College football coaches pay

Clemsons coordinators both make over $2 million per year.

https://theathletic.com/news/clemson-tony-elliott-cj-spiller/XTpXlZiieKuU

I dunno, sports sure have changed in the last 20 years.

Clemson is a private school, but the highest paid public employee in almost every state is a College Coach.

They are way over paid

grizzly wrote:

They are way over paid

Clemson’s Football Program nets over $77 million a year in revenue. Capitalism is alive and well in sports. If anything, they may even be undervalued when you look at their salaries as a % of the program’s revenue.

buckybadger wrote:

Clemson’s Football Program nets over $77 million a year in revenue. Capitalism is alive and well in sports. If anything, they may even be undervalued when you look at their salaries as a % of the program’s revenue.

I was thinking the same thing. It’s capitalism, and they provide a commodity in an extremely popular setting.

Dan wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
Clemson’s Football Program nets over $77 million a year in revenue. Capitalism is alive and well in sports. If anything, they may even be undervalued when you look at their salaries as a % of the program’s revenue.

I was thinking the same thing. It’s capitalism, and they provide a commodity in an extremely popular setting.

Yes! Most people love capitalism until they feel shorted by it or don’t understand its application.

2 million seems like a ton of $ to pay a coordinator, I agree. However, their success is funding a lot of opportunities for other programs at Clemson and in the area’s local economy.

buckybadger wrote:

Clemson’s Football Program nets over $77 million a year in revenue. Capitalism is alive and well in sports. If anything, they may even be undervalued when you look at their salaries as a % of the program’s revenue.

The United States GDP is 21.43 trillion USD (2019)
The President gets a salary of $400,000 annually.

I would say college coaches are totally over-paid. IMO

saugeye-steve wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
Clemson’s Football Program nets over $77 million a year in revenue. Capitalism is alive and well in sports. If anything, they may even be undervalued when you look at their salaries as a % of the program’s revenue.

The United States GDP is 21.43 trillion USD (2019)
The President gets a salary of $400,000 annually.

I would say college coaches are totally over-paid. IMO

…talk about apples to oranges. Hell, maybe even apples to dog turds.

Without any specific President the country continues to chug along. It isn’t as if something happened to a President or a different one was elected that there’d be no economic action whatsoever in the country or that our GDP would be cut in half. If you take away a key coach or coordinator from certain programs, the recruiting, winning, and revenue would likely change as well.

buckybadger wrote:

Without any specific President the country continues to chug along. It isn’t as if something happened to a President or a different one was elected that there’d be no economic action whatsoever in the country or that our GDP would be cut in half. If you take away a key coach or coordinator from certain programs, the recruiting, winning, and revenue would likely change as well.

I was looking forward to your poor response.
There it is.

Bear Bryant made a salary of $104,000 plus incentives his last year.
Dabo made close to 10 million last year.
Completely over-paid. Nice try.

saugeye-steve wrote:

The United States GDP is 21.43 trillion USD (2019)
The President gets a salary of $400,000 annually.

LOL!!! What percent of that GDP does the President or any government official create? And then look at how politicians wealth increases over time in office, while not creating anything other than more rules. Dabo and his coordinators lead a program that creates $77M/year for his school.

its funny how people equate salary with a moral-importance-in-life type of position. salary has nothing to do with overall importance in life.

doctors don’t get paid more because of their moral role. they get paid purely out of supply and demand.

Dabo isn’t over-paid, Bear Bryant was severely under-paid. And of course my opinion is purely subjective.

joe-winter wrote:

its funny how people equate salary with a moral-importance-in-life type of position. salary has nothing to do with overall importance in life.[/quote

Exactly. I think most people can’t separate the facts of capitalism and supply and demand with their own personal feelings/beliefs of “I can’t believe so-and-so gets paid to play a game.”

There seems to be a rise of influencers/youtube/social media stars in this world. People achieve a certain popularity and then get paid to wear certain things. You could also throw that argument at them, that they don’t “deserve” it. However in a capitalistic system they found a void/need and filled it, and are now greatly enjoying the benefits.

capitalism is NOT alive and well in college sports.
it’s alive and well for coaches, who are free to compete for positions and don’t even have to honor their contracts.
but the most important contributors to success – especially for major programs – are the players. the value of the scholarships provided is grossly underpaying players for what they contribute to program revenue, and it’s not even close. it’s not capitalism because it’s not a competitive open market – the rules of the NCAA maintain it as a form of indenture.
if you think coaches are paid too much, allow the players to be free agents; more of the revenue will have to go to the players and there will be less left over for the coaches.

Michael C. Winther wrote:

capitalism is NOT alive and well in college sports.
it’s alive and well for coaches, who are free to compete for positions and don’t even have to honor their contracts.
but the most important contributors to success – especially for major programs – are the players. the value of the scholarships provided is grossly underpaying players for what they contribute to program revenue, and it’s not even close. it’s not capitalism because it’s not a competitive open market – the rules of the NCAA maintain it as a form of indenture.
if you think coaches are paid too much, allow the players to be free agents; more of the revenue will have to go to the players and there will be less left over for the coaches.

Correct on the players end, but that’s not the coaches doing, it’s the NCAA and, wait for it, the Government that allows it to proceed!

you might want to take a look at salaries of professional athletes (ALL OF THEM! – you know entry level ones far outnumber the stars) and then correlate a college player’s worth. Also, figure in the value of college degree, room and board, food and regular expenses. make sure you understand this is a college player’s pay. Extremely fair, IMO.

My wife played D-1 basketball and lived high off the hog in school and got a degree with zero to pay after. amazing deal to play a game.

you might have an argument over getting paid from outside sources over their likeness though. but not as player on the team.

sell their autograph, free gear they want to sell on their own,….etc.. hell ya they should be a free American to make money.

joe-winter wrote:

Also, figure in the value of college degree, room and board, food and regular expenses. make sure you understand this is a college player’s pay. Extremely fair, IMO.
My wife played D-1 basketball and lived high off the hog in school and got a degree with zero to pay after. amazing deal to play a game.

College football and men’s basketball do get the shaft, as they generate almost all the revenue, and get a fraction of the pay (if you use room and board and tuition as “pay”). However, that revenue is distributed to Women’s sports and non-revenue generating men’s sports, so they get a free or reduced ride, when in a purely capitalist scenario they wouldn’t. And the Coaches and Admin are the only ones allowed to seek their true value, so you see salaries raising accordingly. FWIW after 4 years of Nick Saban’s run at Alabama, their revenue increased 38% to $178M.

I hear ya BigWerm. But be careful what you are asking for. if it was purely capitalism in college sports then there would only be a couple sports and NONE would be womens. Then the next crowd gets on their soapbox about what’s not fair.

so, the top 0.5% of the revenue sports athletes don’t get enough.. not as big a problem as the sports world would try to portray. especially if you let those dudes make money off of their likeness.

joe-winter wrote:

I hear ya BigWerm. But be careful what you are asking for. if it was purely capitalism in college sports then there would only be a couple sports and NONE would be womens. Then the next crowd gets on their soapbox about what’s not fair.

so, the top 0.5% of the revenue sports athletes don’t get enough.. not as big a problem as the sports world would try to portray. especially if you let those dudes make money off of their likeness.

Yeah, I 100% agree.

joe-winter wrote:

its funny how people equate salary with a moral-importance-in-life type of position. salary has nothing to do with overall importance in life.

doctors don’t get paid more because of their moral role. they get paid purely out of supply and demand.

Dabo isn’t over-paid, Bear Bryant was severely under-paid. And of course my opinion is purely subjective.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’m still stuck on the out of left field, inaccurate comparison to a POTUS…strange to say the least

Michael C. Winther wrote:

capitalism is NOT alive and well in college sports.
it’s alive and well for coaches, who are free to compete for positions and don’t even have to honor their contracts.
but the most important contributors to success – especially for major programs – are the players. the value of the scholarships provided is grossly underpaying players for what they contribute to program revenue, and it’s not even close. it’s not capitalism because it’s not a competitive open market – the rules of the NCAA maintain it as a form of indenture.
if you think coaches are paid too much, allow the players to be free agents; more of the revenue will have to go to the players and there will be less left over for the coaches.

You bring up a valid point. Players not being allowed to be compensated undercuts the comparison to capitalism, or is perhaps the only real exception.

Everything beyond that with regard to coaches’ compensation is capitalism 101. The market decides a person’s worth/salary. Do I morally think my local surgeon or oncologist is worth more than a guy recruiting athletes, calling plays, motivating and organizing players, game planning, etc…absolutely. However, capitalism has no room or desire to look into moral compensation.

I do not think we will see collegiate coaching salaries erode 1 cent even if/when players are allowed to profit at the collegiate level. Outside of a year with a global pandemic, I cannot think of one example where revenues for the largest most successful college football teams have seen a noticeable dip. The phrase “too big to fail” comes to mind, much like some of the largest corporations in this country and economic system.

saugeye-steve wrote:

Bear Bryant made a salary of $104,000 plus incentives his last year.
Dabo made close to 10 million last year.
Completely over-paid. Nice try.

Bear Bryant coached his last game 40 years ago! There’s been a lot of inflation and a huge change in TV revenue in that time.

buckybadger wrote:

Everything beyond that with regard to coaches’ compensation is capitalism 101. The market decides a person’s worth/salary.

It does. And when the market has to spread the revenue around more (ie., pay the players what their worth), it means less money available for the coaches – or at a minimum, a dramatically changed environment in which they are competing with each other for pay by the various programs.

Do I morally think my local surgeon or oncologist is worth more than a guy recruiting athletes, calling plays, motivating and organizing players, game planning, etc…absolutely. However, capitalism has no room or desire to look into moral compensation.

Correct. I’d get paid a lot more if people wanted to watch me do my job on television every week!
But we don’t have a true free market system, it’s regulated – often for moral reasons. Heck, you can’t even buy raw milk. And right now the NCAA regulates college sports in a morally corrupt manner that uses up the bodies of student-athletes for profit.

you might want to take a look at salaries of professional athletes (ALL OF THEM! – you know entry level ones far outnumber the stars) and then correlate a college player’s worth. Also, figure in the value of college degree, room and board, food and regular expenses. make sure you understand this is a college player’s pay. Extremely fair, IMO.

My wife played D-1 basketball and lived high off the hog in school and got a degree with zero to pay after. amazing deal to play a game.

women’s basketball is not men’s basketball. not even close. it’s not even men’s hockey, and definitely not football. fans in the seats and TV contracts are what generates revenue, and therefore determine the athlete’s contribution. a scholarship is good deal for a women’s basketball player or a high jumper, but not for a football player.

lucky for us, someone’s done the math:
http://www2.nber.org/papers/w27734.pdf

about 7% of college sports revenue goes to the players.
instead, using revenue sharing similar to pro sports (50% of revenue goes to the players, and stars are paid more than backups), Trevor Lawrence would have made $2.4 Million last year. Men’s basketball players at big 5 conferences would get between $800,000 – $1.2 Million per year. For a female basketball player, it’s probably well matched, but that scholarship doesn’t scratch the surface of what the big money sport athletes are contributing.

I guess I’ll tell my sons not to accept one then if they are offered. Just not fair!!

joe-winter wrote:

I guess I’ll tell my sons not to accept one then if they are offered. Just not fair!!

we get fooled into thinking scholarships are a good deal. they are for non-revenue sports, but not for the big ones. so if your sons are that good at a big sport, yes, it’s not fair. they play for about $30k/year in scholarships while generating $1 Million for their school? (depending on the sport.) no single other setting pays that small of an amount in comparison to productivity. skip college, play in alternative leagues for pay for 1-2 years, and then enter the draft as soon as possible. for those who aren’t in a sport with paying minor leagues, take the scholarship and enjoy college and the benefit of having someone else do your laundry for you for 4 years.

LaMelo Ball earned $500,000 in the NBL prior to going to the NBA where he’s now earning $8 Million per year. If he’d played that 1st year in college instead he’d have earned $0, still not got a college degree, and risked career-ending injury without pay.
the least they could do is stop the collusion between the NCAA and the professional leagues by allowing players to enter the draft immediately after high school.