This was slightly touched on in a football thread and thought I'd bring it over here as it is a bit more active. With a little Google effort I am sure I can find some articles about this, but I want to hear thoughts of my fellow Purdue alums/fans.
Do you think it would be good for there to be a cap on annual salaries for coaches? Obviously the focus would be on men's BB and FB, but it could apply to all sports. Some issues I can see that would need addressed are:
1) What would the cap be? Something like $2M jumps to mind, but would this still be crazy high for other schools/conferences and not really drive much parity?
2) Would the cap apply equally to all conferences regardless of average conf resources available? $2M a year might be feasible for P5 schools, but likely not all Div 1 schools.
3) Would a cap dry up good coaches at the collegiate level? I would think not since the very best tend to migrate to the typically higher pro salaries and there are a limited number of those jobs.
4) How would you (if even possible or legal) limit the non-fixed annual salary components to coaching compensation? Admittedly I am ignorant to many details here, but I know there are bonuses, endorsements, and other types of non-salary pay coaches get and some of this is not regulated by the university.
5) Would this help create better coaching parity between schools? Would the "top" coaches still go to the "blue bloods" or if they could make the same salary at for instance their alma mater or school they first made it big at, would they stay there? Is this a good thing?
6) Would this create parity on the court/field or would "blue bloods" and "destination" schools still rake in all the top talent and nothing changes? I think there is evidence a great coach can bring in talent at less renowned schools and these coaches usually get big raises to leave for better gigs. Imagine if they stayed at those schools.
7) Would this help save schools money on aggregate (NCAA wide)? Or would parity water down the top schools earning potential and on the whole generate less revenue for schools on the aggregate? (i.e. would the NCAA suffer total revenue loss?)
7) Would this improve the game (talking men's BB and FB) or would parity take a negative toll on the level of the product on the floor/field and/or on fandom?
I am sure there are a ton of other issues/questions around this topic and I have little doubt my fellow knuckleheads will articulate them in this thread. Have at it boys and girls!
Do you think it would be good for there to be a cap on annual salaries for coaches? Obviously the focus would be on men's BB and FB, but it could apply to all sports. Some issues I can see that would need addressed are:
1) What would the cap be? Something like $2M jumps to mind, but would this still be crazy high for other schools/conferences and not really drive much parity?
2) Would the cap apply equally to all conferences regardless of average conf resources available? $2M a year might be feasible for P5 schools, but likely not all Div 1 schools.
3) Would a cap dry up good coaches at the collegiate level? I would think not since the very best tend to migrate to the typically higher pro salaries and there are a limited number of those jobs.
4) How would you (if even possible or legal) limit the non-fixed annual salary components to coaching compensation? Admittedly I am ignorant to many details here, but I know there are bonuses, endorsements, and other types of non-salary pay coaches get and some of this is not regulated by the university.
5) Would this help create better coaching parity between schools? Would the "top" coaches still go to the "blue bloods" or if they could make the same salary at for instance their alma mater or school they first made it big at, would they stay there? Is this a good thing?
6) Would this create parity on the court/field or would "blue bloods" and "destination" schools still rake in all the top talent and nothing changes? I think there is evidence a great coach can bring in talent at less renowned schools and these coaches usually get big raises to leave for better gigs. Imagine if they stayed at those schools.
7) Would this help save schools money on aggregate (NCAA wide)? Or would parity water down the top schools earning potential and on the whole generate less revenue for schools on the aggregate? (i.e. would the NCAA suffer total revenue loss?)
7) Would this improve the game (talking men's BB and FB) or would parity take a negative toll on the level of the product on the floor/field and/or on fandom?
I am sure there are a ton of other issues/questions around this topic and I have little doubt my fellow knuckleheads will articulate them in this thread. Have at it boys and girls!
