[JJJ]

Sorry if already posted elsewhere.

Washington
Coach: Chris Petersen
2018 pay: $4,377,500
2018 pay per win: $437,750
School 3-year outlay: 12,110,847
School 3-year outlay per victory: $378,463
Stanford
Coach: David Shaw
2018 pay: $4,311,543
2018 pay per win: $538,942
School 3-year outlay: $14,059,203
School 3-year outlay per victory: $520,711
Utah
Coach: Kyle Whittingham
2018 pay: $3,787,917
2018 pay per win: $420,879
School 3-year outlay: $11,125,834
School 3-year outlay per victory: $445,033
Washington State
Coach: Mike Leach
2018 pay: $3,500,000
2018 pay per win: $350,000
School 3-year outlay: $6,757,500
School 3-year outlay per victory: $250,277
UCLA
Coach: Chip Kelly
2018 pay: $3,300,000
2018 pay per win: $1,100,000
School 3-year outlay: $10,300,000
School 3-year outlay per victory: $792,307
Colorado
Coach: Mike MacIntyre (dismissed)
2018 pay: $2,878,500
2018 pay per win: $575,700
School 3-year outlay: $7,724,950
School 3-year outlay per victory: $386,247
USC
Coach: Clay Helton
2018 pay: $2,625,965
2018 pay per win: $525,193
School 3-year outlay: N/A
School 3-year outlay per victory: N/A
Cal
Coach: Justin Wilcox
2018 pay: $2,600,000
2018 pay per win: $371,428
School 3-year outlay: $7,108,000
School 3-year outlay per victory: $418,117
Oregon
Coach: Mario Cristobal
2018 pay: $2,500,000
2018 pay per win: $312,500
School 3-year outlay: $8,712,700
School 3-year outlay per victory: $458,563
Arizona
Coach: Kevin Sumlin
2018 pay: $2,000,000
2018 pay per win: $400,000
School 3-year outlay: $10,891,563
School 3-year outlay per victory: $726,104
Arizona State
Coach: Herm Edwards
2018 pay: $2,00,000
2018 pay per win: $285,714
School 3-year outlay: $8,312,217
School 3-year outlay per victory: $437,485
Oregon State
Coach: Jonathan Smith
2018 pay: $1,900,008
2018 pay per win: $950,004
School 3-year outlay: $7,100,008
School 3-year outlay per victory: $1,014,286

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/17/h...e-islands/

[JJJ]

Sorry if already posted elsewhere.

Washington
Coach: Chris Petersen
2018 pay: $4,377,500
2018 pay per win: $437,750
School 3-year outlay: 12,110,847
School 3-year outlay per victory: $378,463
Stanford
Coach: David Shaw
2018 pay: $4,311,543
2018 pay per win: $538,942
School 3-year outlay: $14,059,203
School 3-year outlay per victory: $520,711
Utah
Coach: Kyle Whittingham
2018 pay: $3,787,917
2018 pay per win: $420,879
School 3-year outlay: $11,125,834
School 3-year outlay per victory: $445,033
Washington State
Coach: Mike Leach
2018 pay: $3,500,000
2018 pay per win: $350,000
School 3-year outlay: $6,757,500
School 3-year outlay per victory: $250,277
UCLA
Coach: Chip Kelly
2018 pay: $3,300,000
2018 pay per win: $1,100,000
School 3-year outlay: $10,300,000
School 3-year outlay per victory: $792,307
Colorado
Coach: Mike MacIntyre (dismissed)
2018 pay: $2,878,500
2018 pay per win: $575,700
School 3-year outlay: $7,724,950
School 3-year outlay per victory: $386,247
USC
Coach: Clay Helton
2018 pay: $2,625,965
2018 pay per win: $525,193
School 3-year outlay: N/A
School 3-year outlay per victory: N/A
Cal
Coach: Justin Wilcox
2018 pay: $2,600,000
2018 pay per win: $371,428
School 3-year outlay: $7,108,000
School 3-year outlay per victory: $418,117
Oregon
Coach: Mario Cristobal
2018 pay: $2,500,000
2018 pay per win: $312,500
School 3-year outlay: $8,712,700
School 3-year outlay per victory: $458,563
Arizona
Coach: Kevin Sumlin
2018 pay: $2,000,000
2018 pay per win: $400,000
School 3-year outlay: $10,891,563
School 3-year outlay per victory: $726,104
Arizona State
Coach: Herm Edwards
2018 pay: $2,00,000
2018 pay per win: $285,714
School 3-year outlay: $8,312,217
School 3-year outlay per victory: $437,485
Oregon State
Coach: Jonathan Smith
2018 pay: $1,900,008
2018 pay per win: $950,004
School 3-year outlay: $7,100,008
School 3-year outlay per victory: $1,014,286

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/17/h...e-islands/

[Snorlax94]

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.

[Snorlax94]

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.

[Nan3cy]

What was the number in Wlat's second year?

[Nan3cy]

What was the number in Wlat's second year?

[BostonCard]

What was the number in Wlat's second year?

Better than Willingham's 2008 number at UW.

BC

---

I don't have a problem with the metric, but shouldn't the three-year outlay also include buy-outs?

BC

[BostonCard]

What was the number in Wlat's second year?

Better than Willingham's 2008 number at UW.

BC

---

I don't have a problem with the metric, but shouldn't the three-year outlay also include buy-outs?

BC

[CTcard]

I don't have a problem with the metric, but shouldn't the three-year outlay also include buy-outs?

Assuming that is correct, and the actual numbers are correct, there are a few interesting bits. 

Shaw made less in the most recent year (not 2018) than the average the two previous. 
$4.3 million versus avg of $4.9 million. 
incentives? 

Particularly given that the Stanford numbers are reportedly two years older than everyone else's, it appears Shaw is the highest paid coach in the conference. 

Leach got a big raise for 2018
2018 = $3.5 million. Previous 2 year avg = $1.63 million. 

Kelly is making a little less than Mora was. 
$3.3 million versus $3.5 million.

Riich Rodriguez was making a lot more than Sumlin
Sumlin $2.0 million. Rodriguez two previous years avg $4.45 million

[CTcard]

I don't have a problem with the metric, but shouldn't the three-year outlay also include buy-outs?

Assuming that is correct, and the actual numbers are correct, there are a few interesting bits. 

Shaw made less in the most recent year (not 2018) than the average the two previous. 
$4.3 million versus avg of $4.9 million. 
incentives? 

Particularly given that the Stanford numbers are reportedly two years older than everyone else's, it appears Shaw is the highest paid coach in the conference. 

Leach got a big raise for 2018
2018 = $3.5 million. Previous 2 year avg = $1.63 million. 

Kelly is making a little less than Mora was. 
$3.3 million versus $3.5 million.

Riich Rodriguez was making a lot more than Sumlin
Sumlin $2.0 million. Rodriguez two previous years avg $4.45 million

[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.

[82lsju]

I don't have a problem with the metric, but shouldn't the three-year outlay also include buy-outs?

Assuming that is correct, and the actual numbers are correct, there are a few interesting bits. 

Shaw made less in the most recent year (not 2018) than the average the two previous. 
$4.3 million versus avg of $4.9 million. 
incentives? 

Kelly is making a little less than Mora was. 
$3.3 million versus $3.5 million.

you can look up Shaw's comp details on Stanford form 990, the last three filings are here

https://bondholder-information.stanford....index.html

in the year ended 8/31/16 Shaw had "other compensation" of $1.75m which was about $1.7m more than in both the year ended 8/31/17 and the year ended 8/31/15

from the 8/31/2016 filing

 THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM THEIR DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNT DURING CALENDAR YEAR 2015: ......DAVID SHAW - $1,691,529.....

=> of that $1.7m, $1.35m had been reported as deferred comp in previous years

his comp on the 990s

8/31/17 - $4.3m
8/31/16 - $5.7m
8/31/15 - $4.1m

Don't feel sorry for Kelly, he's still getting paid by the 49ers too so the amount Kelly gets in the early years of the UCLA contract looks like it will be gated by his old 49ers deal sicne I doubt UCLA would pay him as much per year as the 49ers did

The 49ers owe Kelly approximately $15 million, sources told ESPN's Darren Rovell, and his salary at UCLA will offset that and reduce what the 49ers owe him.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...chose-ucla 

[82lsju]

I don't have a problem with the metric, but shouldn't the three-year outlay also include buy-outs?

Assuming that is correct, and the actual numbers are correct, there are a few interesting bits. 

Shaw made less in the most recent year (not 2018) than the average the two previous. 
$4.3 million versus avg of $4.9 million. 
incentives? 

Kelly is making a little less than Mora was. 
$3.3 million versus $3.5 million.

you can look up Shaw's comp details on Stanford form 990, the last three filings are here

https://bondholder-information.stanford....index.html

in the year ended 8/31/16 Shaw had "other compensation" of $1.75m which was about $1.7m more than in both the year ended 8/31/17 and the year ended 8/31/15

from the 8/31/2016 filing

 THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM THEIR DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNT DURING CALENDAR YEAR 2015: ......DAVID SHAW - $1,691,529.....

=> of that $1.7m, $1.35m had been reported as deferred comp in previous years

his comp on the 990s

8/31/17 - $4.3m
8/31/16 - $5.7m
8/31/15 - $4.1m

Don't feel sorry for Kelly, he's still getting paid by the 49ers too so the amount Kelly gets in the early years of the UCLA contract looks like it will be gated by his old 49ers deal sicne I doubt UCLA would pay him as much per year as the 49ers did

The 49ers owe Kelly approximately $15 million, sources told ESPN's Darren Rovell, and his salary at UCLA will offset that and reduce what the 49ers owe him.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...chose-ucla