<p>Chart:</a> 2009 college football coach salaries -- OrlandoSentinel.com</p>
<p>anyone find it ridiculous that college coaches can be paid so much money? I love college football but I hope my tuition money isn't all going towards my sports programs.</p>
<p>Although I share your shock, I’d assume that the revenue generated from high-profile sports programs pays for these ridiculous salaries.</p>
<p>I thought they weren’t actually paid very much by the school but that they make most of their money on the side through endorsements, or something.</p>
<p>
Precisely. Butch Davis at UNC, for example, gets paid $315,000 per year by the university – hardly the $2.1 million in the article.</p>
<p>Rich Rodriguez at Michigan is paid even less – $300,000 a year.</p>
<p>Pierre…</p>
<p>I doubt Clemson is using tuition money for football coaches. At schools like Clemson, football makes a lot of money on its own.</p>
<p>You should be more concerned that tuition money is being used for sports that no one watches…those are the real money drains. Fielding those unpopular teams, paying for their scholarships, and flying the teams all around the country to compete costs a fortune.</p>
<p>1 Pete Carroll USC Pac-10 $4,400,000<br>
2 Charlie Weis Notre Dame Ind. $4,200,000<br>
3 Nick Saban Alabama SEC $3,900,000<br>
4 Bob Stoops Oklahoma Big 12 $3,800,000<br>
5 Les Miles LSU SEC $3,800,000<br>
6 Jim Tressel Ohio State Big Ten $3,500,000<br>
7 Urban Meyer Florida SEC $3,400,000 </p>
<p>these schools could double the salaries of these coaches and still pay for them w/o using any tuition money. Do you have any idea how much CBS sports and ESPN pays these schools for televised football games?</p>
<p>I think that those are how much the coaches contracts were. Since most coaches are around for several years, those figures are more likely what they net and now how much they are making every season.</p>
<p>Doesn’t really surprise me or stir me at all. Some football programs might even be comparable to NFL programs when it comes to generating revenue. Surprised to see SMU’s coach get that much though.</p>
<p>*** I think that those are how much the coaches contracts were. Since most coaches are around for several years, those figures are more likely what they net and not how much they are making every season. ***</p>
<p>Uh, no, that’s their annual salary. Their contracts were for amounts like $24+ million. I remember when Saban signed his. </p>
<p>But, if they have winning seasons and TV wants to televise their games, their salaries are worth it to their colleges. In reality, for coaches like the above, CBS sports and ESPN are paying for their salaries. Each televised home game nets multi-millions for the team.</p>
<p>“Rich Rodriguez at Michigan is paid even less – $300,000 a year.”</p>
<p>He is overpaid!</p>
<p>^^^ Lol. Al Groh too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what???</p>
<p>Universities are not sports enterprises. They are NON-profit organizations designed to produce research and scholarship, not generate revenue…</p>
<p>The question is whether or not this is a zero-sum game? (pun intended)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the answer is no, it is definitely not a zero-sum game. Football is the big athletic revenue producer at the big-time football schools. It generates money primarily from ticket sales and TV rights (which except for a few independents like Notre Dame comes through the conference), with smaller revenue streams from things like concessions, parking, and product licensing agreements. In the successful programs, football more than pays for itself and subsidizes low-revenue and non-revenue sports—basically everything except men’s basketball which typically breaks even or generates a small surplus, but nothing like football. Also, men’s hockey at perhaps a dozen or two schools. None of that money—ticket sales, TV revenue, concessions, parking—would come to the University without football. It’s coming partly from students (through ticket sales and concessions), partly from alums but primarily from casual sports fans, most with no affiliation with the University other than a sports fan’s loyalty, and it comes out of their personal entertainment budgets (or discretionary spending that may be influenced by TV advertising). This is not money that would otherwise come to the University. So no, it’s absolutely not a zero-sum game. Football, including the coach’s salary, is supported out of revenue that is generated by football itself. At least at the big-time football schools.</p>
<p>These schools could drop football tomorrow and the effect on their budgets would be a big negative—that is, unless they were to drop all other intercollegiate athletic competition as well, because the surplus generated by football is currently propping up or in some cases entirely paying for those other sports. The idea that your tuition dollars, or endowment earnings, or legislative appropriations, or other sources of University revenue are going to pay the football coach’s salary is just nuts, at least at the big-time football programs with the high-priced coaches. It’s a different story, however, at colleges that don’t fill big stadiums and don’t have big TV contracts—the Ivys and the Division II and Division III schools. There, by and large, it is a zero-sum game; football is heavily subsidized just like other intercollegiate sports, with money that could otherwise be used to support academic programs. But those aren’t the schools where the football coach is paid a princely sum.</p>
<p>Pete Carroll has arguably been worth every penny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, football factories like Notre Dame and Michigan generate net positive revenue. Football factories usually do.</p>
<p>However, it is rather unseemly that football coaches are (among) the highest-paid employees of the university, especially for Michigan which is state-run.</p>
<p>For better or worse, the current face of the University of Michigan is Rich Rodriguez. Not its president or a legal scholar or a research scientist, etc.,…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Unseemly”? To you, perhaps. I don’t think all that many people in the State of Michigan care how much money the University of Michigan football coach makes; it’s not their money, and most of them know it. So why is it “unseemly” to pay someone in what is essentially a fully privatized part of the University’s operation a salary that’s competitive with the private sector, i.e., what the market will bear and/or demands in order to be competitive? I don’t get that. </p>
<p>A lot of people do care that Rodriguez’s teams have been pretty lousy in his first two seasons. He’ll be gone if they don’t do better in his third year. And you know what? They’ll almost certainly pay the new coach just as much. And very few people will care, as long as that new coach wins football games. </p>
<p>My thought is that Michigan alum Jim Harbaugh, currently coaching at that “football factory” Stanford, told Notre Dame and Kansas he wasn’t interesting in their head coaching jobs and instead signed a contract extension at Stanford WITHOUT a buy-out clause because he’s waiting in the wings for the Michigan job should Rodriquez not measure up. Good move for both parties. They’ll pay him nicely, too, and if he wins it’ll be worth it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Stanford has a semi-official policy not to allow an athletic coach (including Jim Harbaugh) to be one of the five highest-paid employees of the university. </p>
<p>Why do you think Stanford refuses to pay Jim Harbaugh his real “market value” or previous football coaches (e.g. Tyrone Willingham) their “market values”? Because Stanford doesn’t want to appear to be an “unseemly” sports machine at the expense of its ethereal academic reputation.</p>
<p>My guess is that Stanford didn’t ask for a buyout clause as a matter of principle.</p>
<p>[Harbaugh</a> close to signing deal](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1805]Harbaugh”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1805)</p>
<p>"While Stanford does not disclose coach salaries, Harbaughs current five-year contract is worth between $500,000 and $600,000, according to reports by The San Jose Mercury News.</p>
<p>Stanford has a longstanding policy of not making its athletic coaches the highest-paid University employees, according to Bowlsby. Total cash compensation of the Universitys top five highest-paid employees must be disclosed in Stanfords publicly available tax filings."</p>
<p>^ According to both the Stanford Daily and the San Jose Mercury News, Harbaugh’s new contract with Stanford is worth $1.25 million per year. That puts him pretty high up in the ranks of the highest paid college football coaches. It’s conceivable Stanford pays five or more people that much, but if so, it’s got one of the highest payroll administrations in the country.</p>
<p>[Harbaugh</a> signs extension through 2014](<a href=“Harbaugh signs extension through 2014”>Harbaugh signs extension through 2014)</p>
<p>[Stanford’s</a> Jim Harbaugh signs three-year contract extension, A.D. says - San Jose Mercury News](<a href=“Stanford’s Jim Harbaugh signs three-year contract extension, A.D. says – The Mercury News”>Stanford’s Jim Harbaugh signs three-year contract extension, A.D. says – The Mercury News)</p>
<p>So much for avoiding “unseemly” appearances that might besmirch Stanford’s “ethereal academic reputation.” I get so sick of this holier-than-thou crap from Stanford and its fanboys. They’re just like every other BCS conference school.</p>
<p>One of your very own alumni doesn’t seem to think so:</p>
<p>"The U-M message of academics trumping athletics, smoothly spinning along, was rocked last year when former Michigan football standout Jim Harbaugh said U-M admits academically borderline students and then keeps them eligible for sports by steering them into specific academic areas. The former quarterback, now the Stanford University football coach, said that he wasn’t even allowed to major in history because the courses required too much reading.</p>
<p>It was a significant moment. For the first time in a very long time, one of the most cherished mantras of the athletic department was called into question - and it was done by one of their own, an iconic “Michigan man.”</p>
<p>Harbaugh’s comments opened the door to a possible discussion about whether Michigan is a place where academics come first, or something substantially less."</p>
<p>[Editor’s</a> Column: Image and reality of University of Michigan athletics and academics | Wolverines Academics - University of Michigan Academics and Athletics - MLive.com](<a href=“http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/academics/stories/index.ssf/2008/03/opinion.html]Editor’s”>Editor's Column: Image and reality of University of Michigan athletics and academics - mlive.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harbaugh is well within the top 5 now, although still not #1.</p>
<p>*According to the 2006 IRS Form 990 — the most recent version made available — the University’s highest paid employee that year was Frank Hanley, professor of cardiothoracic surgery, with a total cash compensation of $1,735,417. Fifth on the list was Vadiyala Reddy, associate professor of cardiothoracic surgery, at $977,500.University President John Hennessy drew a salary of $667,440.</p>
<p>Harbaugh’s estimated $1.25 million per year extension would put him at No. 3 on the 2006 list.*</p>
<p>[Harbaugh</a> close to signing deal](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1805]Harbaugh”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1805)</p>