FBS schools spent over $533.6 million in dead money

Donate To GopherHole
UpAndUnder43

UpAndUnder43

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
14,022
Reaction score
12,129
Points
113
Interesting article about dead money in college football, mens/womens basketball (womens makes up a very small % of this)

www.espn.com

FBS schools spent over $533.6M in dead money

FBS schools paid football and men's and women's basketball coaches more than $533.6 million not to coach from 2010 to January 2021.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 

I worry that long term we will see this continue to explode and then mass of numbers of schools just drop out all together when public pressure suddenly arrives.
 

Like a lot in sports, what started as a slow build has seen exponential growth over the past 20 years. Coaches' yearly salaries are high, but I would argue still somewhat justified, given the amount of revenue they generate. IMO, it's the length and term of the contracts that is starting to not make sense. Fundamentally, it makes no sense to give somebody a 5,6,7+ year contract knowing that a coach will never work through the length of the contract. At the most basic level, what sense does that make? The "with cause/ without cause" logic also doesn't make a ton of sense. How is being utterly and completely incompetent at your job not "with cause"? It would seem to make sense that if the schools are going to be giving out longer and richer contracts, that stipulations should also be used to define what is a "causal firing", including what minimum record is required, minimum APR scores, graduation rates, number/severity of scandals, etc.

A great example is Mike Locksley. He compiles a blistering 2-26 record for New Mexico. During his tenure, football attendance dips to a 19-year low. A car registered to him is involved in a 19-year old getting caught for a DWI. He punches a coaching staff member and is suspended for one game. He is sued for sexual harassment. All in the course of 2.5 years. He is fired, and paid a $1.4MM buyout. An absolute massive failure of a coaching tenure nets him more than a million dollars to go away. And yet, afterward is also rewarded with a B1G coaching job for some unknown reason. I would argue having to pay a guy like Locksley a buyout after proving unequivocally that he is not suited for the position shows the current system is broken.
 

Another article regarding this. MN is at 9.3 million paid to 21 coaches?

www.espn.com

The boom of dead money in college sports

What did FBS schools pay football and basketball coaches not to coach? The numbers will surprise you.
www.espn.com

Edit: click on the MN ticker to get a better breakdown
 

This is an entertainment business, and people that bring in revenue will be richly rewarded. The unique thing about sports is everyone knows how much $ compensation is being doled out. There are sectors of America where people are making far more for doing far less work. We just don’t hear about it that much.

The trouble with CFB is more with the perceived inequity and preservation of amateurism which is rapidly going away for better or worse depending on POV.
 





I will say a positive aspect of PJ's new contract is the buyout language on the U's side. If fired without cause, he's owed 65% of the remaining amount. There are plenty of contracts where it's 100% of remaining amount, so the fact that the U was able to reduce this is good. Of course, with that said, if he's given a new contract every year (which has pretty much been the case) so he's always at 7 years left on a contract, that would still be big bucks (7 years x $5 mil = $35 mil x 65% = $22.75mil owed if fired).

...and then there's Jimbo.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ct-buyout-largest-college-history/6003908001/
 



forever a gopher said:
I will say a positive aspect of PJ's new contract is the buyout language on the U's side. If fired without cause, he's owed 65% of the remaining amount. There are plenty of contracts where it's 100% of remaining amount, so the fact that the U was able to reduce this is good. Of course, with that said, if he's given a new contract every year (which has pretty much been the case) so he's always at 7 years left on a contract, that would still be big bucks (7 years x $5 mil = $35 mil x 65% = $22.75mil owed if fired).

...and then there's Jimbo.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ct-buyout-largest-college-history/6003908001/
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure Fleck is only owed 65% of his base salary which is $1.5 mil (the rest of his salary is supplemental compensation and bonuses). That means he would be owed just under $1 mil per year remaining on the contract.
 

There is so much waste at universities that the numbers being talked about here are fairly minor. Wasn’t the U impugned for having one of the worst administrator to faculty ratios in the country not too long ago? I’d guess many of the juniors faculty or lecturers make far less than administrators, to boot.

If you want to get outraged, start there.
 

oak_street1981 said:
Wow, TC really got screwed on that deal! He made a bigger positive impact than anyone else on that list. Other than Jay Johnson, and Sawvel I was pretty tired of the rest of them, OK maybe not JK.

I hope TCU goes 4-0 down the stretch. Kill looks about 30 lbs lighter and way more relaxed than he was here. They'd probably never hire him, but a 4-0 streak????
Click to expand...
I think it's Sonny Dykes, but I'd agree that there's almost no way Kill is their head coach in '22
 

oak_street1981 said:
There might be some bad blood, or so I think I heard, with Texas Tech, but I would think Sonny Dykes could probably get that job too. I think Nebraska should hire him. I'd take the big money and move north, but having all that talent in your backyard at SMU and TCU is a hard thing to walk away from. USC could do a lot worse as well. Getting fired at Cal was probably not all on Dykes.
Click to expand...
Dykes has mined the transfer portal very well at SMU allowing DFW kids a chance to come home. I think he could make a push to own the new look AAC, but the money is better at the schools you mentioned
 





Pompous Elitist said:
This is an entertainment business, and people that bring in revenue will be richly rewarded. The unique thing about sports is everyone knows how much $ compensation is being doled out. There are sectors of America where people are making far more for doing far less work. We just don’t hear about it that much.

The trouble with CFB is more with the perceived inequity and preservation of amateurism which is rapidly going away for better or worse depending on POV.
Click to expand...
The trouble with CFP has more to do with the perception it is taxpayer money

nobody cares when private business wastes money or takes advantage of workers or consumers
 
Last edited:



Some guy said:
nobody cares when private business wastes money or takes advantage of workers or consumers
Click to expand...

None of that is true. Certainly stockholders/partners care about the first and other stakeholders care about the others. As far as the last one, that can lead to class action suits which certainly are events of concern.
 

forever a gopher said:
A great example is Mike Locksley. He compiles a blistering 2-26 record for New Mexico. During his tenure, football attendance dips to a 19-year low. A car registered to him is involved in a 19-year old getting caught for a DWI. He punches a coaching staff member and is suspended for one game. He is sued for sexual harassment. All in the course of 2.5 years. He is fired, and paid a $1.4MM buyout. An absolute massive failure of a coaching tenure nets him more than a million dollars to go away. And yet, afterward is also rewarded with a B1G coaching job for some unknown reason. I would argue having to pay a guy like Locksley a buyout after proving unequivocally that he is not suited for the position shows the current system is broken.
Click to expand...
So ..... yeah.

Is this really that much worse than what goes on every year in private sector businesses?

They pay stupid salaries/compensation for executives to come in, contribute nothing to the sustainability and innovation of the actual business, do nothing for the workers, and overall accomplish not much even for the shareholders.

And then give them golden parachutes when they kick their butts out the door.
 


forever a gopher said:
Like a lot in sports, what started as a slow build has seen exponential growth over the past 20 years. Coaches' yearly salaries are high, but I would argue still somewhat justified, given the amount of revenue they generate. IMO, it's the length and term of the contracts that is starting to not make sense. Fundamentally, it makes no sense to give somebody a 5,6,7+ year contract knowing that a coach will never work through the length of the contract. At the most basic level, what sense does that make? The "with cause/ without cause" logic also doesn't make a ton of sense. How is being utterly and completely incompetent at your job not "with cause"? It would seem to make sense that if the schools are going to be giving out longer and richer contracts, that stipulations should also be used to define what is a "causal firing", including what minimum record is required, minimum APR scores, graduation rates, number/severity of scandals, etc.

A great example is Mike Locksley. He compiles a blistering 2-26 record for New Mexico. During his tenure, football attendance dips to a 19-year low. A car registered to him is involved in a 19-year old getting caught for a DWI. He punches a coaching staff member and is suspended for one game. He is sued for sexual harassment. All in the course of 2.5 years. He is fired, and paid a $1.4MM buyout. An absolute massive failure of a coaching tenure nets him more than a million dollars to go away. And yet, afterward is also rewarded with a B1G coaching job for some unknown reason. I would argue having to pay a guy like Locksley a buyout after proving unequivocally that he is not suited for the position shows the current system is broken.
Click to expand...
I don't know why anyone would want to play for Mike Locksley
 

Some guy said:
The trouble with CFP has more to do with the perception it is taxpayer money

nobody cares when private business wastes money or takes advantage of workers or consumers
Click to expand...

Yes, but even the most ignorant person can quickly be informed that not only are football teams (and revenue teams) self-sufficient but they pay the bills for everyone else (or at least a lions share of the AD).
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Yes, but even the most ignorant person can quickly be informed that not only are football teams (and revenue teams) self-sufficient but they pay the bills for everyone else (or at least a lions share of the AD).
Click to expand...
Most people never even have that conversation. Most people are ignorant of details
 

cjbfbp said:
None of that is true. Certainly stockholders/partners care about the first and other stakeholders care about the others. As far as the last one, that can lead to class action suits which certainly are events of concern.
Click to expand...
Going to go ahead and disagree with you as I use my phone made in a Chinese sweatshop
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom