide a national framework for name, image, and likeness compensation.

This article outlines the benefits that would accrue to college athletics if lawmakers also developed federal legislation to limit excessive spending on salaries and facilities...

Quote:...It is almost always in the personal job-security interest of athletics directors to pay highly popular coaches whatever it takes to retain them, lest they be blamed by influential constituents for allowing a beloved coach to get away...

Blue's ADU piece reminds me of something Bowlsby said last week. (5:00) He said the underbelly of the NIL discussion is the comparison of coaches' salaries to what players get, acknowledging that "commissioners make a lot of money too". He said "The escalation of salaries is real" and "if we don't find a way to slow it down and maybe slow down the proliferation of expansive facilities, we're going to find ourselves with a $20M coach before long..." He added that "ADs and presidents are really not capable of saying 'no' to a popular coach."

Bowlsby did not specify how they might achieve that but...I doubt Blue is the only one who wants what he proposes. 01-wingedeagle

That's just helping to form clear points of demarcation for a future split. It's just one of many. The heavily subsidized versus those subsidized by about 25% versus those subsidized less than 20% are easy points of separation between the bottom feeders of the FBS, the true G5's and the P conferences. State budget cuts are going to eventually hone in on subsidized athletics for campuses that can't support even what amounts to the money making sports at other schools. That will form a point of separation that is already seeing widening gap between the G5 and those who can't keep up. Paying for image sand opting to pay what it takes to retain coaches will see a growing divide between 25% subsidized G5's that can't afford further escalation and the P programs.

The future tiers will be decided economically. And if you can't afford to play at some level you won't be expected to compete in it but you also won't be able to claim discrimination by exclusion. It's one thing to be shut out. It's quite another to not be able to afford it. Network money is driving that gap wider now and it will accelerate. Those who invest in a better product will get the most money. The rest will be filler.

And you know something, this debate will be healthy for the country as a whole. We have class distinctions in every facet of society from what subdivision one lives in to what kind a car one drives to what brand of clothes you wear, and long ago to what kind of University you attend. The football divide is only going to cement the reality of it and then the nation is going to have to grasp reality. If you can't afford something your life is better off without it. Once the nation learns that lesson the personal debt crisis will start to subside, people will once again live within their means, and they may once again actually start to save which is the only behavior besides getting a better education that can help most vault into the next tier of revenue.

Nobody promises you equal results (which is where we are stuck now within our national insanity) just an equal chance (which is not to say your chances aren't weighted, they are). But we are one of the few nations in which one can change his/her status with determination, hard work, and a little bit of luck. And once we grasp that again and get over Disney's version of fairy tale life the better off we'll all be. And truth be told the Cal Davis AD Mr. Blue only wishes he had a coaching salary problem. His gripe is nothing more than sour grapes born of envy.

JR, I do hope that the P conferences are gearing to split. It's silly to have a gazillion programs competing for the same national championships, especially when there is massive disparity between the revenues of some and the revenues of others. However, if by "split" you mean an NCAA exit, I don't think that the Ps want to do that at this time. I don't think that will happen until after the courts require the allowance of player pay or until the Ps are otherwise compelled to pay players because of some successful outside competition that beats them to the punch and eats into their revenue. (Possible example)

I think the NCAA is planning something rotten behind the scenes....

I've seen three or for interviews of Mark Emmert since the current NIL debate began. In each one, he purposely mischaracterized NIL bills, pretending that they require NCAA schools to lineup endorsement deals for their athletes. In reality, there are no NIL bills that require schools to do that and there are no NIL bills that prevent the NCAA from prohibiting the same. Emmert does this so that he can obfuscate the point by bringing up "employer/employee relationships" between schools and athletes, knowing that there is less public support for employing athletes than there is for letting them make money from 3rd parties. The NCAA as a whole, including the P schools, remain adamantly opposed to direct pay. No surprise.

Just yesterday, Dec 17, Emmert flat out lied to an audience, saying that "the Ninth Circuit has said 'anything student athletes receive has to be tethered to education.'" That isn't what the Ninth Circuit said... Legally, NCAA schools are perfectly free to pay athletes in ways that nothing at all to do with education. What the Ninth Circuit said in O'Bannon 2 was, essentially, "if you DO pay athletes in ways untethered to education, you will lose your claim on amateurism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRj8zrM6...e=youtu.be

Emmert went on to say that "legal precedent" is partial to why the NCAA is conversing with Congress.

Later in that same interview, Emmert was asked what the NCAA wants from Congress and whether it is seeking an antitrust exemption. Emmert didn't offer specifics in his answer and he didn't deny that the NCAA would seek an antitrust exemption. He did say that "the Board and I have put together a group of university presidents...to try and craft exactly what that is over this holiday period going into our national meeting in January."

Okay, great. Except, back in October, the NCAA gave itself until January 2021 to adapt new NIL rules. Now the NCAA is seeking to fast-track things through federal legislation. What changed between October and today?

I'll tell y'all what changed. A couple of weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit announced that it will hear oral arguments on Alston in early March 2020. That same court took 6 months to decide O'bannon after oral arguments, and the approximate might be expected for Alston. Of course, the NCAA appealed and wants the district court's ruling on overturned.. That's not going to happen. The best the Cartel can hope for is that the Ninth doesn't grant plaintiffs broader relief – an injunction against all NCAA compensation caps. This might actually happen, as the district court (Judge Wilken) rightly pointed out in her ruling that the NCAA already pays some athletes in ways that are untethered to education. (You guys see the connection here?) Example: some schools dig into their SAF funds to pay athletes' disability and/or loss of value insurance premiums. Seriously, no one can claim with a straight face that paid LOV premiums are "tethered to education." What's more, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas will be part of the Alston 2 panel. Judge Thomas is the one holdover from O'Bannon 2 and he is also the dissenter of that case – the one who would have allowed direct NIL-related payments to athletes, payments that would not have been related to education. So..

Anyway, I'm starting to think that the NCAA – the NCAA in all its arrogance and continual disregard for antitrust law – will actually seek an antitrust exemption from Congress 03-lmfao03-lmfao

Like maybe "Hey! We'll let P5 athletes profit from their NIL in any way they like. Just give us that exemption." lol

First of all we are in agreement that any kind of pay for play will necessitate a split.

The rest I find extremely plausible given the controlling nature and the bureaucratic nature of the NCAA. They've long functioned as a quasi governmental entity, not they are connected directly, but that they both operate politically by nature. IF there is a split it won't be a separation from the NCAA as much as an exorcism from its possessive spirit.

I just don't think the public is going to support their stance against the backdrop of the money now involved with the game. I think the players are in a much more sympathetic position relative to the nature of the business than they have ever been.

And, unlike many, I would applaud a move to some kind of pay for play because it does a great deal to clean up the current process and it permits the kids to remain above board, learn how to handle tax matters, and I might add it would draw a much healthier distinction on campuses between athletes and the normal student body. Healthier in that it cleans up the ambiguity in the current classification, alleviates but does not replace some of the stress on the academic sides expectations, and leaves the university an ample tool as an employee of the university to enforce behavioral standards with regard to the community, the campus, and the schools image.

I also believe it will lead to the signing of contracts which will preclude the transfer portal stuff, which IMO has become a NCAA attempt at leveling talent differences at key positions. It also opens the window for a professional entity having to buy out the remainder of a players contract which offers schools some reparation for early departure and for the expense of having developed that player.
(This post was last modified: 12-18-2019 10:21 AM by JRsec.)
12-18-2019 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 38,378
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1270
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #31
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-18-2019 12:05 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 10:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is a simple fix.

Quit being a dumb*** when you hire.

Most coaches hired to multi-million dollar deals in the Power 5 would accept significantly less if that were the offer.

Arkansas hired Chad Morris at $3.5 million, Pittman came in for less. AState hired Harsin and Anderson for less than what they paid Malzahn.

Most schools think if you fire a $3 million coach you need a $4 million coach this time even though the hiring pool is going to look very similar.

Mizzou paid $4 million to hire Eli Drinkwitz. I like Eli, he's great guy loved visiting with him at AState but he went 12-1 with a squad that went 11-2 under Scott Satterfield and still has the bulk of production coming back next year. Without ever having recruited a full class as head Drink gets a $3.2 million raise.

You can easily out-pay any G5 and most any G5 can easily out-pay an FCS but don't freaking spend millions because you can or because your fans are wondering why you paid $3 million when your rival is paying $6 million. There are tons of good coaches out there who will gladly take a nice raise and bonus laden contract that rewards success.

Most contract bonus provisions are so small in proportion to the salary that they appear to be after thoughts thrown in for the sake of the fans. Hey look he gets $100k for making the playoff, that's some nice juice, yeah to you and me, guy making $120,000 every two weeks? He's less likely to notice.

Anyone who thinks Gus Malzahn would have said no thanks when Auburn called him at AState if they had offered to double his salary instead of offering to triple it is badly mistaken.

Missouri can be case study #1. Fired a reasonably successful head coach after three years, and paid him $3M not to coach there anymore. Then they paid $1.7M to App State for the privilege of taking their coach, a guy with one year of experience, giving him a 430% raise, all while guaranteeing him $17M even if he wins 0 games at the school. Wow!

And they never appreciated just how good they had it with Gary Pinkel.
12-18-2019 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,207
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1439
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #32
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
California legislator to propose a commission that would handle this type of stuff.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/201...c-problems
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2019 05:44 PM by Attackcoog.)
12-19-2019 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 47,354
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1423
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #33
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
Every seriously competitive sport has caps. Even Formula 1 has caps. The NFL has caps. And the way to make caps taste better in the P5 is to make it a luxury tax MLB style instead of a cap. You wanna spend over the cap fine but you're taxed on that and the taxes help out the non factories.
12-21-2019 03:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Mav Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 573
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Omaha
Location:
Post: #34
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-17-2019 08:41 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  Schools are building new buildings for Academic departments and new housing to recruit new students to keep enrollment increasing and to attract students with great grades like they do with athletes. It's all an arms race and it is just not about athletes.
Yep. Nebraska's answer to shoring up their poor academics (by B1G standards) was to increase the six-year graduation rate and double enrollment within 10 years. Then again, that was two university presidents ago, and the guy that said that was such a massive idiot that his answer to the AAU debating on kicking Nebraska out was to call them irrelevant.
12-21-2019 10:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Online
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,085
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 767
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #35
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-21-2019 03:28 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Every seriously competitive sport has caps. Even Formula 1 has caps. The NFL has caps. And the way to make caps taste better in the P5 is to make it a luxury tax MLB style instead of a cap. You wanna spend over the cap fine but you're taxed on that and the taxes help out the non factories.

The only cap in top tier professional soccer outside of the US is a cap on how much debt a team can carry in relation to revenue.
12-22-2019 12:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,149
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 79
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #36
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
Free enterprise. Let it reign until the money well dries out.
12-22-2019 04:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 47,354
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1423
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #37
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-22-2019 12:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(12-21-2019 03:28 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Every seriously competitive sport has caps. Even Formula 1 has caps. The NFL has caps. And the way to make caps taste better in the P5 is to make it a luxury tax MLB style instead of a cap. You wanna spend over the cap fine but you're taxed on that and the taxes help out the non factories.

The only cap in top tier professional soccer outside of the US is a cap on how much debt a team can carry in relation to revenue.


In other words some franchises in the past probably spent themselves into bankruptcy trying to keep pace. That's still a cap, it's just a sloppy and poorly thought out one.
12-22-2019 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Online
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,085
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 767
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #38
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-22-2019 11:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(12-22-2019 12:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(12-21-2019 03:28 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Every seriously competitive sport has caps. Even Formula 1 has caps. The NFL has caps. And the way to make caps taste better in the P5 is to make it a luxury tax MLB style instead of a cap. You wanna spend over the cap fine but you're taxed on that and the taxes help out the non factories.

The only cap in top tier professional soccer outside of the US is a cap on how much debt a team can carry in relation to revenue.


In other words some franchises in the past probably spent themselves into bankruptcy trying to keep pace. That's still a cap, it's just a sloppy and poorly thought out one.

Actually when they go bankrupt it tends to be because they borrowed to bolster their roster to avoid relegation and ended up relegated and can't float their debt with the revenue from the lower tier league and severance from the higher tier.

If they didn't have pro/rel they would have no need for any sort of cap. They are free marketers with no draft and no salary cap. The debt cap only exists to keep the politicians out because they get interested when a hundred year old club gets liquidated in bankruptcy.
12-22-2019 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,207
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1439
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #39
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-17-2019 10:41 PM)chester Wrote:  
Quote:Earlier this month, Senators Chris Murphy (D – Conn) and Mitt Romney (R – Utah) formed a bipartisan working group to review issues related to student-athlete economic rights. A potential result of their work is legislation to provide a national framework for name, image, and likeness compensation.

This article outlines the benefits that would accrue to college athletics if lawmakers also developed federal legislation to limit excessive spending on salaries and facilities...

Quote:...It is almost always in the personal job-security interest of athletics directors to pay highly popular coaches whatever it takes to retain them, lest they be blamed by influential constituents for allowing a beloved coach to get away...

Blue's ADU piece reminds me of something Bowlsby said last week. (5:00) He said the underbelly of the NIL discussion is the comparison of coaches' salaries to what players get, acknowledging that "commissioners make a lot of money too". He said "The escalation of salaries is real" and "if we don't find a way to slow it down and maybe slow down the proliferation of expansive facilities, we're going to find ourselves with a $20M coach before long..." He added that "ADs and presidents are really not capable of saying 'no' to a popular coach."

Bowlsby did not specify how they might achieve that but...I doubt Blue is the only one who wants what he proposes. 01-wingedeagle

I think administrators are becoming very concerned that the coaching salary thing has escalated to the point that its become very difficult to argue that players should receive no compensation above their educational benefit while coaches are routinely getting 4-10 million a year (or more).
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2019 03:43 PM by Attackcoog.)
12-22-2019 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 47,354
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1423
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #40
RE: D1 AD Argues For A Cap On Coaching Salaries
(12-22-2019 02:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Actually when they go bankrupt it tends to be because they borrowed to bolster their roster to avoid relegation and ended up relegated and can't float their debt with the revenue from the lower tier league and severance from the higher tier.

If they didn't have pro/rel they would have no need for any sort of cap. They are free marketers with no draft and no salary cap. The debt cap only exists to keep the politicians out because they get interested when a hundred year old club gets liquidated in bankruptcy.

Caps are the norm. Formula 1 use to be the ultimate no limits sport. And then a bunch of Texans showed up with a snowmobile engine in the back of a racecar that was doing nothing but sucking the entire chassis down onto the road like a street sweeper. They crushed everybody. That company was Chaparral Cars in the US. Formula 1 got to where the cars were so fast and so powerful that a crash at speed was usually fatal. The very best in the sport ... people like Aryton Senna ... were also perversely the most likely to die playing it. Mercedes and Ferrari and McLaren were proudly spending 7 and 8 figures to shave off a second or two a lap. Formula 1 came around to see that killing off its name brand players was a bad idea and that the largest checkbook wins will ultimately turn away more fans than it will win. NCAAFB will either learn from the Formula 1s of the world or it will destroy itself trying to wring the last 20% of money like a sponge for the top 12-15 programs.
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2019 05:11 PM by georgia_tech_swagger.)
12-22-2019 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.