Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford's 990 for 2019 (/thread-22134.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford's 990 for 2019 (/thread-22134.html)
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - McKenwood - 08-05-2021
(08-05-2021, 10:28 AM)BillBradley Wrote: I think there's far more to this than any of us really know. I would venture a guess that risk management is a big factor in his comp. In other sports, unethical behavior, cheating, etc. will slightly dent the Stanford reputation. Muir won't lose his job if the fencing coach does something stupid. If the Stanford head football coach does something stupid, it puts the university alongside the USC's of the world. What's the cost of tarnishing the Stanford reputation? Likely many times $8M. Shaw is a perfect fit. He's won 70+% of his games, is well spoken, professional, politically correct, and squeaky clean. Muir and his higher-ups can sleep well at night knowing Shaw is at the helm. They will pay dearly to keep him. I agree - from the fan/alum point of view it's egregious, but from the administration point of view it's probably money well spent.
Good point about the risk management. Part of this may be Muir is terrified of having to replace Shaw with someone who checks the boxes you mention. Shaw certainly has not developed an obvious successor. Muir may feel it is better to overpay than have to find Shaw's replacement. MBB, another high profile sport, has been tough for Muir to figure out even though he is supposed to be a basketball guy. Football may even be more daunting to him.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 08-05-2021
(08-05-2021, 10:07 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(08-05-2021, 09:59 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Or, you know, he could have used the money to plug the massive budget deficit that prompted him to try to cut 11 sports.
I've agreed with those who have said that Muir should be replaced. The failure to responsibly conserve resources by keeping salary expenses of the head football coach to a reasonable level are yet another indicator of this.
BC
I'm pretty certain the decision to cut 11 sports was made higher up the chain than Muir (and had way less to do with the budget than claimed), but he still handled the situation poorly.
That's fair; I agree that the budget was a fig leaf. That being said, Muir is running a budget deficit, and it was the stated reason for the cuts, and it is exacerbated by a hefty contract. So, not a good look.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - teejers1 - 08-05-2021
(08-05-2021, 10:38 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(08-05-2021, 10:28 AM)BillBradley Wrote: I think there's far more to this than any of us really know. I would venture a guess that risk management is a big factor in his comp. In other sports, unethical behavior, cheating, etc. will slightly dent the Stanford reputation. Muir won't lose his job if the fencing coach does something stupid. If the Stanford head football coach does something stupid, it puts the university alongside the USC's of the world. What's the cost of tarnishing the Stanford reputation? Likely many times $8M. Shaw is a perfect fit. He's won 70+% of his games, is well spoken, professional, politically correct, and squeaky clean. Muir and his higher-ups can sleep well at night knowing Shaw is at the helm. They will pay dearly to keep him. I agree - from the fan/alum point of view it's egregious, but from the administration point of view it's probably money well spent.
Good point about the risk management. Part of this may be Muir is terrified of having to replace Shaw with someone who checks the boxes you mention. Shaw certainly has not developed an obvious successor. Muir may feel it is better to overpay than have to find Shaw's replacement. MBB, another high profile sport, has been tough for Muir to figure out even though he is supposed to be a basketball guy. Football may even be more daunting to him.
The Shawpologists and Rationalizers have reached new highs (I'd say lows) in this thread.
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SHAW MAKING $9M/year. PERIOD. Even taking away the $2.2M in "one-time payment," he is vastly and grossly overpaid. And the "pay because we need a good image coach?" Risk management? Are you serious? Did Stanford suffer at all from such considerations in a coaching hire? Wlat? He came on tail of Buddy - back to back disastrous football hires. The "damage" done was on the gridiron, not on "risk management" or image. Harbaugh? Dude was a walking character/risk management problem. And all he did was raise a program from the dead. Denny Green? He had his own problems and the team and program was just fine. Good god, quit rationalizing this outrage.
Think about this "need a good rep/squeaky clean coach argument." It amounts to REWARDING a coach for only recruiting "Stanford self-selectors" (they're smart, driven, never get into trouble). And for not doing anything illegal (as if in this NIL world anything will be found illegal). And don't worry about on-field and in-stands results.
Oh . . .that's SO valuable. Let's throw $9M at someone to be a lazy-ass recruiter, a "don't run afoul of NCAA rules by doing something 'out there'" (whatever that means in this day and age), and then use that laziness as the basis for paying him so much.
Good grief . . .
BTW, Phogge is right. Nothing here matters. This is so distasteful that it might actually make me stop showing up on The Farm on Saturdays (and if I didn't organize our tailgating group - a rather large one in CTG - then I'd make that principled stand). This is so . . . dirty. And an unmitigated disaster from an optics standpoint, given all that has gone on in the AD lately.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - McKenwood - 08-05-2021
Not sure why you choose these posts to go off again. I agree with your point of view of the amount of compensation relative to the production is completely offbase. Just trying to posit what would cause a group of people to egregiously overpay a coach. Risk mitigation is as good a reason as any for a flawed decision.
I too am a tailgater in CTG (right near you) and this concerns me espcially since the AD development people are after me to make my non-deductible donation for my seats. I am having difficulty reconciling my donations to a poorly managed enterprise.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - slide - 08-05-2021
a few notes.
I am not sure Stanford's chief PR flack is too worried about the Shaw salary after he took home $1.8M last year.
Gus -- may be our top-paid assistant coach gets to the 5 to 7% of Shaw's total comp.
the Shaw salary makes his take on players rights and player compensation pretty interesting and more self-serving.
lastly there are a lot of clean football head coaches out there and far cheaper than $2.1M per win over the past couple years.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - teejers1 - 08-05-2021
(08-05-2021, 11:25 AM)McKenwood Wrote: Not sure why you choose these posts to go off again. I agree with your point of view of the amount of compensation relative to the production is completely offbase. Just trying to posit what would cause a group of people to egregiously overpay a coach. Risk mitigation is as good a reason as any for a flawed decision.
I too am a tailgater in CTG (right near you) and this concerns me espcially since the AD development people are after me to make my non-deductible donation for my seats. I am having difficulty reconciling my donations to a poorly managed enterprise.
I apologize.
I am lashing out.
As noted on the other site, this is the one time I can remember being truly disgusted with the Stanford Athletic Department (and football program) - and I'm letting that get the better of me.
I'll now go back to not caring . . . it's easier on the BP (and the dog . . . just kidding!).
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - 82lsju - 08-05-2021
(08-05-2021, 10:35 AM)Farm93 Wrote: FWIW - As we don't have access to his contract imagine for a moment there was/is a performance metric. Should Coach Shaw win a Rose Bowl his compensation for the next several years will be in line with the other coaches have won one or more BCS bowls. Most of the coaches that have won one or more BCS/NY6 bowls in the last several years are all now making $5 million or more per year which is right in line with Coach Shaw's salary.
College Football Coach Salaries
well Shaw did get $1.425m in bonus and incentives in addition to his base pay for the year.....
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - gailtate - 08-06-2021
(08-05-2021, 11:15 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-05-2021, 10:38 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(08-05-2021, 10:28 AM)BillBradley Wrote: I think there's far more to this than any of us really know. I would venture a guess that risk management is a big factor in his comp. In other sports, unethical behavior, cheating, etc. will slightly dent the Stanford reputation. Muir won't lose his job if the fencing coach does something stupid. If the Stanford head football coach does something stupid, it puts the university alongside the USC's of the world. What's the cost of tarnishing the Stanford reputation? Likely many times $8M. Shaw is a perfect fit. He's won 70+% of his games, is well spoken, professional, politically correct, and squeaky clean. Muir and his higher-ups can sleep well at night knowing Shaw is at the helm. They will pay dearly to keep him. I agree - from the fan/alum point of view it's egregious, but from the administration point of view it's probably money well spent.
Good point about the risk management. Part of this may be Muir is terrified of having to replace Shaw with someone who checks the boxes you mention. Shaw certainly has not developed an obvious successor. Muir may feel it is better to overpay than have to find Shaw's replacement. MBB, another high profile sport, has been tough for Muir to figure out even though he is supposed to be a basketball guy. Football may even be more daunting to him.
The Shawpologists and Rationalizers have reached new highs (I'd say lows) in this thread.
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SHAW MAKING $9M/year. PERIOD. Even taking away the $2.2M in "one-time payment," he is vastly and grossly overpaid. And the "pay because we need a good image coach?" Risk management? Are you serious? Did Stanford suffer at all from such considerations in a coaching hire? Wlat? He came on tail of Buddy - back to back disastrous football hires. The "damage" done was on the gridiron, not on "risk management" or image. Harbaugh? Dude was a walking character/risk management problem. And all he did was raise a program from the dead. Denny Green? He had his own problems and the team and program was just fine. Good god, quit rationalizing this outrage.
Think about this "need a good rep/squeaky clean coach argument." It amounts to REWARDING a coach for only recruiting "Stanford self-selectors" (they're smart, driven, never get into trouble). And for not doing anything illegal (as if in this NIL world anything will be found illegal). And don't worry about on-field and in-stands results.
Oh . . .that's SO valuable. Let's throw $9M at someone to be a lazy-ass recruiter, a "don't run afoul of NCAA rules by doing something 'out there'" (whatever that means in this day and age), and then use that laziness as the basis for paying him so much.
Good grief . . .
BTW, Phogge is right. Nothing here matters. This is so distasteful that it might actually make me stop showing up on The Farm on Saturdays (and if I didn't organize our tailgating group - a rather large one in CTG - then I'd make that principled stand). This is so . . . dirty. And an unmitigated disaster from an optics standpoint, given all that has gone on in the AD lately.
Hear ya loud 'n' clear, bucko! After 48 seasons of season tix and 40 years of hosting friends (and moochers) at The Grove, wife and I decided to break camp. We burned out. Football is, simply, no longer the compelling entity it once was for us for a lot of reasons of reasons, all of which have been discussed and lamented on this board. At our home, the "tailgate" lives on and the bar is well stocked. Nice pool, too. Best of all, no screaming sideline barker -- and no moochers. The chandelier is comfortably retired in our garage. There is life beyond Sam McDonald Road.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - martyup - 08-06-2021
I guess I'm in the minority here because hearing of Shaw's high salary makes me proud of him. He's an African-American Stanford alum and former Stanford football player that has achieved success well above society's perceived expectations. He has also led our football team to some of our most exciting and most successful seasons ever, and is the winningest coach in Stanford history. Also, his salary is an indication against the notion that racism prevents black coaches from receiving commensurate compensation to white coaches. AFAIK he didn't hold a gun to Stanford's head and demand the money. I presume it was fairly negotiated, which by definition makes his salary the fair market value for his services.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BobK - 08-06-2021
PLUS 1,000 Marty
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Phogge - 08-06-2021
OK Marty and Bobbb. When does the contract expire?
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - DC 86 - 08-06-2021
(08-06-2021, 11:02 AM)martyup Wrote: I presume it was fairly negotiated, which by definition makes his salary the fair market value for his services.
It's well established that Shaw is highly regarded by NFL teams and particularly during the Rose Bowl years he was frequently cited as being a prime candidate for openings in the league if he was interested. I assume that this leverage (and effective representation by Octagon) is the basis for his compensation, not pure generosity on the part of the University.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - SamuelMcF - 08-06-2021
(08-06-2021, 11:36 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:02 AM)martyup Wrote: I presume it was fairly negotiated, which by definition makes his salary the fair market value for his services.
It's well established that Shaw is highly regarded by NFL teams and particularly during the Rose Bowl years he was frequently cited as being a prime candidate for openings in the league if he was interested. I assume that this leverage (and effective representation by Octagon) is the basis for his compensation, not pure generosity on the part of the University.
It's also well established that Shaw had ZERO interest in the NFL, EVER (and as such was not actually "leverage"), and that high regard is waning.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - DC 86 - 08-06-2021
(08-06-2021, 11:38 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:36 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:02 AM)martyup Wrote: I presume it was fairly negotiated, which by definition makes his salary the fair market value for his services.
It's well established that Shaw is highly regarded by NFL teams and particularly during the Rose Bowl years he was frequently cited as being a prime candidate for openings in the league if he was interested. I assume that this leverage (and effective representation by Octagon) is the basis for his compensation, not pure generosity on the part of the University.
It's also well established that Shaw had ZERO interest in the NFL, EVER (and as such was not actually "leverage"), and that high regard is waning.
1) Regardless of his true level of interest, it was significant leverage, and his lack of interest obviously was tied to being well compensated at Stanford. It's easy to turn down NFL overtures if you're confident about your current/future compensation at Stanford, we don't know what his level of interest would have been if Stanford drew a hard line.
2) Fully agree that his stock is now down, but what's relevant is what the situation was at the time of the extensions.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Goose - 08-06-2021
Nobody has responded to my request for any information about the terms of the endowed chair that Shaw occupies. It may well be that there is no down side to paying him that money if the endowment income is only available to pay the occupant of the chair. In fact, it may be required for all I know. The mysterious one time payment could be asset sale proceeds. I don't think "they" would let Muir spend that much money unless it couldn't go elsewhere.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - winflop - 08-06-2021
Take the $2.2M and set it aside. That still leaves $6.7M. I don't blame Shaw for taking the money. I doubt any of us would turn it down. But I do blame Muir for paying him that much.
Yet ANOTHER reason to send Muir packing...unfortunately one of many.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Goose - 08-06-2021
(08-06-2021, 12:34 PM)winflop Wrote: Take the $2.2M and set it aside. That still leaves $6.7M. I don't blame Shaw for taking the money. I doubt any of us would turn it down. But I do blame Muir for paying him that much.
Yet ANOTHER reason to send Muir packing...unfortunately one of many.
Again, if the endowment generates the 6.7million on a recurring basis, maybe Muir has no choice.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - teejers1 - 08-06-2021
(08-06-2021, 12:36 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-06-2021, 12:34 PM)winflop Wrote: Take the $2.2M and set it aside. That still leaves $6.7M. I don't blame Shaw for taking the money. I doubt any of us would turn it down. But I do blame Muir for paying him that much.
Yet ANOTHER reason to send Muir packing...unfortunately one of many.
Again, if the endowment generates the 6.7million on a recurring basis, maybe Muir has no choice.
1. Do you really believe this is a possibility? It seems nonsensical to me - that an endowment would fund that way. Plus, if that were the case, don't you think Stanford or Muir would make that public to offset the hue and cry generated when the 990 news broke? It's shameful for Stanford to pay its head football - black or white or yellow or green - that much money, particularly if you look at the squander factor (which was fully apparent to anyone paying attention).
2. I am not "proud" of Stanford paying that much; nor am I "proud" that Shaw has fleeced the university that has been incredibly generous to him - seriously, who else would have hired the guy as a head coach? - for that kind of bank. He's now in my mind just another money-grubbing coach looking out for #1. I long ago gave up on viewing Shaw as some great football mind - but I always thought he was a good man, good rep of the university, good role model, etc. Now, even that I question. Dude signs a contract; conspires with the AD to keep it secret; more than that, gets testy and "high and mighty" when the topic is even broached; then when mando 990 reporting comes out it makes more sense why he was and is so defensive; and then, when asked about NIL and compensating athletes, Shaw rhetorically asks if that is really what the NCAA wants to be about (or words to that effect). Hell, I agree with him on athlete comp front being bad for college athletics. But it's precisely because of the outrageous salaries that coaches make that all the pundits clamor about athletes being exploited. Thus, he loses me on the optics/tone deafness of his position.
3. "Hot NFL Commodity" is once again dredged up. Pure speculation. This is all we know for certain - Shaw was never offered a job. Did he even interview for one? If so, I didn't see any reports of that. You may say "well, because he was happy at Stanford." Exactly. As well he should have been (and be): it is the cushiest job in football. No administrative oversight; no fan pressure; just count your money. And do you think Shaw will ever be asked about his comp/contract in a presser (in other words, in this market/environment, will he ever have to face the music about fleecing the university)? And against this backdrop we have an AD just bidding against himself and signing ridiculous contracts.
P.S. Hey Martyup and Bob, wouldn't you be just as "proud" of Stanford and Coach Shaw if he were making "merely" $4M/year? Or is that insufficient recognition of his success as a coach? And does that level of compensation show that Stanford University is racist when it comes to comp for the head football coach. Good effing grief!
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - 82lsju - 08-06-2021
well Shaw certainly did better in 2019 than the previous two years....
year base pay bonus and Incentives other (appears to be housing allowance) retirement & deferred comp non-tax benefits total comp
2019 $6.8m $1.4m $0.5m $0.2m $0.04m $8.9m
2018 $3.3m $0.6m $0.6m $0.3m $0.04m $4.8m
2017 $3.2m $0.6m $0.4m $0.4m $0.04m $4.6m
in each year his comp included $0.2m-$0.4m that had been deferred comp from previous years
in 2019 we went 4-8 so the bonus & incentives seems generous, but I do not know what they were for, but it seems not W-L record
even if you back out $2.2m in base pay in 2019 he still got a 40% base pay raise in 2019 ($3.3m to $4.6m), and while we were 9-4 in 2018 that seems like a big raise
I'm also skeptical that the endowment payout for his position (if it all needed to be paid out to him) more than doubled from 2018 to 2019, and if it does all have to be paid out what happens when the endowment has a bad year, would he get paid less?
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Goose - 08-06-2021
(08-06-2021, 01:07 PM)teejers1 Wrote: 1. Do you really believe this is a possibility? It seems nonsensical to me - that an endowment would fund that way. Plus, if that were the case, don't you think Stanford or Muir would make that public to offset the hue and cry generated when the 990 news broke?Why is it nonsensical? People who have seen how Stanford often redirects contributions to the University in (very) unanticipated manners may chose to guard against that by specifying exactly how and when the money made on the endowment above and beyond the amount required to overcome inflation must be spent. You want to fund the head coach (not new TV screens for Muir to watch) so you just say all "excess" proceeds must be spent on his salary. It may be the management of the fund has done real well in the last few years and there is lots of money to spend, maybe more than anybody predicted when the chair was endowed. As for why Stanford/Muir aren't saying how the endowed chair plays into the funding, maybe the terms of the endowment forbid it, or maybe they don't want to make public the fact that it is actually outside of their control.
I am not saying this is the case, but it certainly could be. Since I don't know (and apparently nobody in this boards seems to know) just how much money and under what terms the endowed chair operates, I can't evaluate how much of Shaw's salary is actually Department of Athletics money and how much is from the endowed chair. If the numbers are zero and all respectively, I am not "outraged". If the opposite is the case (probably impossible, the endowed chair must pay something) I certainly would be "outraged". Somewhere in between is the threshold of "outrage". But since I don't know this information, I am merely bemused.