This topic is better placed here, I just hadn't realized how much coaching salaries have grown over the past 20 years. For example, USU is obviously on the lower end of college coaching salaries, and likely won't ever be able to match what schools in the P-5 can, particularly top end schools. What intrigued me about this article is how much coaching salaries have grown in 20 years. TV contracts seemed so big back then, I remember the BCS and the Bowl Alliance before that were being used to make additional money that everyone wanted. The biggest revenue generator is not the bowls, nor attendance. Attendance has not significantly grown in 20 years, it is the TV and the platforms on which games can be seen.

What intrigues me most is the numbers they give. All of these schools got significantly larger crowds, even 20 years ago than USU. Yet the salaries at Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, South Carolina and Auburn were less than the $900,000 base salary Matt Wells signed for this past coaching change. Among the names they hired were Bob Stoops, Tommy Tuberville, and Lou Holtz that would have been paid more at USU today than they were at the Big 12 and SEC schools they signed with 20 years ago.

At the time Dave Arslanian was making around $100,000 per year. The highest paid coach was Steve Spurrier at just under $2 million per season. Today Dabo Swinney makes $10 million, Nick Saban makes $8 million, Jim Harbaugh $7 million. The lowest paid head coach is Jamey Caldwell at Coastal Carolina in the SBC that made $350,000.

Coaching salaries have gone up much more than the rate of inflation since the time I was finishing high school and starting my time at USU.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-co ... big-money/

The amount of money these top football schools make is amazing, for example LSU has made $1.4 million in concession sales at a single football game.

What a waste of money.

NVAggie wrote: ↑

November 19th, 2019, 7:58 am

What a waste of money.

Perhaps on the outside, but football pays for all of the other sports and funds several academic departments at major football programs. When schools pull in over $100,000,000 in their athletic programs, get boosts in college applications, and are able to raise other money due to the publicity that comes with it, you can see why this arms race has occurred. This is a consumer driven product as this article has demonstrated. USU didn't just decide to give a 900% raise to their coaches because they are generous, it is because they can afford it. Had they paid this 20 years ago as a base salary, they would have been in the top 5 in America with their salary total.

What coaches do as an occupation isn't as important the attention they bring in when they are coaching games. They bring the University advertising that is worth more than their salaries, even if football isn't a money maker at the school. That is why academics in administration generally will live with the athletic departments.

NowhereLandAggie wrote: ↑

November 19th, 2019, 8:39 pm

NVAggie wrote: ↑

November 19th, 2019, 7:58 am

What a waste of money.

Perhaps on the outside, but football pays for all of the other sports and funds several academic departments at major football programs. When schools pull in over $100,000,000 in their athletic programs, get boosts in college applications, and are able to raise other money due to the publicity that comes with it, you can see why this arms race has occurred. This is a consumer driven product as this article has demonstrated. USU didn't just decide to give a 900% raise to their coaches because they are generous, it is because they can afford it. Had they paid this 20 years ago as a base salary, they would have been in the top 5 in America with their salary total.

What coaches do as an occupation isn't as important the attention they bring in when they are coaching games. They bring the University advertising that is worth more than their salaries, even if football isn't a money maker at the school. That is why academics in administration generally will live with the athletic departments.

There are very few schools where the football team supports the entirety of the athletic department. In a 2012 study by the American Council on Education, there were only eight division 1 athletic departments at public universities that were self sustaining or profitable: LSU, Penn State, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas. Clemson lost money. Ohio State lost money. Oregon lost money, Florida State lost money. Even mighty Alabama operates at a loss, requiring public subsidies to sustain its athletic department.

The current business model of collegiate athletics is unsustainable and is destined to come crashing down at some point.

Not only does it need government money, it also needs poor student money. a portion of the large student debt in this country comes from athletics fees. People are paying interest for years on these fees. There are also people spending money on athletics events instead of retirement plans, emergency funds, paying down debt. I love sports, I spend money on sports. In the end, it will come crashing down.

NVAggie wrote: ↑

November 20th, 2019, 9:09 am

Not only does it need government money, it also needs poor student money. a portion of the large student debt in this country comes from athletics fees. People are paying interest for years on these fees. There are also people spending money on athletics events instead of retirement plans, emergency funds, paying down debt. I love sports, I spend money on sports. In the end, it will come crashing down.

I forgot about that too. Student debt is out of control, and you are correct, students are taking out loans in part to help cover athletic fees and then they pay interest on the loans they took out pay for those athletic fees.

I am totally conflicted about collegiate athletics. I love watching college football, and obviously I am an Aggie fan. But between the costs and the health risks associated the game of football, I feel guilty for liking the sport.

swordsman1989 wrote: ↑

November 20th, 2019, 9:26 am

NVAggie wrote: ↑

November 20th, 2019, 9:09 am

Not only does it need government money, it also needs poor student money. a portion of the large student debt in this country comes from athletics fees. People are paying interest for years on these fees. There are also people spending money on athletics events instead of retirement plans, emergency funds, paying down debt. I love sports, I spend money on sports. In the end, it will come crashing down.

I forgot about that too. Student debt is out of control, and you are correct, students are taking out loans in part to help cover athletic fees and then they pay interest on the loans they took out pay for those athletic fees.

I am totally conflicted about collegiate athletics. I love watching college football, and obviously I am an Aggie fan. But between the costs and the health risks associated the game of football, I feel guilty for liking the sport.

You folks do understand that quite a few of the higher end P-5 schools use no student fees, and no school fees. It is funded by the fan base which of course is impossible with USU alums and valley people. Of course several use some but USU is on the high end as far as student and school fees as a part of the budget.

Yes, I'm aware. I also imagine life is much easier when you are cashing a +$20 million a year for TV money.

NVAggie wrote: ↑

November 21st, 2019, 2:42 pm

Yes, I'm aware. I also imagine life is much easier when you are cashing a +$20 million a year for TV money.

Regardless many of the big salary paying school do not use any or very little student fees or university fees. So students there are not going into debt for coach's salaries.

swordsman1989 wrote: ↑

November 20th, 2019, 8:59 am

NowhereLandAggie wrote: ↑

November 19th, 2019, 8:39 pm

NVAggie wrote: ↑

November 19th, 2019, 7:58 am

What a waste of money.

Perhaps on the outside, but football pays for all of the other sports and funds several academic departments at major football programs. When schools pull in over $100,000,000 in their athletic programs, get boosts in college applications, and are able to raise other money due to the publicity that comes with it, you can see why this arms race has occurred. This is a consumer driven product as this article has demonstrated. USU didn't just decide to give a 900% raise to their coaches because they are generous, it is because they can afford it. Had they paid this 20 years ago as a base salary, they would have been in the top 5 in America with their salary total.

What coaches do as an occupation isn't as important the attention they bring in when they are coaching games. They bring the University advertising that is worth more than their salaries, even if football isn't a money maker at the school. That is why academics in administration generally will live with the athletic departments.

There are very few schools where the football team supports the entirety of the athletic department. In a 2012 study by the American Council on Education, there were only eight division 1 athletic departments at public universities that were self sustaining or profitable: LSU, Penn State, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas. Clemson lost money. Ohio State lost money. Oregon lost money, Florida State lost money. Even mighty Alabama operates at a loss, requiring public subsidies to sustain its athletic department.

The current business model of collegiate athletics is unsustainable and is destined to come crashing down at some point.

I did a report about this in college. Granted it was 18 years ago, but at the time there were only ~15 teams that actually made money off their programs. You can guess the names, they sell lots of tickets. The rest of the 100ish or so teams in FBS and all of FCS, DII, and DIII lost money when FB revenue only was calculated.

However, TV has changed the equation entirely. When I was a kid USU maybe had one game on TV per year, usually local against BYU. Now practically every game is televised. While the Athletic Department still is in the have not category, they have made big strides since I re-enrolled after my two year mission. In 2001 they were independent and things looked pretty bleak. They played 2-3 money games just to balance the books. The budget was around $8 million.

Today they just reported a $27 million budget, and while there are several factors conference payouts are a big one. The money from TV drives that more than anything else. Also the amount spent on sports is returned in the form of advertising. Every time something like a NC, Heisman trophy run, or NCAA tournament run occurs, the school is able to raise money, and enrollment applications go up.

Texas A&M raised 3/4 of Billion dollars during Johnny Manziel's Heisman run. Money strictly from the football program doesn't see the whole picture.

https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-a ... iel-2013-9

Just 15 years ago I remember SLC media acting like it was crazy Urban Meyer was getting 2 million a year from Florida and how impossible it would be for Utah to match that. Now, Kyle Whittingham currently makes 3.4 million a year to coach Utah.

The ballooning of salaries is definitely crazy in how quickly it has happened. The buyouts are now insane too. Look at what FSU is gonna pay Willie Taggart NOT to coach them.

Aggie formerly in Hawaii wrote: ↑

November 26th, 2019, 10:53 am

Just 15 years ago I remember SLC media acting like it was crazy Urban Meyer was getting 2 million a year from Florida and how impossible it would be for Utah to match that. Now, Kyle Whittingham currently makes 3.4 million a year to coach Utah.

The ballooning of salaries is definitely crazy in how quickly it has happened. The buyouts are now insane too. Look at what FSU is gonna pay Willie Taggart NOT to coach them.

Charlie Weis was the master of this. By some accounts he made $65 million to NOT coach.

https://moneyinc.com/charlie-weis-paid- ... n-not-job/

Just his buyouts from Kansas and Notre Dame were $4.5 and $19 million each. Coaching is a very high risk/high reward career for sure.

Yeah the Charlie Weis contracts have been crazy. Notre Dame was so desperate for success at the time that they bought into him full stop after a few good wins to open his first year. To be fair, Kansas is a horrible football school. Nobody else has really won there in a long time and they go through a lot of coaches. They have not had a season where they won more than 1 conference game in over a decade. However even kansas should have structured that contract better. It wasn't like Weis was in demand. They could have paid him less or made it so his buyout was not as much.

I hope Coach Smith gets paid well after a good season this year. He deserves it. I also hope everyone knows colleges are businesses and very good and what they do. If sports programs do well, like it's been said in posts before, applicants increase.