Coaching Cost per Win
January 6th, 2008 by Tank
Interesting blog post on coaching cost per win.
I’m not sure which aspect of this I find most unsettling - probably the gross misallocation of the resources of academic institutions to athletics (Alabama, for example, could spend 80% less on a perfectly capable coach and use the savings to build, say, one of the best English departments in the country). But the disparity between compensation for coaches and players runs a not-too-distant second.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:55 am
I don’t have a problem with it. First, the football players are getting a free education and (as I understand it, at least in many cases) a weekly/monthly stipend for “living expenses”. Second, the football programs at most major universities (help to) take in enough revenue to cover the costs of some/all of the non-revenue sports at said university. Third, is their *no* university that takes any potential remaining athletic revenue and puts it into the university?
I concede that boosters and high-and-mighty athletic directors can be an extreme annoyance. And coaches who believe their deities (yes Saban, I’m looking in your direction) are extremely annoying. But rather than look at the wins in one season to determine the “return” on investing in a certain coach, shouldn’t we look at the financial return? How much more revenue will Alabama get during Saban’s coaching sting, then they would’ve gotten if no-name-but-good-guy coach had taken over at a fraction of the cost? No real way of knowing I suppose, but I think it’s an important question to consider.
I also concede that universities don’t always take the football (and basketball) revenues and spend them most wisely - but I submit that many do. Again, funding the non-revenue sports is a big thing in my mind - but I have to believe that in at least a few cases, the athletic revenue does find its way into the general university funds to benefit *all* students.
If Cornell could pay Nick Saban $5 million dollars and the result is incremental revenue to cover the cost of all athletics, and potentially other university programs, would my tuition go down? Or am I being obtuse?
In short, it is a system that allows the possibility of a warped value system - but it’s also a system that allows the possibility of incremental revenue that indeed benefits *all* students and the *entire* university… no? In that case, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, let’s examine each (high-profile) athletic program and only go after the ones with the warped value systems… while celebrating the ones that ensure that all students and the entire university indeed benefit (and by “benefit”, I mean outside of the emotional high of being able to brag, “Our football team is better than your football team!”).
January 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
A) Do you really think the value of tuition, room and board is commensurate with the economic value created by players at football factories? At Ohio State, that comes to just under $29K for out-of-state students. I submit that more people pay to watch Todd Boeckman play QB than pay to watch Tom Brady. Would $29K be equitable compensation for Brady? I submit that coaches don’t command such huge salaries because they create commensurate economic value, but rather because they capture a disproportionate share of the value created by “students” whose economic circumstances more closely resemble that of indentured servants. To believe otherwise, I think one would have to imagine that in a labor market free of collusion by colleges through the NCAA and abetted by the NFL, players would be offered no form of compensation over and above room, board and tuition. I find that hard to fathom.
B) I am extremely skeptical that any funds ever make their way *out* of the athletic department and into the budget of any academic function, with the possible exception of remedial high school classes for people whose very presence on campus in an affront to a university’s ostensible raison d’etre. But I’m far too lazy to look up data to either prove or disprove my assertion at the moment.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am
A) I dunno… but about the economic value to the athletes for the job training their receiving in an effort to move into a very select, multi-million dollar industry? What exactly is that worth? How much would/should an athlete play to get the best job training, the greatest exposure, and the largest network of career contacts? Yet - he’s not only getting it for free under the current system, he’s getting paid in the form of stipends on top of free education. And we can pooh-pooh the free education all we want, but a Division I football player who does not make an NFL team will still have that enviable network of contacts to pursue a career in sports that most of us can only dream of… and they didn’t pay a cent for that education.
I concede that in a truly free market where the idea of student-athlete is abandoned once and for all and top college football programs market themselves specifically as NFL minor leagues, the players would get paid more (perhaps a lot more in isolated cases). Course, they have that option by skipping college and going directly to the NFL (when old enough) or CFL or Arena Football or the World League (oops… folded). Sorry… I have little sympathy for a player getting a free education *and* a monthly stipend *and* an opportunity to network for a post-undergrad career either playing or otherwise being involved in sports that most of us would die for. I do think the university has a responsibility to honor the *student* aspect of student-athlete, so a guy like Dexter Manley can (a) not only actually read when he leaves college, but also (b) have an education that prepares him for a career outside of playing football when (i) he retires from the NFL, or (ii) never makes the NFL in the first place. *That* is the university’s responsibility for the revenue they receive from a succesful football program.
And the fact of the matter is that the revenue producers in college football and men’s basketball *do* pay for the non-revenue sports that so many other scholarship athletes participate in, and so many enjoy. Should such socialism be forced upon the poor college football player? Perhaps not… but then again, he’s free to pursue other means of achieving a professional football career, isn’t he? But a high school graduate decides that playing college football is indeed his choice for the best avenue to career success… why exactly do you feel sorry for him?
B) And I’m too lazy to look it up with specific examples myself. I seem to recall reading about this type of situation though in the past - but (i) that may have been an isolated incident or two, and (ii) I can’t recall any real specifics, so maybe I’m just making that up under the category of “wishful thinking”.
P.S. Any idea what Coach Schaefer gets to coach hockey at Cornell? How does it compare to Cornell’s football coach? Or any other coach at the university? Schaefer leads a top hockey program, which admittedly doesn’t get anywhere near the revenues of top college football programs - but I suspect he’s working for more than minimum wage. Meanwhile, the athletes don’t specifically have athletic scholarships, but I truly don’t believe guys like Joe Nieuwendyck and Kent Manderville spent a penny on tuition, room, or board… and they got a Cornell education (or at least were offered one) along with the training and exposure to pursue lucrative NHL careers.
My point: In your view, what *is* acceptable salary levels for coaches of Division I programs? Or is your concern strictly for the kids who play for about two to three dozen (top) college football programs where the revenues they generate are so high?
January 11th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
You don’t know if $29K is fair compensation for quarterbacking a team millions watch every weekend to a championship game? I think you do.
The value of their job training? Far be it from me to discourage drunkblogging, but come on, man. By that logic, rookies should pay the NFL for allowing them to enjoy the tutelage of professional coaches and veteran players. In fact, all college graduates should pay their employers for the privilege of apprenticeship. The fact that it doesn’t work that way in the free labor market tells us all we need to know.
No, college players don’t pay a cent for their education, but that is the sum of their compensation. Back to the equity of $29K. We can even err on the side of caution and round it up to $40K to account for any stipend, plus perhaps higher tuition if they go to a private party school like USC.
You hit on the key point though - they are NOT free to pursue other options, in no small part because the NFL colludes with the NCAA to ensure that early in their career, players have only one option, on terms established by… the NCAA and the NFL.
No clue what Schaefer makes but you’re reference to Cornell hockey proves the point - guys like Nieuwendyck and Leneveu are ripped off just like other athletes in popular sports, but because the NHL doesn’t collude with the NCAA, they leave school before graduating to earn a sizable multiple of the tuition, room and board Cornell was spotting them. It’s a useful control case for what happens absent just that one piece of NCAA/league control over the labor market.
In my view, the right compensation for NCAA coaches would be determined in a free market where the economic value of the enterprise was distributed to everyone responsible for creating that value, rather than all accruing to the benefit of a single Pharaoh while players make do with a single room to live in and cafeteria food to eat. If compensation for all were market-based, players would get a much larger share of the pie, and it would largely come out of the current pac-man shaped slice enjoyed by coaches.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:50 am
I understand your point, I do - but take the case of Eric Swann. Which school was he a slave to before going as the #6 pick in the NFL draft? Oh, yeah… he didn’t go to college - he got paid to play for the Bay State Titans instead. His is a rare case, but he *did* have a choice of getting paid to play as a 19-yr-old rather than be sent to one of the NCAA gulags. Others *do* have that choice - they’ve just recognized that the benefits of attending college (and “only” getting a small stipend and a free education) are worth it to them. The alternative is for the NFL to cultivate leagues like the NBDL, AHL, or minor league baseball… where kids often go instead of college and for the majority that do *not* get the big professional payday but rather a small pay commensurate with the level they attain… they’re left without an education that could’ve been paid for them (had they chosen to go that route), and much more options if (a) their pro sports career doesn’t pan out and/or (b) they retire and (i) need money and/or (ii) want to keep working.
I concede that major college football (and basketball) programs make a lot of money - but I’m unwilling to concede that college football (or basketball) coaches are overpaid. Do they make a ton of money? No doubt. But if someone’s willing to give it to them… good for them.
Back to the Cornell hockey example, why did Nieuwendyck, Leneveu, et al, come to Cornell instead of playing juniors, or going right to an NHL minor league? It would be naive of me to suggest that all of them did so for the benefit of a free education (that some, or at least the top ones, don’t even conclude) - but I submit that’s exactly why some do it. At the very least, they must be saying that playing for a major college program (and not getting “paid” accordingly), is their best route to NHL success (i.e. getting paid). Otherwise, why go? For the NHL aspirant, there are *plenty* of viable options - so I agree it is certainly a good case study… and we find that many choose to go the college route. Hmmm…. I wonder why?
And back to football, is their a “juniors” in football like hockey? Not that I’m aware of… at least not to the same level of sophistication and level of play - but there are other options. I don’t pretend to know all the eligibility rules of every league, but Arena Football produces NFL players, the CFL produces NFL players, semi-pro teams produce NFL players, the (now-defunct) World League produced NFL players - but college was the chosen option for most.
Sorry… I just cannot feel sorry for an individual who’s worst-case scenario is a free education and small stipend if he’s not able to cash an NFL paycheck and/or cash in on (large or small) marketing deals.
Now… I do happen to think the NCAA is wrong in a case like Jeremy Bloom - where he has an opportunity to earn income in another sport completely unrelated to the sport in which he’s choosing to maintain amateur status. To me: That other/unrelated sport is akin to a job in the dining hall. What’s the damn difference? I don’t believe the NCAA limits its athletes from earning extra income if they have the time/desire/need to do so - though if they do, that’s bull.
In short, big-time college football (and basketball) programs earn big revenues in large part because of the *programs*, yet also in part due to the coaches (or at least, the ones who stay longer than the average student). Sure, we can find “stars” on every college football roster - but I submit that if Darren McFadden went to Arkansas State instead of Arkansas, Arkansas State’s revenues wouldn’t rise appreciably and Arkansas’s revenues wouldn’t drop appreciably (and by “apreciably”, I mean “not at all”). The college students and boosters who fill Division I stadiums will do so regardless of individual players - and the students and boosters who do not fill Division II (et al) stadiums, will not do so… except perhaps in the very rare occasion where a Walter Payton ends up at Jackson State University (then again, I wouldn’t mind seeing evidence that his being there affected revenues - but my assumption, in his case, is that it did).
The programs make the athletes a lot more than the athletes make the programs. No doubt that a terrific athlete can elevate a program slightly - take QB sensation Armanti Edwards at Div I-AA Appalachian State… and he’s on-ly… a soph-o-more! He’s led them to back-to-back championships and brought them additional recognition in leading them to their early season win over Michigan in the Big House. But… how much incremental revenue is he bringing to that school? Seriously. App State not only has a long tradition of existence in the community… but they also have a long tradition of success. He may help them recruit better athletes going forward, which may lead to additional successes - so indirectly there may be revenue gains if you look at it that way - but in the meantime, he choose App State presumably cuz he’d be able to play and got no such offer from a Div I school (i.e. more-exposure school, in theory)… he made a choice. Or… perhaps he did have offers from “bigger/better” schools, but he chose App State for some personal reason. Regardless, he’s getting a free education, a stipend, and an opportunity for NFL scouts to see him play and potentially earn him big bucks if he measures up… but even if he’s not an NFL player, I fail to see how he’s lost out.
Finally, if you’re concerned about the inequities in compensation, how about NFL rookies that make more guaranteed money before they’ve played an NFL down then most Pro Bowlers? It’s all about working to the point where you can cash that big check - and big-time college football is the easiest conduit for players to get there (either with a big rookie contract, or an NFL job that may lead to a free agent contract). In the meantime, they can (a) choose the free education, stipend, and implicit benefits of being BMOC, or (b) they can go paid (less, relatively speaking) to play football somewhere else and try to (i) earn a living and/or (ii) make it to the NFL that way. But I think Eric Swann is teh exception rather than the rule - and if Eric Swann went to University of Miami at that time, I struggle to see how he would’ve provided incremental revenue to that program.
Have I rambled enough for now? Yeah, probably… back to you.