Seems to me that if Daniel Borenstein wants to get his inner crank going on coaching salaries, there’s a much more target rich environment to aim at.

… The age of the rock star coordinator is upon us, sometime in the past year, it seems. All they lack, at times, is entourages. Two SEC schools changed coaches in the offseason, but 13 new coordinators were hired. Several of them have agents. Agents!

Why not? Representatives flock to where the money is and coordinators are making more of it. To get Will Muschamp from Auburn, Texas had to negotiate with Bob Lamonte, who represents at least six NFL head coaches and a couple of college coaches, one being Charlie Weis at Notre Dame…

… At least 13 I-A coordinators made $325,000 last season, according to the Austin American-Statesman. Among those were Florida State’s Jimbo Fisher, who had quite a 2007. After seven years at LSU, the career assistant came to FSU as offensive coordinator in January 2007. By December he was named coach-in-waiting to replace Bobby Bowden at a salary that is now $625,000 per season.

The most telling comment of all comes from Tommy Tuberville - basically, most athletic directors are out of their element when it comes to hiring decisions.

“ESPN has a lot to do with that,” Tuberville said. “I was a product of that. When I was at Miami as defensive coordinator, they talked about me. That’s how I got my name in several jobs. The exposure is really going to help you in the eyes of an AD. Most of those guys really don’t know much about coordinators.”

The reason it’s called a free market is because they’re free to be stupid.

John Feinstein, May 5, 2008:

… Of course if the NCAA wasn’t so busy trying to take over summer basketball, it could put an end to this in a heartbeat: All it has to do is say the following: if you want your basketball team to be eligible for the NCAA tournament, you must participate — if invited — in the NCAA division I-A football tournament. The BCS schools will squirm and pontificate and threaten to break away from the NCAA but they won’t. Remember, basketball is the money-maker at far more schools than football, regardless of what you hear from the football apologists. [Emphasis added.]

The Wildcat Online, April 30, 2008:

Now, if Feinstein means that broadly, maybe he has a slight case, in that there are far more schools that play D-1 basketball (mainly so they can share in the March Madness revenues) than play D-1 football. But presuming that when he’s talking about “schools” there he means BCS schools, that chart tells you he’s obviously full of crap.

The top revenue generating D-1 basketball program over that same period was Louisville. Its basketball revenues would rank 31st on the football list above. And if you look at the conference averages, no BCS conference generates more basketball revenue that it does football revenue. In fact, only one BCS conference (the ACC) generates half as much in basketball as it does in football. In contrast, the SEC generates four times as much football revenue as it does from basketball. If you look at average profit, the disparities are even greater.

Given that the Wildcat Online compilation predates Feinstein’s screed, in a Google era, there’s little excuse for his misrepresentation. There’s a snotty Costas/Bissinger-related comment welling up inside of me, but I think I’ll save it for another time. I have no doubt there will be one.

For once, words fail me.

Reading this post at Sunday Morning Quarterback regarding Georgia’s MNC chances reminds me once again that, despite all the denials, the Celebration…

… lives on.  (By the way, as one of SMQ’s links demonstrates, is there anything sadder than watching Tech fans seething gratuitously over Florida’s misfortune?)

Be prepared.  It’s going to be part of that notorious ESPN narrative, particularly if Georgia and Florida get off to the kind of start we hope for.

Now this has the potential to be an interesting battle.

If the football coaches in the ACC have their way, Tuesday’s discussion about a possible nine-game conference schedule will be short.

The ACC currently plays an eight-game conference schedule. Coaches don’t want a nine-game schedule because they say it could negatively affect bowl eligibility. Those who want the nine-game schedule point to the potential of more TV revenue.

It’s been coming for a while. The cost for scheduling a non-conference opponent grows each year, either in requiring a reciprocal road game, or in the amount of the guarantee, even for 1-AA schools.

“The reality is that scheduling non-conference home games is becoming very difficult and very expensive,” said Georgia Tech athletics director Dan Radakovich, whose team is playing I-AA’s Jacksonville State and Gardner-Webb this season.

But, as Ron Prince can testify, coaches don’t care about that. It’s all about the wins and losses, baby. Skip the concern about creating unbalanced schedules (that evens out every two seasons and it hasn’t been the end of the world in the Pac-10, either), that’s the part that’s the big problem:

“Do the math,” said Duke coach David Cutcliffe. “If everybody plays another conference game that is six more losses for the league. That could cost us a bowl game or two. So whatever money you make on the front end you could lose on the back end.”

Well, maybe yes, maybe no. Moving to nine conference games probably won’t put a whole lot more asses in the seats, as only two schools in the conference sold less than 90% of their total capacity in ‘07 (and you have to figure that Miami’s move out of the Orange Bowl will change its situation dramatically this year). But it would have an impact in another area.

… The move would also be good for television. The ACC’s television contracts have three more years to run. One way to enhance those packages is to take away weak non-conference games and add conference games.

“If you have more conference games then the inventory is stronger and the package is worth more,” said Ken Haines, the President and CEO of Raycom Sports. “It’s pretty simple, really.”

Barnhart summarizes the pros and cons of the debate.

SHOULD THE ACC PLAY A NINE-GAME CONFERENCE SCHEDULE?

THE CASE FOR

1. It makes putting together a schedule easier and less expensive. Schools will have to pay fewer large “guarantees” for home non-conference opponents.

2. It gives season ticket holders more bang for their buck. Fewer non-competitive home games against lightweight opponents.

3. Better TV inventory. Six additional conference games would make future television contracts more valuable.

THE CASE AGAINST

1. The ACC schedule is tough enough. Clemson (South Carolina), Florida State (Florida), and Georgia Tech (Georgia) already have annual non-conference games against the ACC.

2. Unbalanced schedule. With a nine-game schedule, half of the league would have five ACC games at home while the other half would only have four. The teams with five conference road games would be at a disadvantage.

3. Could hurt bowl eligibility. Six more conference games guarantees six more losses spread around the league. It could cost the ACC a bowl slot or two.

The coaches don’t look like they’re on the side of the angels on this one. The case for looks a lot more compelling than the case against. Time isn’t on their side, either, since the cost of business keeps going up.

Tater Tot has some more thoughts on the matter (with a “dadgum” thrown in as a bonus!) here.

****************************************************************

UPDATE: Coaches 1, ADs 0.  One interesting quote from Bobby Bowden:

“I can’t think of a single reason that a football coach would want it. … The difference between getting into a BCS bowl game and a lesser bowl game, it’s not worth it,” Bowden said.

But the ACC is guaranteed a BCS game anyway.  So I guess he’s talking about a second BCS bid for the conference.  Except that’s never happened since they’ve gone to the current BCS format.

Another call for cutting football coaches’ salaries, this time from Contra Costa Times’ columnist Daniel Borenstein regarding Jeff Tedford’s contract at Cal. It’s the usual recipe made with the standard ingredients - a little sarcasm, a dash of envy, a drop or two of cluelessness mixed with a heavy portion of illogic - that results in the typical stew.

As UC struggles to maintain academic programs, as proposed state cutbacks portend increased student fees and smaller classes, it’s time to rein in wild spending by athletic programs at the state’s public universities.

So how much is Tedford costing Cal? Well, Borenstein can’t say that the head coach is costing the school anything.

UC officials will tell you that Tedford’s success before last year brought in more money and that Tedford’s compensation comes from athletic department revenues and private fundraising — that no state or general campus funds are used. Indeed, season ticket sales have more than doubled during Tedford’s reign.

But no matter. Since the school is subsidizing the athletic department as a whole, it’s appropriate to be critical of Tedford’s pay. After all, that athletic department subsidy could pay for 45 full-time instructors, Borenstein tells us.

And that’s fine. Just quit acting like this is some sort of zero sum game, such that every penny cut from Tedford’s salary (which the school couldn’t do anyway until the current seven year contract it has with the coach expires) can be directed to a specific area of academic need. That only works if the next coach the school brings in for less money - because there’s no reason the current guy who’s brought his school to a level of success unmatched for sixty plus years is going to agree to be paid less than the market allows - is able to maintain the same level of success, both on the field and in the bank, that Cal has enjoyed under Tedford. Otherwise, all that math goes out the window.

Bottom line, you pays your money and you takes your choice. If it’s financially irresponsible to pay a coach what he’s asking for, don’t do it. But keep in mind that if you find a diamond in the rough who improves your program for what you consider a reasonable salary, you can’t expect it to last forever. At some point in time, somebody with a bigger checkbook will come knocking on his door.

This whole thing reminds me of the classic quote from Babe Ruth:

“I know, but I had a better year than Hoover.”
– Reported reply when a reporter objected that the salary Ruth was demanding ($80,000) was more than that of President Herbert Hoover’s ($75,000).

Lots of coachspeak in this article about Big 12 football strategery, but one thing can’t be denied - offenses in that conference are ripping it up right now.

… The proliferation of high-powered attacks within the Big 12 — the league’s top seven offenses last season, as measured by total yardage, ranked among the top 18 nationally — perhaps contributed to Nebraska’s decision to hire a bright defensive mind as its new coach.

It’s actually seven of the top 19, but that’s still damned impressive. Pellini’s old conference only had two in that same bunch.

Of course, the flip side of that coin is that the Big 12 had only one team in the top 19 in total defense last season. The SEC had four.

MGoBlog’s Brian Cook takes a stab at, as he puts it, debunking anti-playoff arguments in this post. How well he succeeds at it is probably a function of the reader’s own playoff biases, but from my selfish standpoint I would simply note that he digs himself a pretty deep hole in his initial paragraph when he dismisses any discussion of mission creep. Cook does so not because concern about mission creep isn’t a valid anti-playoff argument, but rather because in his mind his own six team playoff proposal renders analysis of any larger format unnecessary.

Ho-kay.

Here are the anti-playoff arguments that Cook addresses:

• regular-season games would be less meaningful.
• Playoffs don’t necessarily crown the best teams or include all deserving contenders.
• A playoff would diminish my college football fandom.
• We should go back to the old days.

Skipping the last point - I’m not even sure that rises to the level of an “argument” in the first place - the other three points are variations on a theme, namely, that a formal playoff would rob the D-1 football regular season of some of the relevancy and passion that makes it unique in American organized sport. Now, I don’t believe that a small playoff would have much impact on that, and Cook doesn’t want to concern himself with mission creep, so maybe there isn’t much else to say about his post.

Except for this:  the rationale that running the playoff gauntlet would cure the problem of not having enough meaningful games during the regular season to cloak a MNC winner with a good enough resume is misplaced justification at best.  If you find it necessary to improve the caliber of regular season competition and reduce “meaningless” games (was Michigan-Appalachian State meaningless before or after it was played?) so that whichever school is crowned #1 at season’s end meets with general approval, is it really necessary to create a playoff for that?

In truth, the short answer is no.  There are any number of ways to tinker with the current setup short of setting up a playoff that would raise the general level of regular season competition.  Paul Westerdawg suggests two:  reduce the number of D-1 schools (I’d be in favor of whacking more than the twenty he proposes, but it’s certainly a good start), and cut back on the number of games against 1-AA opponents that can count towards bowl qualification (as a general principle, I would prohibit playing more that one 1-AA school in a given year).

To that, I’d add a strength of schedule component to BCS qualification.  Either factor SOS directly into the computer numbers, or set a minimum threshold - maybe top half nationally - in order for a school to participate.  The system should reward schools like Fresno State that are willing to play anyone, anywhere over schools like Hawaii.  (And speaking of Fresno State, the system should punish gutless programs like Kansas State.)

Mike Tranghese, the Big East commissioner, isn’t a playoff fan, which means he didn’t vote in favor of Mike Slive’s recent proposal for the BCS to adapt a plus-one format.

Aside from the “walks like a duck” critique of the plus-one, Tranghese doesn’t think the plus-one would have served its purpose in getting the four best teams on the field to play for the MNC.

“Last year, West Virginia loses to Pitt,” Tranghese said. “So that left us with Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech and Oklahoma [as the top four teams]. That would have meant Ohio State would have played Oklahoma and LSU would have played Virginia Tech.

“Meanwhile, the fifth and sixth teams were Georgia and USC. But most thought both were actually among the best four teams. So the [plus-one model] wouldn’t have solved anything.

“I saw all six teams play. And clearly Georgia and USC weren’t fifth and sixth.” [Emphasis added.]

Clearly.

See, not all playoff opponents are idiots.

It’s going to be a long time before people in the state of West Virginia get over Rich Rodriguez’ departure to Michigan.  In the meantime, they amuse themselves by following every little contretemps that pops up in Ann Arbor.

Like Rich Rod awarding the #1 jersey to a (gasp!) defensive back instead of a wide receiver.

For Bob Hertzel of the Times West Virginian, it’s just another look into the soul of Rich Rodriguez, control freak.  A man who, when he was at WVU, felt the need to change everything:  the uniforms, the helmets, the offense, the defense, the introduction in the stadium, the huddle.

And with that, Hertzel gets off a terrific shot.

He controlled everything, except the line of scrimmage against Pitt.

Ouch.