[BostonCard]

Barring a total fourth quarter meltdown, Alabama will be the national champion this year.  I don't think I've ever seen a wider gap between the best team and the country and everyone else.

BC

[BostonCard]

Barring a total fourth quarter meltdown, Alabama will be the national champion this year.  I don't think I've ever seen a wider gap between the best team and the country and everyone else.

BC

[JJJ]

All the comments are already surfacing about Ohio State really being ranked 11th after all.

[JJJ]

All the comments are already surfacing about Ohio State really being ranked 11th after all.

[cardcrimson]

Okay, the masses here are correct. There's nothing our coaching staff could learn from a program that has won 6 of the last 13 national championships. Nothing that they could learn from a complete makeover on offense that took them from Greg McElroy to Mac Jones. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Okay, the masses here are correct. There's nothing our coaching staff could learn from a program that has won 6 of the last 13 national championships. Nothing that they could learn from a complete makeover on offense that took them from Greg McElroy to Mac Jones. . . .

[Snorlax94]

I thought the Clemson blowout two years ago was more one-sided. I don’t think that will ever be topped.

Plus every aspect of this year has an asterisk next to it due to the pandemic.

[Snorlax94]

I thought the Clemson blowout two years ago was more one-sided. I don’t think that will ever be topped.

Plus every aspect of this year has an asterisk next to it due to the pandemic.

[lex24]

Hiseman, Dave Jones, Dock Walker and Rimington all went to Bama.  And the Hiseman to the second best receiver on the team.

According to one NFL draft guru they will have 6 picked in first round.

I’d be wary of Matt Jones in round 1. It’s what I call the Leinhart Rule . Jones does not have a great arm. Is not a particularly accomplished runner. It’s hard to gauge how accurate he is. Cause he seldom has to throw in a tight window. And he is seldom under pressure. He was something like 25-30 for 345 yards in the first half. And I can’t recall a tough throw. His supporting cast is so good that it’s very tough to determine how good he is. He’s not a guy whose skills jump off the page. So how will he do when he’s not surrounded by talent that is vastly superior to the poor schmucks that have to defend them.

Id pass on him unless he is around in the mid to late second.

[lex24]

Hiseman, Dave Jones, Dock Walker and Rimington all went to Bama.  And the Hiseman to the second best receiver on the team.

According to one NFL draft guru they will have 6 picked in first round.

I’d be wary of Matt Jones in round 1. It’s what I call the Leinhart Rule . Jones does not have a great arm. Is not a particularly accomplished runner. It’s hard to gauge how accurate he is. Cause he seldom has to throw in a tight window. And he is seldom under pressure. He was something like 25-30 for 345 yards in the first half. And I can’t recall a tough throw. His supporting cast is so good that it’s very tough to determine how good he is. He’s not a guy whose skills jump off the page. So how will he do when he’s not surrounded by talent that is vastly superior to the poor schmucks that have to defend them.

Id pass on him unless he is around in the mid to late second.

[cardcrimson]

Hiseman, Dave Jones, Dock Walker and Rimington all went to Bama.  And the Hiseman to the second best receiver on the team.

According to one NFL draft guru they will have 6 picked in first round. 

I’d be wary of Matt Jones in round 1.  It’s what I call the  Leinhart Rule .  Jones does not have a great arm. Is not a particularly accomplished runner. It’s hard to gauge how accurate he is. Cause he seldom has to throw in a tight window.  And he is seldom under pressure. He was something like 25-30 for 345 yards in the first half.  And I can’t recall a tough throw.  His supporting cast is so good that it’s very tough to determine how good he is.  He’s not a guy whose skills jump off the page.  So how will he do when he’s not surrounded by talent that is vastly superior to the poor schmucks that have to defend them. 

Id pass on him unless he is around in the mid to late second.

Same recruiting class as Davis Mills. Mills was higher, Jones was an also ran. Jones rarely misses and sees the field really well. Hate to see it happen, but he'd be a perfect fit for a Belichick offense. Like the kid. A lot.

[cardcrimson]

Hiseman, Dave Jones, Dock Walker and Rimington all went to Bama.  And the Hiseman to the second best receiver on the team.

According to one NFL draft guru they will have 6 picked in first round. 

I’d be wary of Matt Jones in round 1.  It’s what I call the  Leinhart Rule .  Jones does not have a great arm. Is not a particularly accomplished runner. It’s hard to gauge how accurate he is. Cause he seldom has to throw in a tight window.  And he is seldom under pressure. He was something like 25-30 for 345 yards in the first half.  And I can’t recall a tough throw.  His supporting cast is so good that it’s very tough to determine how good he is.  He’s not a guy whose skills jump off the page.  So how will he do when he’s not surrounded by talent that is vastly superior to the poor schmucks that have to defend them. 

Id pass on him unless he is around in the mid to late second.

Same recruiting class as Davis Mills. Mills was higher, Jones was an also ran. Jones rarely misses and sees the field really well. Hate to see it happen, but he'd be a perfect fit for a Belichick offense. Like the kid. A lot.

[BostonCard]

I thought the Clemson blowout two years ago was more one-sided. I don’t think that will ever be topped.

Plus every aspect of this year has an asterisk next to it due to the pandemic.

I was there, and it was a definite blowout, but I don’t think the gap in talent, coaching, etc. was as big.

BC

[BostonCard]

I thought the Clemson blowout two years ago was more one-sided. I don’t think that will ever be topped.

Plus every aspect of this year has an asterisk next to it due to the pandemic.

I was there, and it was a definite blowout, but I don’t think the gap in talent, coaching, etc. was as big.

BC

[Farm93]

I thought the Clemson blowout two years ago was more one-sided. I don’t think that will ever be topped.

Plus every aspect of this year has an asterisk next to it due to the pandemic.

I was there, and it was a definite blowout, but I don’t think the gap in talent, coaching, etc. was as big.

BC

tOSU had some significant COVID-19 protocol issues, but that would have been a complete blowout even if tOSU was at full strength.

FWIW - I don't understand the focus on the QB in this thread.   Bama wins that game with any number of QBs taking the snap.   They had better RBs, WRs, OL, DL, LB, and DBs.   To think that the result happened because of the QB or the play calling really misses how Bama won that game and has won over the last decade.

Bama wins by going around the massive SEC footprint picking the best players by offering the best chance at SEC & CFP championships and a proven model for getting starters picked in the first round of the NFL draft.  There is a lot to their pitch, but the OC philosophy or the current QB's are strength are not important to the program's pitch.   It is not a recruiting model Stanford will not be able to replicate because Stanford can only begin to pursue good players that are very good HS students too.   I think Stanford offers much more for its recruits, but it is not an opportunity available to all of the nation's best recruits.

Notre Dame's rise is more relevant, worrisome and perhaps frustrating.

IMHO Bama can do what Bama does. There is not much in that model that Stanford can take as it is a rare day when Stanford can enjoy that type of talent superiority against a top 5 team.

[Farm93]

I thought the Clemson blowout two years ago was more one-sided. I don’t think that will ever be topped.

Plus every aspect of this year has an asterisk next to it due to the pandemic.

I was there, and it was a definite blowout, but I don’t think the gap in talent, coaching, etc. was as big.

BC

tOSU had some significant COVID-19 protocol issues, but that would have been a complete blowout even if tOSU was at full strength.

FWIW - I don't understand the focus on the QB in this thread.   Bama wins that game with any number of QBs taking the snap.   They had better RBs, WRs, OL, DL, LB, and DBs.   To think that the result happened because of the QB or the play calling really misses how Bama won that game and has won over the last decade.

Bama wins by going around the massive SEC footprint picking the best players by offering the best chance at SEC & CFP championships and a proven model for getting starters picked in the first round of the NFL draft.  There is a lot to their pitch, but the OC philosophy or the current QB's are strength are not important to the program's pitch.   It is not a recruiting model Stanford will not be able to replicate because Stanford can only begin to pursue good players that are very good HS students too.   I think Stanford offers much more for its recruits, but it is not an opportunity available to all of the nation's best recruits.

Notre Dame's rise is more relevant, worrisome and perhaps frustrating.

IMHO Bama can do what Bama does. There is not much in that model that Stanford can take as it is a rare day when Stanford can enjoy that type of talent superiority against a top 5 team.

[gailtate]

I thought the Clemson blowout two years ago was more one-sided. I don’t think that will ever be topped.

Plus every aspect of this year has an asterisk next to it due to the pandemic.

I was there, and it was a definite blowout, but I don’t think the gap in talent, coaching, etc. was as big.

BC

tOSU had some significant COVID-19 protocol issues, but that would have been a complete blowout even if tOSU was at full strength.

FWIW - I don't understand the focus on the QB in this thread.   Bama wins that game with any number of QBs taking the snap.   They had better RBs, WRs, OL, DL, LB, and DBs.   To think that the result happened because of the QB or the play calling really misses how Bama won that game and has won over the last decade.

Bama wins by going around the massive SEC footprint picking the best players by offering the best chance at SEC & CFP championships and a proven model for getting starters picked in the first round of the NFL draft.  There is a lot to their pitch, but the OC philosophy or the current QB's are strength are not important to the program's pitch.   It is not a recruiting model Stanford will not be able to replicate because Stanford can only begin to pursue good players that are very good HS students too.   I think Stanford offers much more for its recruits, but it is not an opportunity available to all of the nation's best recruits.

Notre Dame's rise is more relevant, worrisome and perhaps frustrating.

IMHO Bama can do what Bama does. There is not much in that model that Stanford can take as it is a rare day when Stanford can enjoy that type of talent superiority against a top 5 team.

"Notre Dame's rise is more relevant, worrisome and perhaps frustrating." 
Brian Kelly went 4-8 in 2016. He made a few changes. He's 43-8 since then. Shaw went 4-8 in 2019...

[gailtate]

I thought the Clemson blowout two years ago was more one-sided. I don’t think that will ever be topped.

Plus every aspect of this year has an asterisk next to it due to the pandemic.

I was there, and it was a definite blowout, but I don’t think the gap in talent, coaching, etc. was as big.

BC

tOSU had some significant COVID-19 protocol issues, but that would have been a complete blowout even if tOSU was at full strength.

FWIW - I don't understand the focus on the QB in this thread.   Bama wins that game with any number of QBs taking the snap.   They had better RBs, WRs, OL, DL, LB, and DBs.   To think that the result happened because of the QB or the play calling really misses how Bama won that game and has won over the last decade.

Bama wins by going around the massive SEC footprint picking the best players by offering the best chance at SEC & CFP championships and a proven model for getting starters picked in the first round of the NFL draft.  There is a lot to their pitch, but the OC philosophy or the current QB's are strength are not important to the program's pitch.   It is not a recruiting model Stanford will not be able to replicate because Stanford can only begin to pursue good players that are very good HS students too.   I think Stanford offers much more for its recruits, but it is not an opportunity available to all of the nation's best recruits.

Notre Dame's rise is more relevant, worrisome and perhaps frustrating.

IMHO Bama can do what Bama does. There is not much in that model that Stanford can take as it is a rare day when Stanford can enjoy that type of talent superiority against a top 5 team.

"Notre Dame's rise is more relevant, worrisome and perhaps frustrating." 
Brian Kelly went 4-8 in 2016. He made a few changes. He's 43-8 since then. Shaw went 4-8 in 2019...

[BostonCard]

"Notre Dame's rise is more relevant, worrisome and perhaps frustrating." 
Brian Kelly went 4-8 in 2016. He made a few changes. He's 43-8 since then. Shaw went 4-8 in 2019...

Texas went 5-7 in 2016.  It fired Charlie Strong after that year.  They have gone 32-18 since and just fired Charlie Strong.
Nebraska went 4-8 in 2017.  It fired Mike Riley.  They have gone 12-20 since then.
Florida State went 7-6 in 2017.  It fired Jimbo Fisher mid-year.  They have since gone 14-20.
In fact, the list of teams that seemingly underachieved and "made changes" but did no better after "making changes" is much longer than the list of teams that "made changes" and went to the college football playoffs.

Frustrating as the fact that we went 4-8 in 2019 is, "making a few changes" is no panacea.  In fact, I don't think there is any evidence that coaching changes (head coach or coordinators) result in anything more than reversion to the mean (on average).  Since coaching changes tend to happen after a disappointing season, reversion to the mean implies that there likely will be some improvement, but I don't think there is any evidence that there is any more improvement than there would have been had the team not "made a few changes".  But, of course, since the universe of teams that "make a few changes" after a disappointing season is large, some of them will certainly have much larger than average improvements (just as some will have have worse than average improvements).  These teams then get held as evidence that "making changes" makes a difference.

Look, after going 4-8 in 2019, Shaw didn't "make a few changes".  Lo and behold, we went 4-2 in 2020!  Obviously, it must have been because he didn't "make a few changes".  Or, maybe there was some reversion to the mean, and changes or not, we likely would have had an improvement over a disappointing year.

BC

[BostonCard]

"Notre Dame's rise is more relevant, worrisome and perhaps frustrating." 
Brian Kelly went 4-8 in 2016. He made a few changes. He's 43-8 since then. Shaw went 4-8 in 2019...

Texas went 5-7 in 2016.  It fired Charlie Strong after that year.  They have gone 32-18 since and just fired Charlie Strong.
Nebraska went 4-8 in 2017.  It fired Mike Riley.  They have gone 12-20 since then.
Florida State went 7-6 in 2017.  It fired Jimbo Fisher mid-year.  They have since gone 14-20.
In fact, the list of teams that seemingly underachieved and "made changes" but did no better after "making changes" is much longer than the list of teams that "made changes" and went to the college football playoffs.

Frustrating as the fact that we went 4-8 in 2019 is, "making a few changes" is no panacea.  In fact, I don't think there is any evidence that coaching changes (head coach or coordinators) result in anything more than reversion to the mean (on average).  Since coaching changes tend to happen after a disappointing season, reversion to the mean implies that there likely will be some improvement, but I don't think there is any evidence that there is any more improvement than there would have been had the team not "made a few changes".  But, of course, since the universe of teams that "make a few changes" after a disappointing season is large, some of them will certainly have much larger than average improvements (just as some will have have worse than average improvements).  These teams then get held as evidence that "making changes" makes a difference.

Look, after going 4-8 in 2019, Shaw didn't "make a few changes".  Lo and behold, we went 4-2 in 2020!  Obviously, it must have been because he didn't "make a few changes".  Or, maybe there was some reversion to the mean, and changes or not, we likely would have had an improvement over a disappointing year.

BC

[Phogge]

Stanford might have gone 5-1 if Mills had played against Oregon. Also an outside chance for 6-0 but I think the Ducks still would have won. Stanford could also have gone 1-5 with Washington the lone win. Probably the biggest accomplishments were competing during a crazy season with many frontline injuries and giving playing time to many and finding gems in guys like Schaffer, Damuni and Tremayne. I hope the big Austrian comes back and I applaud the early admission news. For better or worse Shaw is here to stay so I say Gung Ho to the future.

BTW, screw Notre Dame.

[Phogge]

Stanford might have gone 5-1 if Mills had played against Oregon. Also an outside chance for 6-0 but I think the Ducks still would have won. Stanford could also have gone 1-5 with Washington the lone win. Probably the biggest accomplishments were competing during a crazy season with many frontline injuries and giving playing time to many and finding gems in guys like Schaffer, Damuni and Tremayne. I hope the big Austrian comes back and I applaud the early admission news. For better or worse Shaw is here to stay so I say Gung Ho to the future.

BTW, screw Notre Dame.

[lex24]

Hiseman, Dave Jones, Dock Walker and Rimington all went to Bama.  And the Hiseman to the second best receiver on the team.

According to one NFL draft guru they will have 6 picked in first round. 

I’d be wary of Matt Jones in round 1.  It’s what I call the  Leinhart Rule .  Jones does not have a great arm. Is not a particularly accomplished runner. It’s hard to gauge how accurate he is. Cause he seldom has to throw in a tight window.  And he is seldom under pressure. He was something like 25-30 for 345 yards in the first half.  And I can’t recall a tough throw.  His supporting cast is so good that it’s very tough to determine how good he is.  He’s not a guy whose skills jump off the page.  So how will he do when he’s not surrounded by talent that is vastly superior to the poor schmucks that have to defend them. 

Id pass on him unless he is around in the mid to late second.

Same recruiting class as Davis Mills. Mills was higher, Jones was an also ran. Jones rarely misses and sees the field really well. Hate to see it happen, but he'd be a perfect fit for a Belichick offense. Like the kid. A lot.

But for health issue, Mills is better.

[lex24]

Hiseman, Dave Jones, Dock Walker and Rimington all went to Bama.  And the Hiseman to the second best receiver on the team.

According to one NFL draft guru they will have 6 picked in first round. 

I’d be wary of Matt Jones in round 1.  It’s what I call the  Leinhart Rule .  Jones does not have a great arm. Is not a particularly accomplished runner. It’s hard to gauge how accurate he is. Cause he seldom has to throw in a tight window.  And he is seldom under pressure. He was something like 25-30 for 345 yards in the first half.  And I can’t recall a tough throw.  His supporting cast is so good that it’s very tough to determine how good he is.  He’s not a guy whose skills jump off the page.  So how will he do when he’s not surrounded by talent that is vastly superior to the poor schmucks that have to defend them. 

Id pass on him unless he is around in the mid to late second.

Same recruiting class as Davis Mills. Mills was higher, Jones was an also ran. Jones rarely misses and sees the field really well. Hate to see it happen, but he'd be a perfect fit for a Belichick offense. Like the kid. A lot.

But for health issue, Mills is better.

[BostonCard]

Stanford might have gone 5-1 if Mills had played against Oregon. Also an outside chance for 6-0 but I think the Ducks still would have won. Stanford could also have gone 1-5 with Washington the lone win. Probably the biggest accomplishments were competing during a crazy season with many frontline injuries and giving playing time to many and finding gems in guys like Schaffer, Damuni and Tremayne. I hope the big Austrian comes back and I applaud the early admission news. For better or worse Shaw is here to stay so I say Gung Ho to the future.

BTW, screw Notre Dame.

Alas, the Austrian is not coming back.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/THschaffer/status/1349058509703245824[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

Stanford might have gone 5-1 if Mills had played against Oregon. Also an outside chance for 6-0 but I think the Ducks still would have won. Stanford could also have gone 1-5 with Washington the lone win. Probably the biggest accomplishments were competing during a crazy season with many frontline injuries and giving playing time to many and finding gems in guys like Schaffer, Damuni and Tremayne. I hope the big Austrian comes back and I applaud the early admission news. For better or worse Shaw is here to stay so I say Gung Ho to the future.

BTW, screw Notre Dame.

Alas, the Austrian is not coming back.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/THschaffer/status/1349058509703245824[/tweet]

[AlbanyCardinal]

I know I'm in the minority (given that this is a Stanford sports site!), but I'd applaud Stanford for taking the lead and shuttering its FB program. Mainly b/c of what we know about head trauma, but there are other compelling reasons. I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. I don't blame Stanford for playing this money game -- in fact, I once applauded it for joining the fray in the late 2000s -- but I'd just as soon my university were no longer part of it. I say this as someone who grew up tailgating in the grove and then waiting for autographs by the likes of Darrin Nelson and John Elway after every home game.

Regardless of whether you agree with my sentiment, how much longer do you think college football has?

[AlbanyCardinal]

I know I'm in the minority (given that this is a Stanford sports site!), but I'd applaud Stanford for taking the lead and shuttering its FB program. Mainly b/c of what we know about head trauma, but there are other compelling reasons. I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. I don't blame Stanford for playing this money game -- in fact, I once applauded it for joining the fray in the late 2000s -- but I'd just as soon my university were no longer part of it. I say this as someone who grew up tailgating in the grove and then waiting for autographs by the likes of Darrin Nelson and John Elway after every home game.

Regardless of whether you agree with my sentiment, how much longer do you think college football has?

[JustAnotherFan]

All the comments are already surfacing about Ohio State really being ranked 11th after all.

Well that's not really fair. Then again, if Ohio State is #11 I guess that Clemson is #12.

---

I know I'm in the minority (given that this is a Stanford sports site!), but I'd applaud Stanford for taking the lead and shuttering its FB program. Mainly b/c of what we know about head trauma, but there are other compelling reasons. I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. I don't blame Stanford for playing this money game -- in fact, I once applauded it for joining the fray in the late 2000s -- but I'd just as soon my university were no longer part of it. I say this as someone who grew up tailgating in the grove and then waiting for autographs by the likes of Darrin Nelson and John Elway after every home game.

Regardless of whether you agree with my sentiment, how much longer do you think college football has?

If there is one thing that we have learned in the past year it is that if there is money to be made at the expense of lives that we can justify the lives. I give college football another 20 years.

[JustAnotherFan]

All the comments are already surfacing about Ohio State really being ranked 11th after all.

Well that's not really fair. Then again, if Ohio State is #11 I guess that Clemson is #12.

---

I know I'm in the minority (given that this is a Stanford sports site!), but I'd applaud Stanford for taking the lead and shuttering its FB program. Mainly b/c of what we know about head trauma, but there are other compelling reasons. I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. I don't blame Stanford for playing this money game -- in fact, I once applauded it for joining the fray in the late 2000s -- but I'd just as soon my university were no longer part of it. I say this as someone who grew up tailgating in the grove and then waiting for autographs by the likes of Darrin Nelson and John Elway after every home game.

Regardless of whether you agree with my sentiment, how much longer do you think college football has?

If there is one thing that we have learned in the past year it is that if there is money to be made at the expense of lives that we can justify the lives. I give college football another 20 years.

[CTcard]

 I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. 

That's not quite true, though the sentiment may be.

Depending on just how one counts, there are something like 2000 to 5000 universities in America. There are only a few outside of the 127 FBS schools where the football coach is the highest paid employee, and only another handful where the basketball coach is. Of course those 127 schools make up a good sized fraction of the more prominent universities in the country.

The problem is worse than that though. USA Today publishes an annual list of athletic department finances for public universities with Division 1 athletics. Of the 227 universities listed for 2018-19, all but about 20 of them lose $1,000,000 or more on their athletic programs - going up to $48.4 million for Univ. Houston (and that is almost certainly an underestimate). And then Covid hit. That's a pretty big pill to swallow when academic programs are being cut and staff/professors laid off across the country.

[CTcard]

 I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. 

That's not quite true, though the sentiment may be.

Depending on just how one counts, there are something like 2000 to 5000 universities in America. There are only a few outside of the 127 FBS schools where the football coach is the highest paid employee, and only another handful where the basketball coach is. Of course those 127 schools make up a good sized fraction of the more prominent universities in the country.

The problem is worse than that though. USA Today publishes an annual list of athletic department finances for public universities with Division 1 athletics. Of the 227 universities listed for 2018-19, all but about 20 of them lose $1,000,000 or more on their athletic programs - going up to $48.4 million for Univ. Houston (and that is almost certainly an underestimate). And then Covid hit. That's a pretty big pill to swallow when academic programs are being cut and staff/professors laid off across the country.

[Phogge]

As long as there are states below the Mason Dixon Line and around the Great Lakes there will be college football.

[Phogge]

As long as there are states below the Mason Dixon Line and around the Great Lakes there will be college football.

[JustAnotherFan]

 I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. 

That's not quite true, though the sentiment may be.

Depending on just how one counts, there are something like 2000 to 5000 universities in America. There are only a few outside of the 127 FBS schools where the football coach is the highest paid employee, and only another handful where the basketball coach is. Of course those 127 schools make up a good sized fraction of the more prominent universities in the country.

The problem is worse than that though. USA Today publishes an annual list of athletic department finances for public universities with Division 1 athletics. Of the 227 universities listed for 2018-19, all but about 20 of them lose $1,000,000 or more on their athletic programs - going up to $48.4 million for Univ. Houston (and that is almost certainly an underestimate). And then Covid hit. That's a pretty big pill to swallow when academic programs are being cut and staff/professors laid off across the country.

It would be more accurate to say "the highest-paid public university employees in just about every American state are football (and sometimes bball) coaches." 

[JustAnotherFan]

 I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. 

That's not quite true, though the sentiment may be.

Depending on just how one counts, there are something like 2000 to 5000 universities in America. There are only a few outside of the 127 FBS schools where the football coach is the highest paid employee, and only another handful where the basketball coach is. Of course those 127 schools make up a good sized fraction of the more prominent universities in the country.

The problem is worse than that though. USA Today publishes an annual list of athletic department finances for public universities with Division 1 athletics. Of the 227 universities listed for 2018-19, all but about 20 of them lose $1,000,000 or more on their athletic programs - going up to $48.4 million for Univ. Houston (and that is almost certainly an underestimate). And then Covid hit. That's a pretty big pill to swallow when academic programs are being cut and staff/professors laid off across the country.

It would be more accurate to say "the highest-paid public university employees in just about every American state are football (and sometimes bball) coaches." 

[JJJ]

All the comments are already surfacing about Ohio State really being ranked 11th after all.

Well that's not really fair. Then again, if Ohio State is #11 I guess that Clemson is #12.

Clemson being #12 or worse was a point also made by many in the peanut gallery. (I have no horse in this race.)

[JJJ]

All the comments are already surfacing about Ohio State really being ranked 11th after all.

Well that's not really fair. Then again, if Ohio State is #11 I guess that Clemson is #12.

Clemson being #12 or worse was a point also made by many in the peanut gallery. (I have no horse in this race.)

[CTcard]

It would be more accurate to say "the highest-paid public university employees in just about every American state are football (and sometimes bball) coaches." 

Or "highest paid state employee in most states".

Though in a couple like Vermont I think its a medical school professor.
As far as I know its never the governor.

[CTcard]

It would be more accurate to say "the highest-paid public university employees in just about every American state are football (and sometimes bball) coaches." 

Or "highest paid state employee in most states".

Though in a couple like Vermont I think its a medical school professor.
As far as I know its never the governor.