So, are we really gonna pay the going rate for an elite HC?

[Notsince1985]

We don't have to match Alabama, Michigan and Ohio State. We should try and get in FSU's range (4.1 million) or Georgia's range (3.3 million) or Clemson's range (3.15 million) though.

With what money? Again, the main point is that our donor base is exceedingly small in comparison to virtually every other program, which means that the university is already forking over a larger portion of coaching salaries than virtually every other (public) school. FSU only pays Jimbo 225k, for example...the rest of that 4.1 mil comes from Seminole Boosters. Similar with UGA and Clemson.

Stop it. We have the money, and you're foolish to think we don't. We're paying Fatty 2.25 million. You really think we can't pay over $3 million? Come on. It's a myth that Miami doesn't have Miami. The reality is that Miami doesn't want to spend the money.

Have you read the thread? I never said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach. I said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach when he's first hired.

Our model has been, and likely will continue to be, that we hire folks at a moderate rate and pay them raises commensurate with performance. In Al's case, we hired him on at ~1.75 if memory serves, gave him a ~500k bump for handling the bad PR of the NCAA investigation.

We took the same approach with Shannon and with Coker before him. And with Davis and Erickson and Jimmy too.

Point being that only top-end schools with large donor bases can afford to fork over big cash right out of the gate. They can do so because the salaries they pay are often doled out not by the school but by donors. Most schools--particularly private schools--operate with the same model we do. We don't have the donor $$ to pay big money out of the gate. We have to start off moderately and hope that the wins come, so that people will show up to games and donate more money, which then will translate into a raise for the coach.

I know what you said, but times have changed. If we want to compete, we will. You said, and I quote, "with what money." That's what I responded to. We have the money.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

It's a cute correlation you keep trying to make. Other schools that are public universities paying coaches via boosters has NOTHING to do with their or our ability to pay a certain rate. They operate via that method as a pure PR maneuver to avoid backlash from softies like you in their state that would stupidly scream and cry that taxpayer money was somehow going to pay a coach an "outrageous" salary.

Does your (and DK's) back hurt from constantly carrying Donna's water?

It'd be neat if you'd pay attention the facts instead of trying to get cute yourself. As is, you perpetually sound like you have no clue.

It doesn't matter *why* public universities work that way; what matters is that it is, in fact, the way they work. Many coaches at public schools in the FBS are not paid by the school, but by the donors--which puts the schools at a distinct advantage when hiring. Big donor schools can pay big money right out of the gate, while smaller, private schools have to start low and work their way up if the coach wins.

if you want to make a comparison, let's stick to other private schools that have the same model as us. TCU, Baylor, and USC have already been mentioned, and they operate a lot like us. We have a smaller donor pool than all of them, but we do pay in the same range as them, and on the same model as them.

I have no clue yet you're the one connecting our finances to the method in which public universities pay their coaches. It has absolutely no effect on us other than to provide apologists like you an easy copout.

Yeah, let's take a look at Baylor, TCU and USC. Briles make $4.2, Patterson $3.5 base with massive incentives and Sark makes around $3 mil base with a bunch of sweeteners like a housing stipend.

Enjoy the rest of your evening crammed in Donna's little pantsuit pocket. Say hi to DK.

Serious question: Are you illiterate, or just being willfully ignorant?

I addressed Briles and Patterson's salaries in another post. Those guys did not start out making 4.2 and 3.5 mil respectively. They were hired at MUCH lower pay, and they were given raises as they progressed and won games.

This is the same approach UM has taken in the past, and the same approach we used with Golden.

Sark satrted out with a 2.75 base at USC--a school with a much bigger donor base than UM (about 28k more students, started 50 years before UM, which means exponentially more alumni).

Serious question, Champ- How does the convoluted method in which public universities pay their corches to shield from public backlash affect our finances? Is your individual ability to buy lifesize Fatheads of Donna affected one iota if DK buys his with money given to him by his grandma?

Second question, Skippy- How does the progression of other private universities to be CURRENTLY outspending us a) lead you to believe that we'll EVER catch up and be on even ground or b) are you just hopeful that we'll eventually be "competitive" because Donna instructed Flake to tell minions like you that?

I'll resume this little debate when your main points aren't based in what you hope will occur one day or are rooted in some false equivalency you try to make to the way public schools HAVE to function.

Read through this link. It focuses on Louisville, but also talks abou the other public ACC schools.

What you'll see is that:
A) we have significantly lower donor contributions (According to this flyer from 2013-2014, we were hoping to raise 10.3 mil in donations from the Hurricane Club; not sure if we hit that goal, but if we did, we're still 500k behind the lowest public school team on the list, and 20 million behind the highest school).

B) We have significantly lower ticket sales/revenue than virtually everyone on the list.

You'll also see that most universities "subsidize" their athletic departments no more than a couple mil/yr, if that. Now sure, we can debate what it means to "subsidize" and all that...

But bottom line is that in two of the biggest sources of revenue (donations and ticket sales), UM falls wayyyy short. In the third (licensing and the ACC deal), we make roughly as much as everyone else.

Which means we've got to make up for it somehow, either by lowering the budget (eg keeping coaching salaries relatively low) or by increasing the amount that the university subsidizes things, or both. I don't know how much UM already subsidizes athletics by, and since its a private school I doubt many people here have seen the books. But acting as though it's nothing for UM to shuffle around a couple mil more to athletics each year is simply unrealistic and unreasonable--the ROI would be iffy at best.

Again, I'm not saying that we'll *never* pay a coach 3-4 mil/yr or more. What I'm saying is that we'll continue to hire a coach at a reasonable mid-level salary and give him bumps if he succeeds. If he wins, that means that donations and ticket sales will increase, which will pay for his raise.

It worked for us in the past. And it is working at TCU and Baylor right now.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

We don't have to match Alabama, Michigan and Ohio State. We should try and get in FSU's range (4.1 million) or Georgia's range (3.3 million) or Clemson's range (3.15 million) though.

With what money? Again, the main point is that our donor base is exceedingly small in comparison to virtually every other program, which means that the university is already forking over a larger portion of coaching salaries than virtually every other (public) school. FSU only pays Jimbo 225k, for example...the rest of that 4.1 mil comes from Seminole Boosters. Similar with UGA and Clemson.

Stop it. We have the money, and you're foolish to think we don't. We're paying Fatty 2.25 million. You really think we can't pay over $3 million? Come on. It's a myth that Miami doesn't have Miami. The reality is that Miami doesn't want to spend the money.

Have you read the thread? I never said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach. I said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach when he's first hired.

Our model has been, and likely will continue to be, that we hire folks at a moderate rate and pay them raises commensurate with performance. In Al's case, we hired him on at ~1.75 if memory serves, gave him a ~500k bump for handling the bad PR of the NCAA investigation.

We took the same approach with Shannon and with Coker before him. And with Davis and Erickson and Jimmy too.

Point being that only top-end schools with large donor bases can afford to fork over big cash right out of the gate. They can do so because the salaries they pay are often doled out not by the school but by donors. Most schools--particularly private schools--operate with the same model we do. We don't have the donor $$ to pay big money out of the gate. We have to start off moderately and hope that the wins come, so that people will show up to games and donate more money, which then will translate into a raise for the coach.

I know what you said, but times have changed. If we want to compete, we will. You said, and I quote, "with what money." That's what I responded to. We have the money.

Times have changed since when?

Very few, if any, programs are going to pay 3-4 mil for a new hire, and those that do won't be private schools. As noted earlier, USC hired Sark at 2.75...just a half mil more than we're paying Golden now. They're the only private school I know of who's reaching that kinda pay for a new hire, and they have a donor base that's at least 10X the size of UM's so they have the money to do it.

We're not in a position to do that.

 

[OrangetieFatface]

The Strawman is getting torched in this thread.

"Seriously guysm, TCU Pattersons 3 times for the 10 years in favorable camp David. But if the gypsy eats nine rats, USCs teaching dichotomy will be twice the cumshot. You're all ardvark sixteen Times Square for the pavilion."

That's basically what I've made out of your rambling nonsense.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

With what money? Again, the main point is that our donor base is exceedingly small in comparison to virtually every other program, which means that the university is already forking over a larger portion of coaching salaries than virtually every other (public) school. FSU only pays Jimbo 225k, for example...the rest of that 4.1 mil comes from Seminole Boosters. Similar with UGA and Clemson.

Stop it. We have the money, and you're foolish to think we don't. We're paying Fatty 2.25 million. You really think we can't pay over $3 million? Come on. It's a myth that Miami doesn't have Miami. The reality is that Miami doesn't want to spend the money.

Have you read the thread? I never said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach. I said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach when he's first hired.

Our model has been, and likely will continue to be, that we hire folks at a moderate rate and pay them raises commensurate with performance. In Al's case, we hired him on at ~1.75 if memory serves, gave him a ~500k bump for handling the bad PR of the NCAA investigation.

We took the same approach with Shannon and with Coker before him. And with Davis and Erickson and Jimmy too.

Point being that only top-end schools with large donor bases can afford to fork over big cash right out of the gate. They can do so because the salaries they pay are often doled out not by the school but by donors. Most schools--particularly private schools--operate with the same model we do. We don't have the donor $$ to pay big money out of the gate. We have to start off moderately and hope that the wins come, so that people will show up to games and donate more money, which then will translate into a raise for the coach.

I know what you said, but times have changed. If we want to compete, we will. You said, and I quote, "with what money." That's what I responded to. We have the money.

Times have changed since when?

Very few, if any, programs are going to pay 3-4 mil for a new hire, and those that do won't be private schools. As noted earlier, USC hired Sark at 2.75...just a half mil more than we're paying Golden now. They're the only private school I know of who's reaching that kinda pay for a new hire, and they have a donor base that's at least 10X the size of UM's so they have the money to do it.

We're not in a position to do that.

I miss negging the puck out of the logically backwards posts you seem to have such a natural gift at composing.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

The Strawman is getting torched in this thread.

"Seriously guysm, TCU Pattersons 3 times for the 10 years in favorable camp David. But if the gypsy eats nine rats, USCs teaching dichotomy will be twice the cumshot. You're all ardvark sixteen Times Square for the pavilion."

Hey man...I've supplied at least two links with facts that back me up. All you've done is flap your gums and say "gysms, we have the moneys guYs?"

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Stop it. We have the money, and you're foolish to think we don't. We're paying Fatty 2.25 million. You really think we can't pay over $3 million? Come on. It's a myth that Miami doesn't have Miami. The reality is that Miami doesn't want to spend the money.

Have you read the thread? I never said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach. I said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach when he's first hired.

Our model has been, and likely will continue to be, that we hire folks at a moderate rate and pay them raises commensurate with performance. In Al's case, we hired him on at ~1.75 if memory serves, gave him a ~500k bump for handling the bad PR of the NCAA investigation.

We took the same approach with Shannon and with Coker before him. And with Davis and Erickson and Jimmy too.

Point being that only top-end schools with large donor bases can afford to fork over big cash right out of the gate. They can do so because the salaries they pay are often doled out not by the school but by donors. Most schools--particularly private schools--operate with the same model we do. We don't have the donor $$ to pay big money out of the gate. We have to start off moderately and hope that the wins come, so that people will show up to games and donate more money, which then will translate into a raise for the coach.

I know what you said, but times have changed. If we want to compete, we will. You said, and I quote, "with what money." That's what I responded to. We have the money.

Times have changed since when?

Very few, if any, programs are going to pay 3-4 mil for a new hire, and those that do won't be private schools. As noted earlier, USC hired Sark at 2.75...just a half mil more than we're paying Golden now. They're the only private school I know of who's reaching that kinda pay for a new hire, and they have a donor base that's at least 10X the size of UM's so they have the money to do it.

We're not in a position to do that.

I miss negging the puck out of the logically backwards posts you seem to have such a natural gift at composing.

yeah, I figured that'd bother you. You never were one much for logical conversation...you prefer just to neg and live in idioocy.

 

[OrangetieFatface]

The Strawman is getting torched in this thread.

"Seriously guysm, TCU Pattersons 3 times for the 10 years in favorable camp David. But if the gypsy eats nine rats, USCs teaching dichotomy will be twice the cumshot. You're all ardvark sixteen Times Square for the pavilion."

Hey man...I've supplied at least two links with facts that back me up. All you've done is flap your gums and say "gysms, we have the moneys guYs?"

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/fast_facts/

Here's a link that equals $2.8 billion in spending per year on facts medical school nugget pouch hair, flaming strawman stinky tampon

 

[SFbayCane]

[Q

And Donna did bring in the Moolah...for the academic side of things. The athletic fundraising and donations for UM is pathetic. Blame lies with all parties--Shalala, the atheltic dept, and the fans. But it's also a simple matter of the fact that we have a small alumni and donor base.

Again, the point is that you're asking for UM to fork over more money for coaching salaries than even Bama or UF or FSU does, since those salaries are paid by their boosters.

Please acknowledge the critical point Im making in this thread. UM (the skool) charges the athletic department full boat for every athletic scholarship. UM charges $44K per year in tuition and another $12K for housing and meal plan. The Athletic department has to pay the for every football player. That is ******* insane. So for you to say that there is a hard line between academic money and athletic money is disingenuous. First, UM is a private skool, they can move money around however they want as they aren't tied to public funding rules. And most importantly, they could discount the athletic scholarships to their cost level, which would help as well.



UM has 457 scholarship athletes on campus. If they discount their tuition by $4400, they would generate the additional $2 million needed to get their football coaching pay scale up to par. That's a 10% deduct off of UM's inflated $44K annual tuition. But they will not!!! This is a failure of UM leadership IMO.

Source: http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-miami/student-life/sports/#

I didn't acknowledge it because I don't believe that UM does anything different from any other "skool" in that regard. It's not different from FSU:

"Scholarships are not “given” by the university, nor are they “free rides”.

Scholarships are earned by the student-athletes who have an intense daily academic and athletic regimen. Scholarships are paid for by the Athletics Department -- more than $9.5 million per year -- and funded by Seminole Booster members."

Again, notice the importance of donations. UM's donor base for athletics is woeful. Don't blame the "skool" for not kicking in more money when other "skools" operate in exactly the same way.

Once again, you refuse to concede a point when the facts don't support your argument. UM charges $44K a year for tuition. FSU, Bama, and others charge a fraction of that. Its at the core of what puts UM at a competitive disadvantage. UM's cost per student is nowhere near $44K.

Once again, Im done debating with you. I'll bow out here. Continue believing what you want, but again the facts don't support your argument that UM cannot afford an additional $2 million for their football coaching budget.

 

[duke4heisman]

BUTCH DAVIS

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

[Q

And Donna did bring in the Moolah...for the academic side of things. The athletic fundraising and donations for UM is pathetic. Blame lies with all parties--Shalala, the atheltic dept, and the fans. But it's also a simple matter of the fact that we have a small alumni and donor base.

Again, the point is that you're asking for UM to fork over more money for coaching salaries than even Bama or UF or FSU does, since those salaries are paid by their boosters.

Please acknowledge the critical point Im making in this thread. UM (the skool) charges the athletic department full boat for every athletic scholarship. UM charges $44K per year in tuition and another $12K for housing and meal plan. The Athletic department has to pay the for every football player. That is ******* insane. So for you to say that there is a hard line between academic money and athletic money is disingenuous. First, UM is a private skool, they can move money around however they want as they aren't tied to public funding rules. And most importantly, they could discount the athletic scholarships to their cost level, which would help as well.



UM has 457 scholarship athletes on campus. If they discount their tuition by $4400, they would generate the additional $2 million needed to get their football coaching pay scale up to par. That's a 10% deduct off of UM's inflated $44K annual tuition. But they will not!!! This is a failure of UM leadership IMO.

Source: http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-miami/student-life/sports/#

I didn't acknowledge it because I don't believe that UM does anything different from any other "skool" in that regard. It's not different from FSU:

"Scholarships are not “given” by the university, nor are they “free rides”.

Scholarships are earned by the student-athletes who have an intense daily academic and athletic regimen. Scholarships are paid for by the Athletics Department -- more than $9.5 million per year -- and funded by Seminole Booster members."

Again, notice the importance of donations. UM's donor base for athletics is woeful. Don't blame the "skool" for not kicking in more money when other "skools" operate in exactly the same way.

Once again, you refuse to concede a point when the facts don't support your argument. UM charges $44K a year for tuition. FSU, Bama, and others charge a fraction of that. Its at the core of what puts UM at a competitive disadvantage. UM's cost per student is nowhere near $44K.

Once again, Im done debating with you. I'll bow out here. Continue believing what you want, but again the facts don't support your argument that UM cannot afford an additional $2 million for their football coaching budget.

I provided the FSU information only because I knew about it.

I assume that other schools--both public and private--deal with things the same. I don't know of any private school that discounts student athlete tuition. To my knowledge, all athletic departments are responsible for covering the costs of all the tuition of student athletes when they provide full scholarships.

I'm happy to hear about it if you do, and I'll gladly concede the point. But thus far you've shown no evidence to support your side--you've only alleged that UM is at a competitive disadvantage. But that's the nature of being a private school; it's not something specific to UM that UM is doing wrong or could do better.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

The Strawman is getting torched in this thread.

"Seriously guysm, TCU Pattersons 3 times for the 10 years in favorable camp David. But if the gypsy eats nine rats, USCs teaching dichotomy will be twice the cumshot. You're all ardvark sixteen Times Square for the pavilion."

Hey man...I've supplied at least two links with facts that back me up. All you've done is flap your gums and say "gysms, we have the moneys guYs?"

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/fast_facts/

Here's a link that equals $2.8 billion in spending per year on facts medical school nugget pouch hair, flaming strawman stinky tampon

Talk about a straw man.

HERP DERP WE HAVE THE MONEY GUSYM! IT IS theRE Gysum!

 

[OrangetieFatface]

The Strawman is getting torched in this thread.

"Seriously guysm, TCU Pattersons 3 times for the 10 years in favorable camp David. But if the gypsy eats nine rats, USCs teaching dichotomy will be twice the cumshot. You're all ardvark sixteen Times Square for the pavilion."

Hey man...I've supplied at least two links with facts that back me up. All you've done is flap your gums and say "gysms, we have the moneys guYs?"

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/fast_facts/

Here's a link that equals $2.8 billion in spending per year on facts medical school nugget pouch hair, flaming strawman stinky tampon

Talk about a straw man.

HERP DERP WE HAVE THE MONEY GUSYM! IT IS theRE Gysum!

That ".8" in "2.8" billion represents "800 million dollars."

The money is there and there's very little argument left unless you're insinuating UM pays upwards of $2.797 billion in overhead and debt annually.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

The Strawman is getting torched in this thread.

"Seriously guysm, TCU Pattersons 3 times for the 10 years in favorable camp David. But if the gypsy eats nine rats, USCs teaching dichotomy will be twice the cumshot. You're all ardvark sixteen Times Square for the pavilion."

Hey man...I've supplied at least two links with facts that back me up. All you've done is flap your gums and say "gysms, we have the moneys guYs?"

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/fast_facts/

Here's a link that equals $2.8 billion in spending per year on facts medical school nugget pouch hair, flaming strawman stinky tampon

Talk about a straw man.

HERP DERP WE HAVE THE MONEY GUSYM! IT IS theRE Gysum!

That ".8" in "2.8" billion represents "800 million dollars."

The money is there and there's very little argument left unless you're insinuating UM pays upwards of $2.797 billion in overhead and debt annually.

What are the departmental budgets of each department on campus? What buildings are being constructed or overhauled? Where are you going to trim 2-3 million from?

Don't just drop the total operational budget number down there and act like you've proven your point. Where, precisely, is the money going to come from?

 

[OrangetieFatface]

Hey man...I've supplied at least two links with facts that back me up. All you've done is flap your gums and say "gysms, we have the moneys guYs?"

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/fast_facts/

Here's a link that equals $2.8 billion in spending per year on facts medical school nugget pouch hair, flaming strawman stinky tampon

Talk about a straw man.

HERP DERP WE HAVE THE MONEY GUSYM! IT IS theRE Gysum!

That ".8" in "2.8" billion represents "800 million dollars."

The money is there and there's very little argument left unless you're insinuating UM pays upwards of $2.797 billion in overhead and debt annually.

What are the departmental budgets of each department on campus? What buildings are being constructed or overhauled? Where are you going to trim 2-3 million from?

Don't just drop the total operational budget number down there and act like you've proven your point. Where, precisely, is the money going to come from?

Again, I don't give a ****.

"How" UM wastes it's money is our point of contention.

We're finally seeing eye to eye. Go make something happen shill. You hammer out the details. Disclose to us the spending plan. The planning boards and availabilities. Just stop ****ing on me and telling me it's raining.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/fast_facts/

Here's a link that equals $2.8 billion in spending per year on facts medical school nugget pouch hair, flaming strawman stinky tampon

Talk about a straw man.

HERP DERP WE HAVE THE MONEY GUSYM! IT IS theRE Gysum!

That ".8" in "2.8" billion represents "800 million dollars."

The money is there and there's very little argument left unless you're insinuating UM pays upwards of $2.797 billion in overhead and debt annually.

What are the departmental budgets of each department on campus? What buildings are being constructed or overhauled? Where are you going to trim 2-3 million from?

Don't just drop the total operational budget number down there and act like you've proven your point. Where, precisely, is the money going to come from?

Again, I don't give a ****.

"How" UM wastes it's money is our point of contention.

We're finally seeing eye to eye. Go make something happen shill. You hammer out the details. Disclose to us the spending plan. The planning boards and availabilities. Just stop ****ing on me and telling me it's raining.

HERP DEARPA we AHve the MoneY GUSM! It is TherE, GYSms?

Look, man...what it boils down to is that:

A) You don't know how much UM may already be subsidizing its athletic department
B) However much it is, you're sure that it's not enough
C) You're also sure that UM is wasting some of that 2.8 billion in operating expenses somewhere, but you don't know where, and you "don't give a ****" where.
D) You;re sure that a couple million/yr of it could easily be shifted to the athletic department and would be better spent on a hiring a football HC who may or may not bring any sort of ROI to the university.

Sound about right?

 

[Andrew]

While football players may be on a full ride most athletes are not. My wife was a college athlete and the sport she did received full scholarships for less than half the team. The coach could choose how to allocate these any ways he wants. For instance my wife was on a full but somewhere around 20% was academic and the rest athletic. Others on the team were on full while most on a partial and some none at all. The NCAA sets limits on scholarships in ever sport and in sports with both male and female teams the females usual get more.

As far as funds UM receives I think you got to look and see where a lot of those are coming from. UM does a great job getting grants and research money. UM does a poor job in raising money from alumni and individual donors. In other words just because UM can raise a few hundred million pretty easily don't mistake that with being able to raise a few hundred million for whatever we want.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

While football players may be on a full ride most athletes are not. My wife was a college athlete and the sport she did received full scholarships for less than half the team. The coach could choose how to allocate these any ways he wants. For instance my wife was on a full but somewhere around 20% was academic and the rest athletic. Others on the team were on full while most on a partial and some none at all. The NCAA sets limits on scholarships in ever sport and in sports with both male and female teams the females usual get more.

As far as funds UM receives I think you got to look and see where a lot of those are coming from. UM does a great job getting grants and research money. UM does a poor job in raising money from alumni and individual donors. In other words just because UM can raise a few hundred million pretty easily don't mistake that with being able to raise a few hundred million for whatever we want.

Good points.

 

[Notsince1985]

With what money? Again, the main point is that our donor base is exceedingly small in comparison to virtually every other program, which means that the university is already forking over a larger portion of coaching salaries than virtually every other (public) school. FSU only pays Jimbo 225k, for example...the rest of that 4.1 mil comes from Seminole Boosters. Similar with UGA and Clemson.

Stop it. We have the money, and you're foolish to think we don't. We're paying Fatty 2.25 million. You really think we can't pay over $3 million? Come on. It's a myth that Miami doesn't have Miami. The reality is that Miami doesn't want to spend the money.

Have you read the thread? I never said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach. I said we won't pay 3 mil for a coach when he's first hired.

Our model has been, and likely will continue to be, that we hire folks at a moderate rate and pay them raises commensurate with performance. In Al's case, we hired him on at ~1.75 if memory serves, gave him a ~500k bump for handling the bad PR of the NCAA investigation.

We took the same approach with Shannon and with Coker before him. And with Davis and Erickson and Jimmy too.

Point being that only top-end schools with large donor bases can afford to fork over big cash right out of the gate. They can do so because the salaries they pay are often doled out not by the school but by donors. Most schools--particularly private schools--operate with the same model we do. We don't have the donor $$ to pay big money out of the gate. We have to start off moderately and hope that the wins come, so that people will show up to games and donate more money, which then will translate into a raise for the coach.

I know what you said, but times have changed. If we want to compete, we will. You said, and I quote, "with what money." That's what I responded to. We have the money.

Times have changed since when?

Very few, if any, programs are going to pay 3-4 mil for a new hire, and those that do won't be private schools. As noted earlier, USC hired Sark at 2.75...just a half mil more than we're paying Golden now. They're the only private school I know of who's reaching that kinda pay for a new hire, and they have a donor base that's at least 10X the size of UM's so they have the money to do it.

We're not in a position to do that.

They change every year. They've changed since Michigan decided to break the bank to pay Harbaugh. We do have the money to do it, we just choose not to do it.

 

[dk72]

One thing to keep in mind: State schools like OSU, Bama, UF, etc depend largely on their athletic boosters and donors to fund their coaches' salaries.

Example: The state of FL caps state-funded coaches salaries at 250k, I believe. That means that FSU and UF in particular pay their coaches the multimillion dollar contract by way of the Seminole Boosters and UF Athletic Association, respectively. Here's the write-up about Jimbo Fisher's new deal, by which he'll get 225k from the state of FL and the bulk of 3-4 million/yr from Seminole Boosters, Inc.

Since UM has a much smaller donor base, UM is left footing the bill for a much larger percentage of coaches' salaries. Which means that it's nearly impossible for us to keep up with the big boys, particularly when it comes to making an initial hire. It becomes easier to justify it when a coach wins over time (that is, it's easier to pay a coach 2 mil now and hope that he wins, which would then increase ticket sales and merchandise, which would then help to fund any raise) than it is when you're talking about forking over 4+mil right out of the gate for an initial salary.

Exactly. We don't have anywhere near the money to keep up with what the larger schools pay their coaches. Saban's enormous salary is largely paid by boosters and donors. In addition, it was boosters and donors that paid off Saban's multi-million dollar mortgage as well, not the school. UM doesn't have the alumni base and number of booster and donors that the large state schools have. It's not about Miami being "cheap", it's about a completely different level of available funds.

dk,
What is UM's total endowment? This shows the entire University of Alabama system at $1.235 billion. The is for three universities totally nearly 60K it total student enrollment. And they find a way to pay Nick Satin over $5 million a year. Are you really suggesting that UM cannot afford to put an additional $2 million a year into its football budget???


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment

The university doesn't pay Saban over $5 million a year. The boosters do. Our booster base is a fraction of Alabama's.