Search News


Browse Archives

News

Well-Paid 'Assistants'

November 11, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The days when the salaries of big-time football and men's basketball coaches would shock and surprise have probably long since passed for most observers. Several head football coaches blew past the $3 million mark years ago, and topped the $4 million a year barrier in 2007. And even new data about Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) football coaches published Tuesday by USA Today, showing a doubling since 2007 in the number of head coaches earning more than $2 million a year, is likely to be explained away by those who argue that spending top dollar for top leaders is not only smart, but necessary.

"If we let him go because we're not willing to pay market, we'll pay a huge price," USA Today quotes Sandy Barbour, athletics director at the University of California at Berkeley, as saying about its head coach, Jeff Tedford, and his $2.8 million a year pay. "Because I don't know that we can go out and find another coach with that combination of skills and (academic) emphasis."

Arguments like that, which tend to be the same ones that universities and other entities make when they spend big bucks on presidents, tend to fall a little flatter the further down the administrative ladder you go in an organization. Which is why the most startling data in the new USA Today survey of football coaches' pay may be those on assistant coaches, which the newspaper has collected for the first time.

Of the 893 assistant coaches listed by about 100 colleges that provided information to the national newspaper, 217, or nearly one in four, earn at least $200,000 a year, 66 are paid at least $300,000, and 5 top $600,000 a year. Four universities -- including three in the Southeastern Conference, Louisiana State University and the Universities of Alabama and Tennessee -- are paying their assistant coaches an average of $300,000.

Average Salaries, Assistant Coaches and Full Professors

  2009 Coaches' Average Salary 2008-9 Full Professors' Average Salary
Louisiana State U. $302,809 $110,600
U. of Alabama $300,283 $115,700
U. of Tennessee $369,000 $100,800
U. of Texas at Austin $327,000 $132,300

Sources: USA Today, American Association of University Professors

Not only that, but more than 200 of the coaches have multiyear contracts that ensure they will be paid those hefty salaries for at least two years, and in some cases as many as five. Assistants at numerous institutions have clauses that assure them five-figure bonuses if they stick around until the following year.

Sports officials and university administrators certainly cite market-based arguments as reasons for high pay for assistant coaches, too; several of the highest-paid aides in the USA Today survey are beneficiaries of an emerging trend in which some athletics departments are locking up coaches highly sought elsewhere by making them "coaches in waiting," to succeed their current bosses whenever they choose to retire.

But at a time when colleges and universities around the country are freezing if not shrinking the size of their staffs, as well as the salaries of the employees they keep, the fact that the average assistant coach at many universities is earning several times the pay of the average professor or staff member is likely to stir resentment on some campuses. (Tension over sports spending is high at some universities including Barbour's Berkeley campus.) The lowest-paid assistant football coach at the University of Alabama, according to USA Today's database of assistant coaches' pay, has a $225,000 salary -- nearly double the mean salary for full professors and four times the average pay for assistant professors there -- and is also eligible for annual bonuses of $45,000.

Football assistants average nearly $370,000 at the University of Tennessee, and $327,000 at the University of Texas at Austin. Tennessee's average is weighted upward by the fact that its top assistant, Monte Kiffin, is paid $1.2 million a year as defensive coordinator for his son, Lane, the head coach.

The table below shows the number of assistant coaches at Football Bowl Subdivision universities with salaries over certain thresholds:

Salary Coaches
$600,000 or more 5
$400,000 or more 13
$300,000 or more 66
$250,000 or more 106
$200,000 or more 217

Source: USA Today

For those curious about trends in head coaches' pay, here are some summary data from USA Today's report:

Number of Coaches Earning ...

  2006 2007 2009
...At least $1 million 42 50 56
...At least $2 million 9 12 25
...At least $3 million 1 4 9
...At least $4 million 0 0 3

Source: USA Today

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Well-Paid 'Assistants'

  • Makes Cents
  • Posted by JJL , Admissions at BC on November 11, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • In a backwards, not quite fair kind of a way, this makes sense. If your school has a winning, big time football program, its all over the news- ESPN, the papers and magazines ect.-That type of exposure and advertisement is priceless in terms of marketing and enrollment.

    I was recently at a college fair and my table was next to the University of Alabama's. A ton of kids walked up to the table and started out with "man, their football team is on a roll right now" Instead of "man, I sure want to go to Uof A because Professor so and so teaches in the department of whatever and that is a nationally recognized program. HS students, at least most of them dont think about what professors teach where and if they are leaders in their field. Most of the time they associate a school and its reputation by their athletics. Its wierd I know.

  • Makes cents if.....
  • Posted by Mountaineer on November 11, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • JJL is correct IF your colleges' athletic department is operating ientirely n the black without mooching off the general operating budget of the school. Too many high school students do pick a school based on the prowess of the football and/or basketball teams, and god knows that's all some alumni care about. But I believe relatively few of the "Football Bowl Subdivision" are actually making enough money to pay these salaries and the other expenses of big-time college football. These programs are farm teams for the NFL and personally I'd rather these teams be acknowledged as professional teams and become associated with, but not part of, the universities.

  • Posted by Jared on November 11, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • I think more faculty members need to recognize the split in budgets between athletics/academics. The majority of the time, the money spent in the athletics dept. is not taken from the general budget of the university. It is not a situation where money could simply stop going to athletics and start going to academics. Generally if you cut the funding to athletics, it simply disappears, it is not reallocated.

    Generally asst. football coaches get paid a lot because football generates a lot of revenue. The same principle works in the academic side. If you are a researcher who brings in large grants, you will get paid more than similar profs. who do not generate the same revenue.

  • Posted by Ex Student Athlete on November 11, 2009 at 11:45am EST
  • I don't have a problem with the assistant coaches salaries with the exception of some of the SEC programs. In many instances, the coordinators are more valuable to the team's success than the head coach and I think a low six figure salary is in line with what these coaches could be making if they went into the private sector (the NFL). I still feel that many head coach's salaries are bloated. I concede that the aforementioned comments are correct that national advertising on a weekly basis is both irreplaceable and sometimes pays for itself(I once talked with an admissions colleague from Vandy and he said that in one year their applications tripled from Colorado. The reason: Jay Cutler was drafted by the Broncos), but there should be an ethical ceiling for how much academic insitutions are willing to pay for these benefits. This is not the coaches' fault, but the universities who have turned FBS athletics into an arms race. Fortunately, this arms race is slowing as a result of funds (see article in The Chronicle today about Stanford) and hopefully athletic directors will take a step back to reevaluate the intrinsic worth of their spotlight coaches. The last observation I will make is that coaches who truly care about the devlopment of their players as young men rather than cogs in search for a championship are rare to say the least. Lane Kiffin's genitalia measuring contest with other SEC coaches isn't helping justify a seven figure salary from a state university system that is in the process of accepting $470 million of federal stimulus money over the next three years (http://www.utk.edu/budgetcentral/timeline.shtml)

  • Oxymorons, Anonymous
  • Posted by DFS on November 11, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • 'Ex student athlete,' are you serious? A "low six figure salary"?

    I'll take that paycheck!

  • Posted by Ex-Student Athlete on November 11, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • By "low six figure salary" I meant a salary between 100k-500k not that the coaches weren't making enough money.

    I would personally be thrilled making 50k.

  • A coach's paycheck? I take that anytime
  • Posted by marie t zinder , WLL at Cal State Univ on November 11, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • Too bad academics are not valued the same way that athletics are! In my view, athletics should be treated as professionals and so do the players. And the players should be paid decently. Actually, football and baseball have not place in a supposedly academic environment!

  • Split in athletic budgets
  • Posted by GTWMA on November 11, 2009 at 7:45pm EST
  • Split or not, Jared, 80% of Football Bowl Subdivision schools LOSE money on football, an average loss of $10 million. Where do you think that loss gets made up??

  • Makes No Cents
  • Posted by Bronxboy on November 12, 2009 at 5:00am EST
  • On Oct.20 the NCAA released its latest statistics on FBS finances. Only 25 of the 119 FBS programs made a profit in 2008 with an average gain of only 3.8 million dollars. The 94 "have not"athletics depts. had an average loss of 9.8 million dollars.

    On Oct. 26 the Knight Commission of the NCAA released a survey of the presidents of the FBS schools. The vast majority of those surveyed expressed concern over the financial sustainability of big time sports and believed in the need for far reaching reform. The presidents further expressed their apparent powerlessness to regain control of the FBS sports monster and cited the ever escalating coaching salaries as a factor in that regard.

    Meanwhile it seems that those few FBS universities that have a noteworthy season or produce a star player may experience a temporary increase in applications from those high school seniors interested in attending a college with a strong football program. This hardly seems like a benefit to me, but rather a detriment. Presumably a university should be engaged in attracting those more academically accomplished students who when evaluating colleges consider the quality of the undergraduate educational experience more important than the record of the football team.

    I don't get it. Nothing about big time sports makes any sense to me. It doesn't help the university financially or scholastically.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Obscene
  • Posted by KEL on November 12, 2009 at 9:00am EST
  • The salary figures are gross and reflect the out of balance sense of society. As several pointed out most schools including according to a Chronicle article many division one schools are stealing money from the general fund in the form of ancillary assignments. That does not begin to get at the costs of facilities or the real impact on division two and three schools whose programs do not meet their costs. Athletics should be self funding within the salary structure of the institution. If they can't, then tough luck.

    The last time I looked the mission of higher education had something to do with learning and intellectual activity. Competitive athletics do not seem to fit well into that goal. In times of acute economic stress we are told to return to the core mission. Thus end athletics and save a bunch of resources.