In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 862
Online now 469 Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)
The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes
Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes
If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here
Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Here is what Big Ten teams spent on their staffs in 2012, not including the head coach (Note: Because Northwestern and Penn State are not subject to the same state open-records laws as other schools, their information was not available):
Ohio State: $3.29 million
Michigan: $2.93 million
Illinois: $2.3 million
Michigan State $2.2 million
Nebraska: $2.15 million
Iowa: $2.1 million
Minnesota: $2.1 million
Indiana: $2 million
Wisconsin $1.77 million
Purdue: $1.61 million
As you can see, Wisconsin was near the bottom of the pack in the Big Ten. Purdue has given Hazell a pool of $2.1 million for assistant coaches, which would put the Boilermakers right about the average for league schools. Ohio State and Michigan are the two richest schools and have not surprisingly made the biggest commitment to salaries. When you add in Urban Meyer's salary, the Buckeyes are paying nearly $7.6 million per year in football salaries. You get what you pay for, I guess, as Ohio State went 12-0.
While the Big Ten's median salary pool for assistants was just over $2 million in 2012, the median in the SEC was around $2.5 million. According to USA Today, the SEC paid its assistants an average of $315,000, the most in the nation. The Big 12 was second at just under $290,000.
LSU is spending more than $4 million on assistants, while Alabama is doling out more than $3.8 million on assistants. Auburn ($3.77 million), Tennessee ($2.98 million), Florida ($2.89 million), Georgia ($2.77 million) and Texas A&M ($2.68 million) also far outspent most Big Ten schools, while Arkansas ($2.56 million in 2012) is making a larger commitment to assistant pay under Bielema.
Finally, here's a look at the top-paid coordinators in the Big Ten among the 10 schools whose information was available via public records:
Luke Fickell, co-defensive coordinator, Ohio State: $761,000
Greg Mattison, defensive coordinator, Michigan: $758,900
Al Borges, offensive coordinator, Michigan: $658,300
Pat Narduzzi, defensive coordinator, Michigan State: $501,700
Tom Herman, offensive coordinator, Ohio State: $456,000
Everett Withers, co-defensive coordinator, Ohio State: $456,000
Tim Banks, defensive coordinator, Illinois: $400,000
Chris Beatty, co-offensive coordinator, Illinois: $400,000
Billy Gonzales, co-offensive coordinator, Illinois: $400,000
Tim Beck, offensive coordinator, Nebraska: $372,300
Tracy Claeys, defensive coordinator, Minnesota: $340,000
Matt Limegrover, offensive coordinator, Minnesota: $335,000
Greg Davis, offensive coordinator, Iowa: $325,000
Dan Roushar, offensive coordinator, Michigan State: $307,00
Mike Ekeler, co-defensive coordinator, Indiana: $306,600
Doug Mallory, co-defensive coordinator, Indiana: $306,600
Phil Parker, defensive coordinator, Iowa: $301,500
John Papuchis, defensive coordinator, Nebraska: $300,000
Gary Nord, offensive coordinator, Purdue: $275,000
Tim Tibesar, defensive coordinator, Purdue: $250,000
Chris Ash, defensive coordinator, Wisconsin: $267,050
Matt Canada, offensive coordinator, Wisconsin: $265,000
Seth Littrell, offensive coordinator, Indiana: $255,500
Fickell, Borges and Mattison are three of 18 assistants nationwide who earned at least $600,000 in 2012, according to the study. There were 14 assistants paid that much last season and nine in 2010. Ohio State offensive line coach Ed Warinner is the highest paid position coach in the league, at a salary of $357,800.
Proof's in the pudding!
Warinner is Co-Offensive coordinator too
Ekeler and Mallory = highway robbery
I think Borges owes shitagain 658,000. Sometimes you DON'T get what you pay for. But I'm so glad they did.
they are all overpaid -
Crazy what this has come to. Not going to get on soap box here but - I'll say a few sentences worth.
If Arkansas spent 2.56 million more on its public education system ...that would be a good thing. Teachers in that state - second lowest paid in entire country. Most Big Ten schools ...states pay their teachers well compared to National Average. Not nearly well enough. No comment on
most of the southern states.
Is the job Luke Fickell is doing better that 14 Ohio Teachers?
Follow me on twitter: @JWagner11W
No such thing as "overpaid" and "underpaid" technically. Because salaries are governed by supply and demand.
No matter how you slice it, demand for assistant coaches based on the pool of coaches available drives the price to acquire a coach. The Athletic Department negotiates a price they are willing to pay for the coach and the coach negotiates a price they are willing to accept for their services.
Same thing with teachers. If teachers don't like their salaries, they must accept that this is a result of limited demand for their services. If there was a higher demand, then schools would be willing to pay higher prices for acquiring their services. It doesn't matter if its better or not. Thats all relative. The fact remains that OSU sees enough long term value in paying for Fickell's services at that price, while OH schools don't see the value in doing the same for teachers.
This is also why there is no such thing as price gouging. Because price, once again, is based on supply and demand. Technically, price should be at the equilibrium of supply and demand. It doesn't matter if a scenario is exploited. That scenario simply demonstrates increased demand. If the demand curve shifts, so does price. But here is the issue. You can't get "gouged" if you are willing to pay that price. Because someone agreed to pay the price, that suggests that the good they purchased was worth the price they paid. If everyone decided it wasn't worth that price, then nobody would buy at that price. And therefore, the demand curve would shift in the other direction lowering the price of the good. Hence, if there was such a thing as price gouging, it would only hurt the proprietor. There is another possibility of price gouging, but we'll never know if we're getting gouged or not. Thats with a monopoly. Monopolies have the luxury of no competition influencing consumers willingness to pay at varying price levels. However, the government is the only perpetuator of monopolies.
Back to coaches, when you lower the price and put a ceiling on what you are willing to pay, you have eliminated the that portion of the pool of candidates. Because high demand coaches are seeking at higher price levels. Hence the phrase "you get what you pay for".
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)
I'm not an economist by any stretch. However, comparing the way salaries are determined for teachers and big time college football coaches isn't really possible, IMO. Big time college coaches are working in a Market Economy. I say this because supply and demand is the only limit to what the schools are willing to pay because the salaries are funded by private donors and some of the revenue generated by the program. Teachers are working in a Command Economy - or a Mixed Economy at best in regard to their access to money. I say that because they earn what their local school boards are willing to agree on. This agreement is based on what the government (local, state, and federal) says they will get in the way of funding. The hint of a Mixed economy comes in the form of local union negotiation in regard to supplemental contracts, personal days, etc. I think I know what you're trying to say Playmea, but I disagree in the comparison. But, like I said, I'm no economist!
I get pretty sick of hearing teachers are underpaid. They only have a 35 hour week, with mandated free periods it cuts it to less than 30. I know the argument is going to come that they spend so much time out of class with grading and doing lesson plans, the good ones do, but those are not in the majority. They have 16 weeks off a year and have some of the best retirement and health benefits. If teaching sucks so bad why do they have so many more applicants than jobs (supply and demand determines salaries -- unless the union is keeping salaries higher than they should be). Good teachers deserve great pay, but the unions fight against pay for performance. If you factor in the time off (not counting hours worked per week) you have to consider a teacher only works 36 weeks vs 48 weeks for most jobs. That is only 75% of the year. Using 2007 census data when the average teacher salary was $51,937, that would be equivalent to over $69,000 a year. What I did find interesting is that what the websites have as average teachers salaries are significantly less for 2012 that what the US government said they were in 2007.
Don't look at me. Spiritbuck made the comparison. I just explained why things work the way they do.
Teachers are NOT in a Command Economy. A teacher has the ability to negotiate salary. A mixed Economy may be best. Because there is public and private.
Regardless, spiritbuck complained about coaches salaries and used the comparison of teachers.
If public educators have a problem with how much they are making, they still have choices. They can try to work for a private school and negotiate their salary or the can lobby their local government. Essentially, there was still a consumer choice involved. Because teachers become teachers with the understanding and acceptance of the economy. Therefore a willingness to accept the salaries paid for such services. Its not like teachers are forced to be teacher and forced to accept such pay. They have a choice. If teachers across America all of a sudden decided that they would not work for such salaries, then the government would have no teachers at that price and would have to raise the price at which they acquired teachers.
So either way, there was a consumer choice and acceptance. You could argue that teachers are in a mixed economy. But more likely it is still a Market Economy. Because supply and demand still rules. Teachers don't have to become teachers and teachers don't have to accept that pay and they don't have to work for the government. Because they do make those choices, they have established their worth to those willing to pay. Thats just how it works. I did NOT IN ANY WAY make a comparison. Another poster did. All I did was EXPLAIN!!!! That needs to be clear.
Gabuck...I didn't say teacher were under paid. I wasn't looking to open that debate. I was just saying the way a big time college coach's salary is determined and the way a teacher's salary is determined isn't really comparable.
To your point about '12 salaries being lower than in '07, that could be partly bc of retirement of older teachers who made higher salaries and their replacements being entry level who make often time 35-40K less. Also, because of the economy, many local teachers unions have acceped muti year pay freezes and increased costs of healthcare and retirement contributions...all of which decrease teacher salaries. But many have done this in an effort to not only save the jobs of their peers (and themselves) but also to allow their districts the chance to pass levies by proving that teachers in general aren't the over paid, under worked union thugs that so many across the country would have us believe.
You're worth what you get. No more, no less.
Wow! To see Fick making more than $300,000 more that Herman/Withers is mind numbing.Fick is the luckiest guy in football.Well almost anyways.
More accurately, you're worth what you accept.
Because the value has to be determined on both ends. Not just what is being offered. But what is being accepted. We get to the way the utility in our decisions. Thats the brilliance of our free economy.
He's quite fortunate. But now the school can weigh their ROI with Fickell. Is he earning his salary? If not, next time negotiations come around, the prices offered may change. Is Herman worth more? If so, then others are going to come calling and he may choose to entertain those positions. If we want to keep him, we need to pay competitively.
I love the elegant simplicity of it all...
Coach, I don't think that the 07 salaries are higher than 12 salaries, I think the 12 websites are skewing the data. We had an Eng Graphics book at tOSU that had a whole chapter on lying with statistics and graphs. The Wall Street Journal had a 2011 story that said California 2011 average Cal salaries were over 69K and they were 62K in the 07 data. I just dug up the Ohio data as it fits the audience. I think the first page on the google search website hits probably uses average starting salaries. Another post got me going about pouring the coaches salaries into the education system. Many studies have shown that paying all teachers more money isn't going to give you better results. I lived in NY for many years and the highest paid teachers were in NYC and they had the the worst results. The same can be said for every major city. I currently live in stupid SEC country (GA) and I'll put my public school against any in the country. We are fortunate to have the USN pump spouses into the school as teachers and that improves the system. They also have a pretty decent HS football team. They beat Glenville last year in the shoe.
Haha, Playmea...I stand corrected! You're not the one who made the comparison! I enjoyed the explanation of what economic system teachers fit into though...good job! I agree...it's a mixed economy for sure. But a mixed economy is one that is a 'mixture' of command and martket right?
You can kinda say it that way. I'm not a big fan of categorizing economies as "mixed". But you are technically correct. I like to do so based on which side of the scale they lean. Because by definition almost all economies are "mixed". Where both government and private sector influence the economy. So that doesn't help people much. However, I use distinctions based on how prices are set to define an economy. America leans far more to a market economy.
I get it. I also agree with the thought that paying teachers more won't make student achievement increase. Speaking of using stats to tell a story that isn't true. I think that happens a lot with how the achievement of schools is measured. There are so many factors that determine the achievement of each individual student in a school that the stats the Dept of Ed uses don't always tell the entire story. Anyway, it's a great topic for discussion...but one I run out of gas on quickly!!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports