PonyFans.com

Alabama is apparently close to inking a contract with WVUs Rich Rodiriguez...Bama is willing to pay WVU $2 Million to take R.Rod and then pay Rich over $2 million a year for six years plus incentives...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2690016


Sources told ESPN's Joe Schad that Alabama extended a six-year, $12 million offer to Rodriguez, and Alabama would also pay West Virginia a $2 million buyout. The proposed deal would make Rodriguez among the top 10 highest-paid college coaches in the nation, doubling his current salary.

I guess this is a good choice for a couple of reasons:

1) Pat White and Steve Slaton are a rare combo, and after they're gone, I don't care how well you recruit, you will never have that speed in the offense. If Pat White played like crap, Slaton stepped up, and vice versa. With them gone, the program at WVU declines a bit.

2) Alabama may be a high pressure job, but damn thats a lot of cash for a head coach....in COLLEGE FOOTBALL. What idiot wouldn't take it? I like the spread offense, and I would be interested to see if he could implement that into the 'Bama O somehow. It will be hard with JP Wilson starting though.

If SMU had that kind of money, we'd buy the best coach out there.

ponyfan84 wrote:I guess this is a good choice for a couple of reasons:

1) Pat White and Steve Slaton are a rare combo, and after they're gone, I don't care how well you recruit, you will never have that speed in the offense. If Pat White played like crap, Slaton stepped up, and vice versa. With them gone, the program at WVU declines a bit.

I guess you didnt see pat whites back up play the other night.... i was a lot more impressed by him, fast AND he could throw

Very True, his back up played great. Slaton will be there for another year and Pat for 2 more years.

Why leave your alma mater...especially when you told your guys that you werent going anywhere because WVU was the place for you.

J.T.supporta wrote:Very True, his back up played great. Slaton will be there for another year and Pat for 2 more years.

Why leave your alma mater...especially when you told your guys that you werent going anywhere because WVU was the place for you.

theres no loyalty in sports, look at fran

Yes, Fran is the prime example...he wanted to win now and go bowling but he didnt want to wait a year or two because of the mess at bama...

"Money makes the world go round"

The original question was whether a college coach is worth $2M. Answer: Of course not. The NCAA has lost control of football (i.e. BCS) and it is run by networks and BCS conferences.

Non-revenue sports and revenue sports coaches have similar objectives: mentor, coach, lead and graduate student-athletes. And WIN games, matches, meets, etc. as a Top 25 Program.

I don't think you can or should equate the responsibilities and expectations of revenue and non-revenue coaches, but why shouldn't it be a bit rational.

The 'have's' VS the 'have not's' only make it worse. A career in coaching should start with leading men and women in competitive pursuits, which provide life lessons.

Don't know how to moderate it, but when $2M is the entry fee for a single coach, the exception quickly becomes the rule.

Signed,

The Naive One

Water Pony wrote:The original question was whether a college coach is worth $2M. Answer: Of course not. The NCAA has lost control of football (i.e. BCS) and it is run by networks and BCS conferences.

Non-revenue sports and revenue sports coaches have similar objectives: mentor, coach, lead and graduate student-athletes. And WIN games, matches, meets, etc. as a Top 25 Program.

I don't think you can or should equate the responsibilities and expectations of revenue and non-revenue coaches, but why shouldn't it be a bit rational.

The 'have's' VS the 'have not's' only make it worse. A career in coaching should start with leading men and women in competitive pursuits, which provide life lessons.

Don't know how to moderate it, but when $2M is the entry fee for a single coach, the exception quickly becomes the rule.

Signed,

The Naive One

college sports is a business... it's not your sons pop warner team... im sure the suits put together a reasonable cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not it was worth it... a part of college sports is about life lessons, but for others it is their lively hood, and thus should be compensated accordingly to how they perform at their job... these are football coaches not youth ministers.

Water Pony wrote:The original question was whether a college coach is worth $2M. Answer: Of course not. The NCAA has lost control of football (i.e. BCS) and it is run by networks and BCS conferences.

Non-revenue sports and revenue sports coaches have similar objectives: mentor, coach, lead and graduate student-athletes. And WIN games, matches, meets, etc. as a Top 25 Program.

I don't think you can or should equate the responsibilities and expectations of revenue and non-revenue coaches, but why shouldn't it be a bit rational.

The 'have's' VS the 'have not's' only make it worse. A career in coaching should start with leading men and women in competitive pursuits, which provide life lessons.

Don't know how to moderate it, but when $2M is the entry fee for a single coach, the exception quickly becomes the rule.

Signed,

The Naive One

Yup, you got my vote

expony18 wrote:

Water Pony wrote:The original question was whether a college coach is worth $2M. Answer: Of course not. The NCAA has lost control of football (i.e. BCS) and it is run by networks and BCS conferences.

Non-revenue sports and revenue sports coaches have similar objectives: mentor, coach, lead and graduate student-athletes. And WIN games, matches, meets, etc. as a Top 25 Program.

I don't think you can or should equate the responsibilities and expectations of revenue and non-revenue coaches, but why shouldn't it be a bit rational.

The 'have's' VS the 'have not's' only make it worse. A career in coaching should start with leading men and women in competitive pursuits, which provide life lessons.

Don't know how to moderate it, but when $2M is the entry fee for a single coach, the exception quickly becomes the rule.

Signed,

The Naive One

college sports is a business... it's not your sons pop warner team... im sure the suits put together a reasonable cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not it was worth it... a part of college sports is about life lessons, but for others it is their lively hood, and thus should be compensated accordingly to how they perform at their job... these are football coaches not youth ministers.

Hmmm, college sports is a business

Actually, it has been since the NCAA was ruled against by the courts so
they couldn't control who got on TV. That was before the early 80s when
we had "A PAYROLL TO MEET".

If the NCAA didn't have the right to control TV revenue, then what right
did they have to control payroll to the players for a school to get more
TV exposure by winning games After all, this is free
enterprise if there is NO legal controlling body (NCAA) to make it fair for
everyone.

Exploitation of players comes to mind with the Big Cash System for BCS
schools nowdays, and even back then.

Signed,

The Naive One II

nonsense. A coach is worth whatever people are willing to pay for him.

It would be worth 5 million a year to see the ponies win if I/we/SMU had that kind of cash.

couch 'em wrote:nonsense. A coach is worth whatever people are willing to pay for him.

It would be worth 5 million a year to see the ponies win if I/we/SMU had that kind of cash.

WRONG

This is supposed to be amateur athletics Coaches contracts wouldn't
be anywhere near $2 million that if the NCAA still had control of TV
appearances.

I think instead of complaining about others spending so much, we should be using our top-shelf business school to find a way to make more cash and out spend them, and win. You can't beat the system, but you can exploit it.

PlanoStang wrote:

expony18 wrote:

Water Pony wrote:The original question was whether a college coach is worth $2M. Answer: Of course not. The NCAA has lost control of football (i.e. BCS) and it is run by networks and BCS conferences.

Non-revenue sports and revenue sports coaches have similar objectives: mentor, coach, lead and graduate student-athletes. And WIN games, matches, meets, etc. as a Top 25 Program.

I don't think you can or should equate the responsibilities and expectations of revenue and non-revenue coaches, but why shouldn't it be a bit rational.

The 'have's' VS the 'have not's' only make it worse. A career in coaching should start with leading men and women in competitive pursuits, which provide life lessons.

Don't know how to moderate it, but when $2M is the entry fee for a single coach, the exception quickly becomes the rule.

Signed,

The Naive One

college sports is a business... it's not your sons pop warner team... im sure the suits put together a reasonable cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not it was worth it... a part of college sports is about life lessons, but for others it is their lively hood, and thus should be compensated accordingly to how they perform at their job... these are football coaches not youth ministers.

Hmmm, college sports is a business

Actually, it has been since the NCAA was ruled against by the courts so
they couldn't control who got on TV. That was before the early 80s when
we had "A PAYROLL TO MEET".

If the NCAA didn't have the right to control TV revenue, then what right
did they have to control payroll to the players for a school to get more
TV exposure by winning games After all, this is free
enterprise if there is NO legal controlling body (NCAA) to make it fair for
everyone.

Exploitation of players comes to mind with the Big Cash System for BCS
schools nowdays, and even back then.

Signed,

The Naive One II

so you're not arguing that it's a business? all you're arguing is that is wrong... i would love to have a full discussion of this but i have a contracts final tomorrow so remind me of this thread in a couple of days

PlanoStang wrote:This is supposed to be amateur athletics Coaches contracts wouldn't be anywhere near $2 million that if the NCAA still had control of TV appearances.

SUPPOSED to be -- that's true. But college sports haven't been anywhere near amateur in years.