CaneInHeelCountry
Junior
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,870
1. Al is making a "competitive market salary"
2. The comparison is flawed unless you know Baylors endowment
Agree on #1.
As for #2, it's not about a university's endowment. That stuff is strictly for academics/facilities/faculty. Athletic departments are generally self-sufficient units, paid for by way of donors and ticket sales. The Athletic dept may occasionally ask for funds from the university's coffers, but that amount is usually small, just enough to cover any gaps in operating costs; they can't and don't depend on the university endowment for the bulk of their funding.
This is why you always see separate funding drives for athletics vs the general overall university.
As for Baylor, they have a lot of big-money donors. They're in the midst of building a nice new on-campus stadium funded exclusively by donors, the most significant of which is the owner of the Houston Astro's, who reportedly gave somewhere around 200 mil. So it shouldn't come as a shock that they can afford to pay Briles good money.
UM doesn't have a donor on the level of the Astro's owner, and most of our big-money alumni don't care about sports. That said, we'll have no prob opening up the purse strings if Golden succeeds here. I'm sure we could pay him up to 3 mil or better if he can get the team to an ACC champ and a BCS bowl game in the near future.
True but endowment is a good proxy for booster giving power. There is generally an athletic foundation that handles athletic donation separately Ii.e, directed gifts) but may even be counted in total endowment.
In the end it functions like a state lottery: politicians tell you the lottery will go to education, which is true, but then they cut the amount of tax revenue that goes to support schools. Similarly, while the athletic department is self-sufficient, part of the revenues go to the school. By increasing giving, more of the tv, ticket, and merchandise revenue can be put towards academics.
The decision is really cost/benefit: will hiring a coach for more money increase football profits more than the cost of the coach's incremental salary from the previous coach. I like Shallala, but I don't think the earning power of our fans gives her much room to sell a $4m a year contract. As has been proven by our recent school wide fund raising, football performance has little impact on whether we can raise $1b for academics. I bet there is a greater correlation between football performance and fund raising at Baylor.
Shalala had no problem providing Coker with the highest salary (or 2nd highest, I forget) in CFB 10 years ago, on the heels of 2 NC appearances; I have no doubt she'd find a way to make Golden's salary commensurate with his performance.
IMO, the difference with UM is that we don't pay top dollar out of the gate. That is to say, we're not going to offer someone like Saban 7 mil/yr, or go after any of the other top-level guys. Because of a poor donor base, we have to start low and go high, which has worked for us in some instances (JJ, Erickson, Davis, and to some degree Coker), and has not worked in others (Shannon, to some degree Coker). This is the same approach we took with Golden; we'll see how it turn out here.