Curious how we might compare to top teams and traditional powers seen more in top ten.
My impression is that some of them pay more to attract high profile types.
(Not that you always need high profile)
My impression is that we likely pay middle to upper middle of the pack in our conference and likely behind top ten types.
Maybe it doesn’t matter to program performance but at a time when we are evaluating everything, I can’t help but wonder if larger budget might allow for salaries of top ten like programs, and send a signal nationally that we want the very best and expect to compete for titles.
Here’s one team for comparison: the new NC, Clemson.
Clemson pays its DC, Brent Venables, $1.425 million. The co-OCs each make $625,000 – their combined pay is less than their single predecessor made, and less than Venables makes.
Other assistants: $500K for the DE coach, $465K for the OL coach, $450K for the DT coach, $435K for the TE coach, $400K for the DB coach and $375K for the QB coach (Venables coaches the linebackers himself). One co-OC coaches WRs, the other RBs.
Total pay for the assistants increased by more than $1 million after they lost in the NCG last year. I would assume all of them, unless someone leaves for an HC job somewhere, would again get big raises.
You didn’t ask about this stuff, but while I was looking:
Clemson’s total athletic spending in 2015 was $82 million for all 19 varsity sports. Ours was $97 million for 19 sports (CU has men’s soccer and women’s rowing, doesn’t have gymnastics or softball, and has women’s diving but not swimming, so not completely comparable there). Clemson spent $1.3 million on recruiting for all men’s sports. We spent $1.1 million.
See above. Clemson is a little different because it has two OCs, but Venables and the two OCs are at $2.675 million combined. Those two guys replaced Chad Morris, who was making $1.3 mill before he took the SMU job.
The total pay for assistants is pretty telling (see far right column of linked article). Bama, LSU and others are pretty well over $5MM. Clemson, for example, is well over $5MM. Many schools are well over $4MM. Even Ole Miss. We are at $3.9MM. I think that may be where some of the weakness in recruiting manifests itself. I don’t know why we can’t spend $10 to $12MM on coaches salaries (counting both head coach and assistants). That’s the core element to winning football and needs to be the first money out of the chute – i.e. spent for great coaching and recruiting. Winning football is the tide that lifts all boats. If the head coach can’t wrest control of a bad defense, see that halftime adjustments are made, or adequately recruit Texas, then go money whip some assistants that can get the job done. If the head coach is going to be a “CEO” type, then give him the financial resources to act like one. If he can’t hire the right guys with those resources, then that’s on him and he needs to be gone.
I am in agreement with your thoughts and opinions. But the reason that it is not likely to happen is because winning (big as in championships) is not the most important thing on the mind of of university administration nor the AD. And will not be as long as the seats at RRS are mostly filled and there is not a major fan rebellion. The AD is on record as stating that winning is not the most important aspect of athletic programs.
I’ve spent considerable time reading about Swinney and the Clemson program since last Monday night. And I believe that if the UofA administration, the AD, and the HC put as much emphasis on winning as the Clemson bunch has done since Swinney became HC, we would be competing for championships on a consistent basis.
Everything they did was to enhance recruiting. And it surely worked. Not sitting around saying we can’t do it because we are little ole whoever.
Yep. I’ve said it a number of times on this board. Long does not emphasize winning enough. Or, while he personally might want to win (I’m sure he does), his actions do not portray that to fans. What fans see, rather, is lots of buttoned down guarded talk, corporate culture, and tolerance for mediocrity whether on the court or field against the backdrop of ever-increasing donation requests and fan expenses. And now, I might add, we seem to see not enough money spent on the coaching staff/assistants so that football recruiting can get better, Xs and Os improve, and more wins can result.
Fayetteville is about 8 percent below the national average in cost of living, according to something I read in Forbes a few months back. Someone making an assistant coach’s salary lives very well here.
I get your point. It is the old issue of teacher pay. Will paying a bad teacher more make him or her a better teacher? No. But will increasing teacher pay bring better teachers in the long run? I say yes.
Will paying the same assistants more money make them better? No. Paying more money hopefully will attract better assistants.
I don’t think that 9th is right because of all the co-DCs and co-OCs
The only accurate gauge on that USA Today list is “total asst salaries”
On that we are 17th overall nationally. However we are 10th in the SEC and 6th in the SECW. The SEC, as a conference is considerably higher than all the other Power 5 conferences. After our disastrous last 2 games, we ended up about 9th in the conference. What absolutely makes me sick is that had we played those last 2 halves, we would have ended up tied for 2nd in the SEC (with FL & TN) after the bowl games, with 9-4 records.