[BostonCard]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

https://coloradobuffaloeswire.usatoday.c...21-season/

The cheapest coach in the PAC-12 right now is Jonathan Smith, good for $2.4 million a year.  The median was about $3.5 million.  I agree with you that a $2 million/year head coach is not in the offing, but there is real resistance to hiring a coach who will show up on the form 990, which was $2.5 million two years ago.  If the football coach were just outside the top 5 salaries for the University, the actual amount would be private, and everyone would at least not have to think about it.

As for his spot in the PAC-12,  Shaw leads the list, at a reported $9 million, but as you point out, that includes about $2.5 million in deferred compensation; his salary is close to $6 million, which would still be tops in the conference, at least until next  when he will probably be third.

BC

[BostonCard]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

https://coloradobuffaloeswire.usatoday.c...21-season/

The cheapest coach in the PAC-12 right now is Jonathan Smith, good for $2.4 million a year.  The median was about $3.5 million.  I agree with you that a $2 million/year head coach is not in the offing, but there is real resistance to hiring a coach who will show up on the form 990, which was $2.5 million two years ago.  If the football coach were just outside the top 5 salaries for the University, the actual amount would be private, and everyone would at least not have to think about it.

As for his spot in the PAC-12,  Shaw leads the list, at a reported $9 million, but as you point out, that includes about $2.5 million in deferred compensation; his salary is close to $6 million, which would still be tops in the conference, at least until next  when he will probably be third.

BC