[Cardinal10]

I like many of Wilner's analyses -- he's been right on some things, and he's been raising the visibility of issues like schedule fairness, conference competitiveness, and broadcast revenues for many years, but I don't agree with this one. Because for the concept of "coach's pay per win" to have any meaning, you would have to assume all victories have equal worth.

And they don't, and they shouldn't.

I have no problem with Mike Leach getting paid less because he should get $0 for "wins" like Montana State, Wyoming, and Eastern Washington -- and most of those were at home. 

Stanford has 3 conference championship, 2 Rose Bowl victories, and has gone 5-3 against Notre Dame the past 8 years, so it makes sense Coach Shaw  should make a lot more. One Notre Dame win should be worth more than 100 Montana/Eastern Washington "wins". And one Rose Bowl victory is worth a lifetime more than a lone Sun Bowl win (Mike Leach has won only 1 bowl game win during 7 years at Wazoo -- against Miami in the Sun Bowl. Wazoo went bowl-ineligible  3 of his years, and lost to Colorado State in the Gildan New Mexico Bowl, the Gophers in the Holiday Bowl, and Michigan State in the Holiday Bowl. This year's Alamo Bowl is the biggest bowl Leach's Wazoo team has made, before that, while at Wazoo, he had never qualified for a bowl game bigger than the Holiday Bowl, and never won a Bowl Game bigger than the Sun Bowl).

His bowl record would indicate that if a team is given more than 1 week to prepare for his scheme, even a team like Colorado State or Minnesota can beat him, which bodes very poorly for how they'd do in an actual NY6 type of game. But anyway, good luck to them against Iowa State.

Wilner's analysis is also unfair to coaches like Jonathan Smith at Oregon State, and other coaches like Edwards, Sumlin and Kelly, who were in the first year of their new job.

I just don't think pay per win is a helpful or meaningful stat.

Cool so by that logic, his Stanford wins should be worth more too.  He is underpaid indeed.

[Cardinal10]

I like many of Wilner's analyses -- he's been right on some things, and he's been raising the visibility of issues like schedule fairness, conference competitiveness, and broadcast revenues for many years, but I don't agree with this one. Because for the concept of "coach's pay per win" to have any meaning, you would have to assume all victories have equal worth.

And they don't, and they shouldn't.

I have no problem with Mike Leach getting paid less because he should get $0 for "wins" like Montana State, Wyoming, and Eastern Washington -- and most of those were at home. 

Stanford has 3 conference championship, 2 Rose Bowl victories, and has gone 5-3 against Notre Dame the past 8 years, so it makes sense Coach Shaw  should make a lot more. One Notre Dame win should be worth more than 100 Montana/Eastern Washington "wins". And one Rose Bowl victory is worth a lifetime more than a lone Sun Bowl win (Mike Leach has won only 1 bowl game win during 7 years at Wazoo -- against Miami in the Sun Bowl. Wazoo went bowl-ineligible  3 of his years, and lost to Colorado State in the Gildan New Mexico Bowl, the Gophers in the Holiday Bowl, and Michigan State in the Holiday Bowl. This year's Alamo Bowl is the biggest bowl Leach's Wazoo team has made, before that, while at Wazoo, he had never qualified for a bowl game bigger than the Holiday Bowl, and never won a Bowl Game bigger than the Sun Bowl).

His bowl record would indicate that if a team is given more than 1 week to prepare for his scheme, even a team like Colorado State or Minnesota can beat him, which bodes very poorly for how they'd do in an actual NY6 type of game. But anyway, good luck to them against Iowa State.

Wilner's analysis is also unfair to coaches like Jonathan Smith at Oregon State, and other coaches like Edwards, Sumlin and Kelly, who were in the first year of their new job.

I just don't think pay per win is a helpful or meaningful stat.

Cool so by that logic, his Stanford wins should be worth more too.  He is underpaid indeed.