10-14-2021, 03:12 PM
[color=var(--link-hover)]https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach[/color]
Thats a lot of coin for Mr Shaw. We need some W's plz
Thats a lot of coin for Mr Shaw. We need some W's plz
[merged] David Shaw’s pay
[color=var(--link-hover)]https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach[/color]
Thats a lot of coin for Mr Shaw. We need some W's plz
Thats a lot of coin for Mr Shaw. We need some W's plz
10-14-2021, 03:53 PM
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
10-14-2021, 04:41 PM
(10-14-2021, 03:12 PM)Stanfordindians1again Wrote: [color=var(--link-hover)]https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach[/color]
Thats a lot of coin for Mr Shaw. We need some W's plz
I didn't delete your post; I just merged it into a previous post that addressed the same topic.
BC
(10-14-2021, 03:12 PM)Stanfordindians1again Wrote: [color=var(--link-hover)]https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach[/color]
Thats a lot of coin for Mr Shaw. We need some W's plz
I didn't delete your post; I just merged it into a previous post that addressed the same topic.
BC
10-17-2021, 05:56 AM
David Shaw is third on the list making $8.92 million. He is making more than Dabo Swinney and Lincoln Riley.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach
David Shaw is third on the list making $8.92 million. He is making more than Dabo Swinney and Lincoln Riley.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach
10-17-2021, 06:01 AM
(10-17-2021, 05:56 AM)Stanfan1 Wrote: David Shaw is third on the list making $8.92 million. He is making more than Dabo Swinney and Lincoln Riley.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach
Yep, we are all painfully aware of this, as it has been posted and referred to several times already.
Also, if you think we aren't currently getting our money's worth, you won't get much dispute on this board.
(10-17-2021, 05:56 AM)Stanfan1 Wrote: David Shaw is third on the list making $8.92 million. He is making more than Dabo Swinney and Lincoln Riley.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/coach
Yep, we are all painfully aware of this, as it has been posted and referred to several times already.
Also, if you think we aren't currently getting our money's worth, you won't get much dispute on this board.
10-17-2021, 08:13 AM
Harbs originally signed up for $8M+ in annual compensation with Michigan, but took a pay cut after the 2020 season. I wonder if Shaw would do that to free up some money for some blue-chip coordinators.
Harbs originally signed up for $8M+ in annual compensation with Michigan, but took a pay cut after the 2020 season. I wonder if Shaw would do that to free up some money for some blue-chip coordinators.
10-17-2021, 08:38 AM
(10-17-2021, 08:13 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Harbs originally signed up for $8M+ in annual compensation with Michigan, but took a pay cut after the 2020 season. I wonder if Shaw would do that to free up some money for some blue-chip coordinators.
1. About a third of the $9M was deferred compensation, so the real number is closer to $6M
2. Even $6M is too much for the results over the last few seasons
3. Even if there were more money for coordinators, does anyone believe he would go out and hire them? He seems to be very comfortable with his current coaching staff
4. If more money were going to be spent on his staff, S&C/training would have to be the top priority. Too many injuries and too soft in the trenches
(10-17-2021, 08:13 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Harbs originally signed up for $8M+ in annual compensation with Michigan, but took a pay cut after the 2020 season. I wonder if Shaw would do that to free up some money for some blue-chip coordinators.
1. About a third of the $9M was deferred compensation, so the real number is closer to $6M
2. Even $6M is too much for the results over the last few seasons
3. Even if there were more money for coordinators, does anyone believe he would go out and hire them? He seems to be very comfortable with his current coaching staff
4. If more money were going to be spent on his staff, S&C/training would have to be the top priority. Too many injuries and too soft in the trenches
10-17-2021, 08:46 AM
(10-17-2021, 08:38 AM)winflop Wrote:(10-17-2021, 08:13 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Harbs originally signed up for $8M+ in annual compensation with Michigan, but took a pay cut after the 2020 season. I wonder if Shaw would do that to free up some money for some blue-chip coordinators.
1. About a third of the $9M was deferred compensation, so the real number is closer to $6M
2. Even $6M is too much for the results over the last few seasons
3. Even if there were more money for coordinators, does anyone believe he would go out and hire them? He seems to be very comfortable with his current coaching staff
4. If more money were going to be spent on his staff, S&C/training would have to be the top priority. Too many injuries and too soft in the trenches
The comment on Shaw was rather tongue-in-cheek. And, no, I don't think Shaw would go out and hire new coordinators, unless of course Muir put some pressure on him to do so. But I also don't think that is going to happen. His complacency with his current staff is, in my view, a major problem. Agree on the priority for S&C/Training: lack of toughness and resilience across the board.
(10-17-2021, 08:38 AM)winflop Wrote:(10-17-2021, 08:13 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Harbs originally signed up for $8M+ in annual compensation with Michigan, but took a pay cut after the 2020 season. I wonder if Shaw would do that to free up some money for some blue-chip coordinators.
1. About a third of the $9M was deferred compensation, so the real number is closer to $6M
2. Even $6M is too much for the results over the last few seasons
3. Even if there were more money for coordinators, does anyone believe he would go out and hire them? He seems to be very comfortable with his current coaching staff
4. If more money were going to be spent on his staff, S&C/training would have to be the top priority. Too many injuries and too soft in the trenches
The comment on Shaw was rather tongue-in-cheek. And, no, I don't think Shaw would go out and hire new coordinators, unless of course Muir put some pressure on him to do so. But I also don't think that is going to happen. His complacency with his current staff is, in my view, a major problem. Agree on the priority for S&C/Training: lack of toughness and resilience across the board.
10-17-2021, 08:55 AM
Is there any particular reason that people are feeling the need to post this as a new thread each time? I think this is the fourth or fifth thread about David Shaw’s salary.
BC
BC
Is there any particular reason that people are feeling the need to post this as a new thread each time? I think this is the fourth or fifth thread about David Shaw’s salary.
BC
BC
10-17-2021, 09:45 AM
Well BC, you have a coach making millions and a crappy team. If this were a Valley corporation heading into the lower depths because the CEO wouldn't accept that change was needed how long would he stay running it?
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
Well BC, you have a coach making millions and a crappy team. If this were a Valley corporation heading into the lower depths because the CEO wouldn't accept that change was needed how long would he stay running it?
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
10-17-2021, 12:41 PM
(10-17-2021, 09:45 AM)Phogge Wrote: Well BC, you have a coach making millions and a crappy team. If this were a Valley corporation heading into the lower depths because the CEO wouldn't accept that change was needed how long would he stay running it?
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
based on what I saw at HP longer than they should have....but the board was mostly "her people" so not in a hurry to act....
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(10-17-2021, 09:45 AM)Phogge Wrote: Well BC, you have a coach making millions and a crappy team. If this were a Valley corporation heading into the lower depths because the CEO wouldn't accept that change was needed how long would he stay running it?
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
based on what I saw at HP longer than they should have....but the board was mostly "her people" so not in a hurry to act....
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
10-17-2021, 01:05 PM
(10-17-2021, 12:41 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-17-2021, 09:45 AM)Phogge Wrote: Well BC, you have a coach making millions and a crappy team. If this were a Valley corporation heading into the lower depths because the CEO wouldn't accept that change was needed how long would he stay running it?
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
based on what I saw at HP longer than they should have....but the board was mostly "her people" so not in a hurry to act....
Fiorina or Whitman ?
(10-17-2021, 12:41 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-17-2021, 09:45 AM)Phogge Wrote: Well BC, you have a coach making millions and a crappy team. If this were a Valley corporation heading into the lower depths because the CEO wouldn't accept that change was needed how long would he stay running it?
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
based on what I saw at HP longer than they should have....but the board was mostly "her people" so not in a hurry to act....
Fiorina or Whitman ?
10-17-2021, 01:19 PM
Actually, arguably CEO’s get to stay on longer than they should. How many CEO’s were fired as a result of the financial crisis? Hell, these days they are more likely to get a “retention bonus” while their company reorganizes in chapter 11 bankruptcy.
BC
BC
Actually, arguably CEO’s get to stay on longer than they should. How many CEO’s were fired as a result of the financial crisis? Hell, these days they are more likely to get a “retention bonus” while their company reorganizes in chapter 11 bankruptcy.
BC
BC
10-17-2021, 01:37 PM
(10-17-2021, 01:05 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote:(10-17-2021, 12:41 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-17-2021, 09:45 AM)Phogge Wrote: Well BC, you have a coach making millions and a crappy team. If this were a Valley corporation heading into the lower depths because the CEO wouldn't accept that change was needed how long would he stay running it?
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
based on what I saw at HP longer than they should have....but the board was mostly "her people" so not in a hurry to act....
Fiorina or Whitman ?
Fiorina, I was gone before Whitman arrived
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(10-17-2021, 01:05 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote:(10-17-2021, 12:41 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-17-2021, 09:45 AM)Phogge Wrote: Well BC, you have a coach making millions and a crappy team. If this were a Valley corporation heading into the lower depths because the CEO wouldn't accept that change was needed how long would he stay running it?
Are there problems with having many threads? I don't believe in ultra clean desks or garages. let 'em post.
based on what I saw at HP longer than they should have....but the board was mostly "her people" so not in a hurry to act....
Fiorina or Whitman ?
Fiorina, I was gone before Whitman arrived
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
10-17-2021, 02:19 PM
CEOs of large companies and head coaches of college football teams are worlds apart. Totally different skill sets required. In most large companies, a CEO can do basically nothing for years and get away with it. The top management layers are irrelevant in day to day operations. Their responsibilities are mostly to keep stockholders convinced the company is doing great and to hopefully keep any bad publicity from popping up. CEOs who make big strategic moves are pretty rare, and from what I have seen wrong at least as often as they are correct. Once you have made an obscene pile of money, who cares if the board finally fires you? You are set for life. Why take a risk?
Football coaches OTOH are at most two direct reports from the lowest level, the players. Every year, you have 25% turnover (about), like it or not. You can't fire any of your lowest level "employees". You can't cut their pay. There is no such thing as long term planning. You can't put aside wins from one year to use next year if things don't go well. Every week you win or lose based on how a bunch of kids respond to some instructions that may or may not be correct in the first place. Probably that is why coaches have such erratic records. Jack Elway for instance was great at SJSU and not so great at Stanford. Did he suddenly become an idiot? Willingham was good enough at Stanford to get the Domer job and then the UW job, but was horrible at both. The list goes on. Was Harbaugh a genius at Stanford or was he lucky? I think probably both. As we have seen, he can't replicate that success on demand.
People want to believe there is a Santa Claus and that the results of a "good" coach always differ from the results of a "bad" coach. Unfortunately the standard deviation is so large that the results often don't mirror what may be true. In this case, good and bad are definitely vector quantities that work differently in different times and different places.
Football coaches OTOH are at most two direct reports from the lowest level, the players. Every year, you have 25% turnover (about), like it or not. You can't fire any of your lowest level "employees". You can't cut their pay. There is no such thing as long term planning. You can't put aside wins from one year to use next year if things don't go well. Every week you win or lose based on how a bunch of kids respond to some instructions that may or may not be correct in the first place. Probably that is why coaches have such erratic records. Jack Elway for instance was great at SJSU and not so great at Stanford. Did he suddenly become an idiot? Willingham was good enough at Stanford to get the Domer job and then the UW job, but was horrible at both. The list goes on. Was Harbaugh a genius at Stanford or was he lucky? I think probably both. As we have seen, he can't replicate that success on demand.
People want to believe there is a Santa Claus and that the results of a "good" coach always differ from the results of a "bad" coach. Unfortunately the standard deviation is so large that the results often don't mirror what may be true. In this case, good and bad are definitely vector quantities that work differently in different times and different places.
CEOs of large companies and head coaches of college football teams are worlds apart. Totally different skill sets required. In most large companies, a CEO can do basically nothing for years and get away with it. The top management layers are irrelevant in day to day operations. Their responsibilities are mostly to keep stockholders convinced the company is doing great and to hopefully keep any bad publicity from popping up. CEOs who make big strategic moves are pretty rare, and from what I have seen wrong at least as often as they are correct. Once you have made an obscene pile of money, who cares if the board finally fires you? You are set for life. Why take a risk?
Football coaches OTOH are at most two direct reports from the lowest level, the players. Every year, you have 25% turnover (about), like it or not. You can't fire any of your lowest level "employees". You can't cut their pay. There is no such thing as long term planning. You can't put aside wins from one year to use next year if things don't go well. Every week you win or lose based on how a bunch of kids respond to some instructions that may or may not be correct in the first place. Probably that is why coaches have such erratic records. Jack Elway for instance was great at SJSU and not so great at Stanford. Did he suddenly become an idiot? Willingham was good enough at Stanford to get the Domer job and then the UW job, but was horrible at both. The list goes on. Was Harbaugh a genius at Stanford or was he lucky? I think probably both. As we have seen, he can't replicate that success on demand.
People want to believe there is a Santa Claus and that the results of a "good" coach always differ from the results of a "bad" coach. Unfortunately the standard deviation is so large that the results often don't mirror what may be true. In this case, good and bad are definitely vector quantities that work differently in different times and different places.
Football coaches OTOH are at most two direct reports from the lowest level, the players. Every year, you have 25% turnover (about), like it or not. You can't fire any of your lowest level "employees". You can't cut their pay. There is no such thing as long term planning. You can't put aside wins from one year to use next year if things don't go well. Every week you win or lose based on how a bunch of kids respond to some instructions that may or may not be correct in the first place. Probably that is why coaches have such erratic records. Jack Elway for instance was great at SJSU and not so great at Stanford. Did he suddenly become an idiot? Willingham was good enough at Stanford to get the Domer job and then the UW job, but was horrible at both. The list goes on. Was Harbaugh a genius at Stanford or was he lucky? I think probably both. As we have seen, he can't replicate that success on demand.
People want to believe there is a Santa Claus and that the results of a "good" coach always differ from the results of a "bad" coach. Unfortunately the standard deviation is so large that the results often don't mirror what may be true. In this case, good and bad are definitely vector quantities that work differently in different times and different places.
10-17-2021, 09:05 PM
I want to know though,for those who think Shaw is overpaid. Who is an equivalent coach that would actually take the job for $6M? No chance Urban Meyer or some one of his stature would come to this difficult recruiting environment with fairweather fans both in and out of the stadium.
I want to know though,for those who think Shaw is overpaid. Who is an equivalent coach that would actually take the job for $6M? No chance Urban Meyer or some one of his stature would come to this difficult recruiting environment with fairweather fans both in and out of the stadium.
10-17-2021, 09:34 PM
I’m interested in the SC search.
I have a hypothesis that no current head coach in the Big10, SEC, ACC or Big12 will take a Pac job.
The Pac has missed the CFP for too long for there not to be major repercussions.
I have a hypothesis that no current head coach in the Big10, SEC, ACC or Big12 will take a Pac job.
The Pac has missed the CFP for too long for there not to be major repercussions.
10-17-2021, 10:41 PM
(10-17-2021, 02:19 PM)Goose Wrote: Was Harbaugh a genius at Stanford or was he lucky? I think probably both. As we have seen, he can't replicate that success on demand.
This is the second time I've seen this sentiment posted here (maybe you did it both times).
Regardless, hasn't Harbaugh been wildly successful at all his head coaching stops? (Along with being wildly a pain in the ass?).
(10-17-2021, 02:19 PM)Goose Wrote: Was Harbaugh a genius at Stanford or was he lucky? I think probably both. As we have seen, he can't replicate that success on demand.
This is the second time I've seen this sentiment posted here (maybe you did it both times).
Regardless, hasn't Harbaugh been wildly successful at all his head coaching stops? (Along with being wildly a pain in the ass?).
10-18-2021, 01:47 AM
(10-17-2021, 10:41 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-17-2021, 02:19 PM)Goose Wrote: Was Harbaugh a genius at Stanford or was he lucky? I think probably both. As we have seen, he can't replicate that success on demand.
This is the second time I've seen this sentiment posted here (maybe you did it both times).
Regardless, hasn't Harbaugh been wildly successful at all his head coaching stops? (Along with being wildly a pain in the ass?).
Harbaugh has never had a losing season at Michigan (other than the pandemic-shortened aberration of 2020, when the Wolverines finished 2-4). His win percentage, at 71%, exceeds Shaw's win percentage at Stanford (70%), and all this in arguably a tougher conference. Harbaugh's main failing, so far, has been his inability to win a BIG championship and his 0-5 record against Ohio State. His 1-4 record in bowl games is also a blemish.
Frankly, I think Harbaugh's skill-set was a better fit to 2007 Stanford than 2015 Michigan. He inherited a moribund program on the Farm, brought in some excellent coaches and squeezed every ounce of potential out of the existing players, while at the same time furiously recruiting excellent future players. This sense of urgency is what I miss in the current regime. Michigan's program was underperforming, but was not nearly as broken as Stanford's in 2007. Brady Hoke had gone 11-2, 8-5, 7-6 and 5-7 before getting the ax. Further, Michigan is a football blue-blood. Harbaugh knew that, since he played there. So Harbaugh's EUTM-style was bound to be less effective than at a program where winning was less consistent and the "champion mindset" less prevalent. In my view, Harbaugh's success at Stanford was a combination of his being the right man at the right time and, yes, a bit of good fortune, because a number of traditionally-strong programs in the Pac-10 were down (UW and UCLA), and USC was entering a period of turbulence that ultimately got them slapped with sanctions. The flagship program in the conference was Oregon, and they ensured that Harbaugh failed to win the Pac-10 in his best and final season (2010).
And, yes, Harbaugh is famously rough around the edges. That personality trait got him canned at the 49ers and has rubbed many players, colleagues, staff members and fans the wrong way. But his results, so far, are undeniably excellent.
(10-17-2021, 10:41 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-17-2021, 02:19 PM)Goose Wrote: Was Harbaugh a genius at Stanford or was he lucky? I think probably both. As we have seen, he can't replicate that success on demand.
This is the second time I've seen this sentiment posted here (maybe you did it both times).
Regardless, hasn't Harbaugh been wildly successful at all his head coaching stops? (Along with being wildly a pain in the ass?).
Harbaugh has never had a losing season at Michigan (other than the pandemic-shortened aberration of 2020, when the Wolverines finished 2-4). His win percentage, at 71%, exceeds Shaw's win percentage at Stanford (70%), and all this in arguably a tougher conference. Harbaugh's main failing, so far, has been his inability to win a BIG championship and his 0-5 record against Ohio State. His 1-4 record in bowl games is also a blemish.
Frankly, I think Harbaugh's skill-set was a better fit to 2007 Stanford than 2015 Michigan. He inherited a moribund program on the Farm, brought in some excellent coaches and squeezed every ounce of potential out of the existing players, while at the same time furiously recruiting excellent future players. This sense of urgency is what I miss in the current regime. Michigan's program was underperforming, but was not nearly as broken as Stanford's in 2007. Brady Hoke had gone 11-2, 8-5, 7-6 and 5-7 before getting the ax. Further, Michigan is a football blue-blood. Harbaugh knew that, since he played there. So Harbaugh's EUTM-style was bound to be less effective than at a program where winning was less consistent and the "champion mindset" less prevalent. In my view, Harbaugh's success at Stanford was a combination of his being the right man at the right time and, yes, a bit of good fortune, because a number of traditionally-strong programs in the Pac-10 were down (UW and UCLA), and USC was entering a period of turbulence that ultimately got them slapped with sanctions. The flagship program in the conference was Oregon, and they ensured that Harbaugh failed to win the Pac-10 in his best and final season (2010).
And, yes, Harbaugh is famously rough around the edges. That personality trait got him canned at the 49ers and has rubbed many players, colleagues, staff members and fans the wrong way. But his results, so far, are undeniably excellent.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »