Matt Rhule's new buyout is $71MM! Dude is 0-18 vs ranked opponents at Baylor and Nebraska

Donate To GopherHole

Only if he’s fired this year. Not a horrible move if they aren’t planning on firing him
 





I agree with the free market, but this coaching value is insane, I don’t know at what point it all goes to sh@t, but it has to, doesn’t it. Paying these coaches insane salaries, paying players, allowing transfers, year after year.
The product on the field hasn’t suffered, to me anyway, but I don’t think it will sustain itself long term.
 

Some guy said:
I don’t understand why people hate the free market

The nfl should get their monopoly lifted so this happens there too.


Why are people against the workers getting compensated?
Click to expand...

We're against singular mediocre performing people getting far more money than they deserve based on name recognition when the real value comes from the players.

This also goes for CEOs in the corporate world versus the far less compensated and protected people who do the actual creative and technical work that makes the organization succeed.

The head coach isn't calling the plays, he's not the main recruiter, and he's not the guy most players typically have their closest relationship with.

Nebraska football would be better off with a great FCS coach making $1-2M and spending $10M a year on players
 

fmlizard said:
We're against singular mediocre performing people getting far more money than they deserve based on name recognition when the real value comes from the players.

This also goes for CEOs in the corporate world versus the far less compensated and protected people who do the actual creative and technical work that makes the organization succeed.

The head coach isn't calling the plays, he's not the main recruiter, and he's not the guy most players typically have their closest relationship with.
Click to expand...
More than they deserve is super subjective

Nebraska sells 80k tickets for 100 bucks each for 7 games for 40 years straight

He isn’t overpaid

The market is stupid but that’s the market
 

Some guy said:
More than they deserve is super subjective

Nebraska sells 80k tickets for 100 bucks each for 7 games for 40 years straight

He isn’t overpaid

The market is stupid but that’s the market
Click to expand...
Do you feel that way about Scott Frost? Most of that was built on the backs of Devanney and Osborne.
 



mggoph said:
Do you feel that way about Scott Frost? Most of that was built on the backs of Devanney and Osborne.
Click to expand...
Well this is more of a political discussion.
But yeah, I feel like the market is whatever the market is willing to pay.

Hundreds of others would’ve taken less to be the coach


Someone said the market comes from the players.
Asinine. The G league teams would beat 99% of college basketball teams and I can’t name a single team.
The thing that brings value to college football is the institutions.
Most CFL teams Would beat most college football teams but they have far less value
 
Last edited:

fmlizard said:
We're against singular mediocre performing people getting far more money than they deserve based on name recognition when the real value comes from the players.

This also goes for CEOs in the corporate world versus the far less compensated and protected people who do the actual creative and technical work that makes the organization succeed.

The head coach isn't calling the plays, he's not the main recruiter, and he's not the guy most players typically have their closest relationship with.

Nebraska football would be better off with a great FCS coach making $1-2M and spending $10M a year on players
Click to expand...
Agree
And people would be better off buying a 15k sedan rather than a 50k truck yet here we re
 

Some guy said:
More than they deserve is super subjective

Nebraska sells 80k tickets for 100 bucks each for 7 games for 40 years straight

He isn’t overpaid

The market is stupid but that’s the market
Click to expand...
Agreed, the market is what people are willing to pay. Now if some schools and their fanbases are upset that they can’t afford the price, that’s a you problem that those schools and fanbases need to address with fundraising for their programs. It isn’t the responsibility of financial successful programs to lower the market prices to make the other schools more competitive
 







0-18 through the first 3 seasons at a school is not unprecedented vs ranked opponents.

Fleck was 2-7 through 3 seasons.
Ferentz was 1-11 through 3 seasons
 

MaxyJR1 said:
0-18 through the first 3 seasons at a school is not unprecedented vs ranked opponents.

Fleck was 2-7 through 3 seasons.
Ferentz was 1-11 through 3 seasons
Click to expand...
Play 18 ranked opponents in 3 seasons might be unprecedented unless you’re in inflated SEC land

He’s 0-18 in 6 seasons not 3.
If you include temple he is 2-23
Meaning he was 2-5 while at temple with wins over #21 east Carolina in 2014 and #21 Memphis in 2015
 

Some guy said:
Play 18 ranked opponents in 3 seasons might be unprecedented unless you’re in inflated SEC land

He’s 0-18 in 6 seasons not 3.
If you include temple he is 2-23
Meaning he was 2-5 while at temple with wins over #21 east Carolina in 2014 and #21 Memphis in 2015
Click to expand...
So basically 2-5, 0-9, and 0-9
 

fmlizard said:
We're against singular mediocre performing people getting far more money than they deserve based on name recognition when the real value comes from the players.

This also goes for CEOs in the corporate world versus the far less compensated and protected people who do the actual creative and technical work that makes the organization succeed.

The head coach isn't calling the plays, he's not the main recruiter, and he's not the guy most players typically have their closest relationship with.

Nebraska football would be better off with a great FCS coach making $1-2M and spending $10M a year on players
Click to expand...

The evidence doesn't seem to support your hypothesis for CEOs. If this is true, then shouldn't the best performing companies have lower paid CEOs and higher paid employees? There are no laws against this structure. You can start up a company like this tomorrow. That's not what we're seeing. It would suggest really good CEOs are exceedingly rare and valuable when compared to the average employee. I'm not a CEO and I'm not saying I like it. I'm just saying what I see. Big companies are often ruthlessly efficient.

The same is true in college football. There is no law against paying the players more and the coaches less. Maybe we'll see this occur over time especially since NIL and the portal are relatively new. This new market is still shaking out. I heard something recently that made me think otherwise however. Unlike in the pros, college players are only at their schools for a few years, while coaches can be there much longer. If the player is really good, they still might redshirt, then play two years and then go pro. That lowers their brand value. It makes some financial sense for a college to attach their brand to a good coach rather than a good player which drives up the value of the coach. PJ's been here for nine years for example. In pro football and, even more so in the NBA, players can have very long careers and so this increases the value of their brand. Because of this, we might see college coaches routinely out earning their pro counterparts. That appears to be happening today.

I also think there is some evidence that a very good college coach is extremely valuable vs. the players even in the NIL era. Most people would agree that guys like Curt Cignetti, Kirk Ferentz and, the now retired, Nick Saban, are amazing coaches and have a huge impact on the success of their football programs. The brand of Indiana, Iowa and Alabama football is very closely tied to these coaches, not any one player. They put in place systems that work even with all the turnover associated with being a college football player. The evidence for pro coaches is the opposite. It's pretty clear the differentiator for all those New England Patriot Super Bowls was Tom Brady, not Bill Belichick.
 
Last edited:

fmlizard said:
We're against singular mediocre performing people getting far more money than they deserve based on name recognition when the real value comes from the players.

This also goes for CEOs in the corporate world versus the far less compensated and protected people who do the actual creative and technical work that makes the organization succeed.

The head coach isn't calling the plays, he's not the main recruiter, and he's not the guy most players typically have their closest relationship with.

Nebraska football would be better off with a great FCS coach making $1-2M and spending $10M a year on players
Click to expand...
They're protected because they are seen as less replaceable by the people paying the salaries. The real "powers that be", the investment class, cares about 1 thing - - return on investment. They deem the CEOs to be vital to that return.

You're free to disagree and you could certainly be right. There are tons of examples of people who started businesses that went against the status quo and found a ton of success. You're free to start a competing business and hire those super talented people for more money and if hiring those people returns a massive amount on your investment - - people will follow.
 

There is a lot of talk on this Board about “mediocrity.” Mediocrity is relative, I believe, to a school’s resources. Mediocrity in the eyes of fans is different for LSU versus, say, Purdue. For mid-level B1G teams, those with middling to low NIL resources, and middling athletic department support, what is mediocrity? If you think failing to win the B1G title is mediocrity for such teams, you live in an unrealistic fantasy world. How about this definition?: mediocrity for middling B1G teams is when you have a coach that has never beaten a ranked team. By this standard, Nebraska just agreed to a $71M buyout to hold onto a coach who is a proven mediocrity. Shows you how exceptionally tough the HC market is out there. 🤯
 

Gophergrandpa said:
There is a lot of talk on this Board about “mediocrity.” Mediocrity is relative, I believe, to a school’s resources. Mediocrity in the eyes of fans is different for LSU versus, say, Purdue. For mid-level B1G teams, those with middling to low NIL resources, and middling athletic department support, what is mediocrity? If you think failing to win the B1G title is mediocrity for such teams, you live in an unrealistic fantasy world. How about this definition?: mediocrity for middling B1G teams is when you have a coach that has never beaten a ranked team. By this standard, Nebraska just agreed to a $71M buyout to hold onto a coach who is a proven mediocrity. Shows you how exceptionally tough the HC market is out there. 🤯
Click to expand...
100%
I will say the gophers are terrible and above average in back to back posts with two different threads

It’s a subjective measure
Heck I’ll do it in this post



The gophers are above average
But man they suck. It’s frustrating
 

Some guy said:
100%
I will say the gophers are terrible and above average in back to back posts with two different threads

It’s a subjective measure
Heck I’ll do it in this post



The gophers are above average
But man they suck. It’s frustrating
Click to expand...
I kind of feel the same way! PJ has improved the team’s roster and structure. But the inconsistency from week to week! It’s like the Gophers are a bunch of teenagers!
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom