ACC vs. SEC coaching salaries

Last week, we had a lively discussion about coaching salaries.

Some of you came down on the side of you’ve got to pay the most to give yourself the best chance at success.

Some of you, including me, came down on the side of big salaries usually don’t produce the best results. Caveat Emptor.

So, I thought about it and thought about it. And, being a dumb guy it took me  a while to remember that USA Today recently did a fairly exhaustive and most interesting study of expenses and revenues at colleges and universities across this great land.

Having a bit of time on my hands, I decided to catalog total expenses and total revenues for every ACC and SEC school that answered USAT’s barrage of FOIAs. The numbers are from the 2007-08 year.

I then cataloged coaching salaries and other compensations, and then figured out what percentage of each school’s expenses were devoted to coaching salaries.

All numbers have rounded to the half or whole to keep the cipherin’ easy.

And the surprise (I’m doing a drumroll on my desk) is that coaching salaries in the SEC on average are 17 percent of each school’s expenses. Coaching salaries in the ACC are 16.5 percent of each school’s expenses (actually 16.4, but I rounded to the half).

So, in their own way, each school was spending similar dollars.

Here are the totals (dollars are in millions):

SEC School — TOE –  TOR — Salaries  — Percent of TOE

Alabama –$123 — $124 — $15 — 12

Arkansas — 65 — 66 — 12 — 18

Auburn — 69 — 89 — 11.5 — 17

Florida — 99 — 107 — 14 — 14

Georgia — 72 — 86 — 13 — 18

Kentucky — 55 — 55 — 12 — 22

LSU — 81 — 85 — 13.5 — 17

Ole Miss — 35 — 35 — 5.5 –16

Miss. State — 30 –30 — 7 — 23

South Carolina — 65 — 67 — 9.5 — 15

Tennessee — 101 — 102 — 16.5 — 16

Averages  – 72 — 77

ACC School — TOE — TOR — Salaries — Percent of TOE

Clemson — 60 — 59 — 11 — 18

FSU — 66 — 73 — 9.5 — 14

Ga. Tech — 55 — 55 — 8 — 14.5

Maryland — 57 — 60 — 11.5 — 20

UNC — 66 — 66 — 11.5 — 17

N.C. State — 44 –  46 — 7 –16

Virginia — 66 — 64 — 10.5 — 16

Va. Tech — 59 — 64 — 9.5 — 16

Averages – 59 — 61

57 comments Add your comment

First?

February 15th, 2010
3:23 pm

Whoa, that’s some number crunching we like at the Institute! Way to go Doug!

LOTRJacket

February 15th, 2010
3:31 pm

Did someone say sasauge fest?
8=====D— 0:

wesleywhatwhat

February 15th, 2010
3:35 pm

not very helpful.

Doug Roberson

February 15th, 2010
3:39 pm

The rows were out of whack, but our talented online department has gone through and cleaned them up to make them readable.

Concerned

February 15th, 2010
3:40 pm

Key, please? TOE, TOR? Need definitions, por favor.

I Wonder

February 15th, 2010
3:40 pm

how long before one of you morons asks about the schools not on this list….

Concerned

February 15th, 2010
3:44 pm

“schools not on this list?” It’s the SEC and ACC…I don’t want to watch any schools not on this list. This encompasses the entirety of what Saturdays in the South (ok, and maybe some of the ‘north’) should be all about.

Concerned

February 15th, 2010
3:45 pm

I’m taking a stab at answering my own question…is it TOtal Expenses versus TOtal Revenues?

Doug Roberson

February 15th, 2010
3:51 pm

Yes, Total Operating Expenses and Total Operating Revenues

I Wonder

February 15th, 2010
4:05 pm

Concerned – I mean the SEC & ACC schools not listed, Vandy, UM, BC, Duke, Wake…

Another name made up on the fly

February 15th, 2010
4:18 pm

I Wonder – The schools that aren’t listed are private institutions and their books aren’t available for scrutiny like the public schools are.

Concerned

February 15th, 2010
4:26 pm

Oh, you mean the ones no one in ATL likes to watch. I’m good not knowing about ‘em.

Thanks, Doug. I’m just not a business guy, don’t know the lingo…I do product design. Yep, at Tech.

I Wonder

February 15th, 2010
4:30 pm

Bingo (and how true “another name….”). Concerned really screwed that one up.

Concerned

February 15th, 2010
4:30 pm

If it’s revenues versus expenses then we can look at this and get a general idea of which programs are making the most money, right? Interesting to see that GT is not upside down on that figure…yet Clemson is. And it would appear that Auburn is doing VERY well for itself.

Concerned

February 15th, 2010
4:32 pm

How’d I screw it up? I didn’t try to answer your question…just saying that those aren’t big or important schools down here (minus Miami, I guess…I can begrudgingly admit they have a decent fan base here).

Concerned

February 15th, 2010
4:35 pm

Oh I see, nevermind. Yeah, the first time you wrote it I’ll admit that I thought you were saying we’d all be screaming to see figures for the Big 11 and 12 or something. Funny that I didn’t even notice the lack of Duke, Wake, Vandy, BC and UM until you pointed it out. Kinda proves my point that they’re not really on the radar screen so much in our minds here…at least not mine.

Concerned

February 15th, 2010
4:41 pm

Question – with expansion rumors for conferences out west and in the midwest, who’d be for adding the top 3-5 ACC programs (but not the geographical outliers) to the SEC to compete for TV and bowl revenues with the rumored 14 team Big 14/Pac 14? Also, renew some old rivalries like GT-Alabama, GT-Auburn, FSU-UGA and make some new ones VT-Tenn, Clemson – Kentucky? Read an article on it, fun to think about I guess.

Supersize that order, mutt

February 15th, 2010
5:05 pm

Concerned, that would certainly be interesting, but since Dooley vetoed Tech’s re-entrance to the SEC in the 70s, I would imagine the people in charge now in Athens wouldn’t go for your lineup either :(

short bus dawg

February 15th, 2010
5:30 pm

I poopied in my pants! Can I have some candy?

superDawg

February 15th, 2010
5:51 pm

UGA could buy your little school.

Cuttysark

February 15th, 2010
6:10 pm

Maybe a category should be added as to the # of wins produced as the net income to see what the rate of return is based on the actual outlay of $$$$. Thanks for doing all of the number crunching. Hopefully that will quell the complaints that were generated last week over the salary disclosures.

For more articles on Georgia Tech Football go to http://isportsweb.com. Go Jackets!

The Dude

February 15th, 2010
6:21 pm

I’m with Cutty. I want to see it broken down to how much each school pays for their wins.

Seriously, SuperDawg?

February 15th, 2010
6:31 pm

“UGA could buy your little school.”

HAHA! Get on Wikipedia right now and compare endowments. Georgia Tech has been the silent flagship school in this state for AT LEAST the last 30 years! Who could buy whom? Your athletic program is great, to be sure, but don’t even TRY the cash-flow comparisons on the institutional side. Most schools would lose that battle.

Seriously, SuperDawg?

February 15th, 2010
6:41 pm

Oh, and Tech is not little anymore…really hasn’t been for a while. Tech’s enrollment has climbed over 20k which is bigger than Clemson and is not much smaller than Auburn and Bama. People think UGA is as big as Texas or Michigan State, but it’s only 35k to their nearly 50k. UGA is big, but being public and not into defense-contract research means its monetary value and economic impact just don’t compare to the “little” technical school on North Ave with the little budget that cracks a BILLION dollars.

Seriously, SuperDawg?

February 15th, 2010
6:47 pm

So we pay our coaches less, big deal! The board of regents in this state knows that cash flow means that the pecking order is GT, UGA then after a lot of debate every other public “university” that they’re forced to cut funding checks for. In terms of size and economic impact figures (according to regents metrics) UGA actually needs to look out for a pass move from Georgia State!

collegeballfan

February 15th, 2010
6:52 pm

superDawg thinks that UGA is only a football team. He is unaware they actually have students who attend class, major in a subject(s), get a degree and then enter the workforce as something besides an NFL football player.

The bitter truth is that UGA could eliminate the football program and 90% of the state would not even notice. And being honest the same applies to GT. Football at both institutions are about as useful as teats on a boar hog.

@collegeballfan

February 15th, 2010
6:59 pm

That’s true in terms of money changing hands for the operation of the state – the academic side of those institutions drives this states economy…and Tech more than UGA, but in terms of college football brands UGA is top 5. There would be a ton of money flow wiped out if their athletic department ceased to exist. Tech’s would not make the same splash if cut.

short bus dawg

February 15th, 2010
7:17 pm

My family tree is a wreath.

TechDan

February 15th, 2010
8:15 pm

Georgia is a Top 5 College football brand? I might give you Top 10, but top 5 are, in no particular order, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and USC, which is likely on its way out.

Even Tech has more historical prestige than Georgia does, if not the recent consistent success. Even the most die-hard dawg fan has to admit that the rivalry is getting interesting again.

Oh, and fun fact: The last time Georgia won the SEC was also the last time the SEC did NOT have a team win the BCS Title. So close, pups. So close.

RussThePaintedMascot

February 15th, 2010
8:33 pm

Coaches don’t do a better or worse job depending on their salary. They get a better or worse salary depending on the kind of job they do.

RussThePaintedMascot

February 15th, 2010
8:40 pm

It is amusing to see how many people actually believe that coaching salaries and athletic budgets reflect anything whatsoever about the quality of an academic institution. There are individual projects of the GTRI that produce more revenue for the institute and the state than the entire UGA athletics department, or even just the UGA football team minus the non-profit sports.

RussThePaintedMascot

February 15th, 2010
8:44 pm

Georgia a perennial top 5 football power? Not even close. At best a top 15 and probably just top 20, over the past 20 or 30 years. Even if they had a better team, which they don’t, there isn’t another team in the top 20 who would paint their mascot’s a$$.

SugarHillDawg

February 15th, 2010
9:12 pm

Hey TechDan, the next time the ACC has a team in the BCSNC will be NEVER!! Let’s stop splitting hairs, the ACC is a second rate conference and all the mathematical figuring doesn’t change that fact! Why don’t y’all use some of that defense contract money and build yourselves a REAL stadium??!!

the real OLD GOLD

February 15th, 2010
9:43 pm

“superDawg” … Schools don’t “buy” each other, and they are both part of the same university system and run by the same board of Regents.. and that even counts for stadium building and sports decisions. Read a book once in a while.. but be careful.. you could learn something.

Navigator

February 16th, 2010
7:46 am

Statistics don’t lie, just statisticians. Maybe the percentages are similar, but the actual payout by the SEC is considerably higher. After all coaches don’t get paid in percentage, they get paid in dollars.

Jake

February 16th, 2010
8:13 am

Statistics are somewhat like swim suites. They revel a whole lot of information, but cover up some real key points.

GTGrad08

February 16th, 2010
8:23 am

Wouldn’t the best measure of how successful the investment is not be percent of total expenses but percent of net income? For instance, Salary / (TOR – TOE) = Actual %. A negative number would be bad, obviously. A large number (i.e. greater than 100%) would also be bad, since the coach is receiving a high salary for not a lot of profit….just a suggestion

Geori

February 16th, 2010
9:18 am

I didn’t believe that Alabama only makes $1M in profit. Then I realized that they are a NON PROFIT business, as are all of these PUBLIC schools. The expenses and revenues are from ALL college sports. Off hand, I’d say that the revenues fall like this: Football 60%, Basketball 25%, Other 10%. However, expenses are distributed across the board. Bama is just able to use all of their football money to pay for top of the line minor sports programs.

thwg

February 16th, 2010
11:11 am

Doug – this is a pretty bush article. Looks like a high schooler wrote it. Had to figure out that abbreviations and there’s really nothing of interest here.

Shane

February 16th, 2010
11:31 am

Key here is

SEC = Big Time

ACC = Small Potatoes

droberson

February 16th, 2010
12:06 pm

thwg, thanks. I’m not sure why the abbreviations were hard to understand, especially considering there were two of them.

Dawg 3/20

February 16th, 2010
1:32 pm

BCS Championship Series

SEC – 14-5, 6 National Titles (Florida 2, LSU 2, Alabama 1, Tennessee 1 ) – Membership Closed

ACC – 2-10, 1 National Title (Florida State)

@Dawg

February 16th, 2010
1:40 pm

Not sure membership is actually closed. Arky may end up with the Big 12 after they lose Colorado to the Pac 10 or Nebraska to the Big 11. Then the SEC will have a chance to grab another team (either an original member like GT, or a rival like VT, Clemson, FSU or even Miami). AND if they take that chance to dump Vandy to the ACC, then they could take TWO good teams and increase market share even more!

Membership closed…we’ll see once the rumored shuffling begins.

@Dawg

February 16th, 2010
1:44 pm

PS- my bet is they’d look at VT first since there’s no SEC member in that state yet, but GT, Clemson and FSU would not be out of the conversation. Miami’s fans and alumni probably don’t care which conference they’re in, but they could be looked at despite their distance from the traditional “deep South.” UNC could be another longshot…but only if they’re playing for Oranges this year.

buzz

February 16th, 2010
1:45 pm

superdawg your an idiot…GT has institutions all over the world…UGA could never buy “our little school”. supperhilldawg your an idiot as well considering that property in atlanta is nearly three times more expensive than it is in athens. Then you add the city factor in opposed the the hillbilly plains and it makes it much more difficult to expand your stadium. Oh and your prediction on an ACC school never winning a BCSNT is pretty looney. Sec is a great conference no doubt but those you getting on here bashing the ACC an Tech only make yourself look like inbred fools.

Disagree

February 16th, 2010
4:03 pm

Conference realignment is an interesting topic. My opinion is that the SEC should drop teams it sees as redundant in each TV market and streamline itself to only having the biggest universities in each market. They should strike a deal with the ACC to give all “redundant” teams to that conference, allowing the ACC to add more historic programs but none that are the “U of ___” in their state and drop the tiniest ones that have little history or fan market value. No one with stadiums seating less than 40k should be admitted to either. In this way they split the Southern media markets more evenly and elevate the entire state of football, rivalries and all, in the Southern US. The stronger conference rivalry would drive ratings and attendance up across the board. OOC schedule strength in each conference would rise just from rivalry weekend alone. Ideal lineups would go as follows:

SEC (w/new name)- West: (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia); East: (Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia)

ACC (w/new name)- West: (OK State, Texas A&M, Baylor, Miss State, Louisville, Vandy, Auburn); East: (GT, Clemson, NC State, VT, FSU, Miami, East Carolina)

The end result would be two 14-team BCS conferences controlling the biggest markets in the South. Fun to think about, no?

ACC God

February 16th, 2010
4:17 pm

What the SEC fans fail to understand is the league didn’t play football at a high level 40 years ago, just Clemson and North Carolina. They brought GTech in have another football name and some more credibility, and later FSU to put them on the map, and finally, VTech and Miami and compete with other conferences. So when people talk about the ACC, they have to remember there has been a lot of catching up, and therefore don’t have the tradition of the SEC. Until Florida and Arkansas won a basketball championship, the SEC was Kentucky and everybody else. The two conferences came from two different directions to be where they are now. Going forward no conference will dominate the way the SEC has in the past, nor will the ACC be the doormats they used to be. We’ll see in another decade if we are still discussing the two leagues the same way.

Eaglesman

February 16th, 2010
6:44 pm

The numbers are only available from state institutions.

short bus dawg

February 16th, 2010
6:51 pm

pull my finger, superdawg

PTC DAWG

February 16th, 2010
8:03 pm

Anyone who works the word cipherin’ into their blog, it OK by me. :)