Archive for the ‘NCAA’ Category

2009 Division 1 College Football Coaches’ Salaries

July 30, 2009

Following up with their recent Football Bowl Subdivision revenue blog post, the Orlando Sentinel is back at it again.

This time they are diving into college football coaches’ salaries. And after some in-depth research, what Iliana Limon found is obscene.

For example, Alabama will pay Nick Saban and his Alabama assistants $6.5 million this season. She states that if they reach the SEC title game and go to a bowl, then the school will be paying the staff a minimum of $464,285 per game.

Limon claims that $6.5 million dollars is ‘more money than 32 Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) programs spent on their entire teams in 2007-08.’ Here is the list of what all of the non-BCS schools spend with those 32 schools denoted by an asterisks – LINK -.

Read the entire post from Iliana Limon by clicking here – LINK -.

(Click to see all of the Division 1 coaches’ salaries here)

Coach, school Conf. Salary*
1. Pete Carroll, USC Pac-10 $4,400,000
2. Charlie Weis, Notre Dame Ind. $4,200,000
3. Nick Saban, Alabama SEC $3,900,000
4. Bob Stoops, Oklahoma Big 12 $3,800,000
5. Les Miles, LSU SEC $3,800,000
6. Jim Tressel, Ohio State Big Ten $3,500,000
7. Urban Meyer, Florida SEC $3,400,000
8. Kirk Ferentz, Iowa Big Ten $3,030,000
9. Mack Brown, Texas Big 12 $2,910,000
10. Bobby Petrino, Arkansas SEC $2,900,000
11. Mark Richt, Georgia SEC $2,900,000
T12. Rich Rodriguez, Michigan Big Ten $2,500,000
T12. Bobby Bowden, Florida State ACC $2,500,000
T12. Gary Pinkel, Missouri Big 12 $2,500,000
T12. Houston Nutt, Ole Miss SEC $2,500,000
T16. Mark Mangino, Kansas Big 12 $2,300,000
T16. Paul Johnson, Georgia Tech ACC $2,300,000
18. Greg Schiano, Rutgers Big East $2,250,000
T19. Frank Beamer, Virginia Tech ACC $2,100,000
T19. Butch Davis, North Carolina ACC $2,100,000
T21. June Jones, SMU C-USA $2,000,000
T21. Lane Kiffin, Tennessee SEC $2,000,000
T21. Gene Chizik, Auburn SEC $2,000,000
24. Al Groh, Virginia ACC $1,875,000
25. Bo Pelini, Nebraska Big 12 $1,851,000

**Source: CoachesHotSeat.com, gathered from contracts and media reports

Nebraska Compared to the Big 12 North the Past 8 Seasons

July 30, 2009

**First off, make sure to go over to the new Illinois blog, “Hail to the Orange,” and check out a great post titled – ‘Please don’t ever retire, Joe Paterno‘ – it’s well worth your time.**

This is something interesting I just stumbled across. Here are the I-A Winning Percentages from 2001-2008 (8 seasons). Boise State, USC, and Texas all tied for 1st @ 85.4%, Oklahoma was 2nd @ 82.4%, Texas Tech was 17th @ 68.3%, and then Nebraska came in at 30th – 4th in the Big 12.

Here’s the North:

30th Nebraska 62.7%
36th Missouri 59.0%
49th Kansas State 54.5%
62nd Colorado 50.9%
70th Kansas 49.4%
88th Iowa State 39.7%

I was dying to know more about Texas Tech. You know that since 2001, Mike Leach hasn’t had a losing conference record in the Big 12? Also, Leach has only 5 non-conference losses over those 8 years, which includes bowl games. Fascinating.

Football Bowl Subdivision Revenue Per School

July 28, 2009

The Orlando Sentinel (slowly becoming my favorite online newspaper with new additions like Phil Steele) has just released a chart that ranks all Football Bowl Subdivision schools by the total revenue they took in during the 2007-08 reporting year.

‘These revenues include generated revenue (such as proceeds from ticket sales and sponsorships) and allocated revenue (such as tuition waivers, money from student fees and direct institutional support.)’

As the blog post pointed out, you’ll find that there are good reasons why you see stadium expansions every year and you’ll find that it’s clearly, clearly in your best interest to be part of the BCS. I believe that TCU was the highest non-BCS school in the chart – at 57th with over $43,000,000 in revenue.

Click to view the entire chart – LINK.

Rank School Total Revenue Conference
1st Texas $120,288,370 Big 12
2nd Ohio State $117,953,712 Big Ten
3rd Florida $106,030,895 Southeastern Conference
4th Michigan $99,027,105 Big Ten
5th Wisconsin $93,452,334 Big Ten
6th Penn State $91,570,233 Big Ten
7th Auburn $89,305,326 Southeastern Conference
8th Alabama $88,869,810 Southeastern Conference
9th Tennessee $88,719,798 Southeastern Conference
10th Oklahoma State $88,554,438 Big 12
11th Kansas $86,009,257 Big 12
12th Louisiana State $84,183,362 Southeastern Conference
13th Georgia $84,020,180 Southeastern Conference
14th Notre Dame $83,352,439 Independent
15th Iowa $81,148,310 Big Ten
16th Michigan State $77,738,746 Big Ten
17th Oklahoma $77,098,009 Big 12
18th Stanford $76,661,466 Pac-10
19th University of Southern California $76,409,919 Pac-10
20th Nebraska $75,492,884 Big 12

Rules Changes for the 2009-2010 Seasons

July 24, 2009

Here are the rules changes the NCAA made for the 2009-2010 seasons:

Rugby-Style Kicker (Rule 9-1-4-a-5): Under the new rules, if a potential kicker carries the ball outside the tackle box (defined as extending five yards on each side of the snapper) before kicking the ball, there will be no foul for running-into or roughing if he is blocked or tackled by an opponent.

Jerseys: (Rule 1-4-3-a) – a.k.a. The USC/UCLA Rule: The new rule creates a process whereby both teams may wear colored jerseys if the visitors have received written permission from the home team, and if the home team’s conference agrees that the jerseys are of contrasting colors.

Offensive Scrimmage Formation (Rules 1-1-1-b-2 and 7-1-3-b): The requirement for having at least seven offensive players on the line of scrimmage has been re-stated to allow no more than four players in the backfield. It does eliminate the foul for a team having ten players when there are only six on the line of scrimmage.

Flagrant Personal Fouls (Rule 9-6): This new rule says that if a player is ejected for any flagrant personal foul the conference must review the game video for possible further action. In addition, if the officials call fouls for targeting defenseless players or using the crown of the helmet and the player is not ejected, the rules mandate a conference review. Furthermore, if the review by the conference reveals actions that should have resulted in a personal foul but were not called, the conference may impose sanctions.

Chin Strap Included in Face-Mask Fouls (Rule 9-1-2-q): The helmet chin strap is included in the face-mask foul. It is a personal foul if a player twists, turns or pulls the face mask, any helmet opening, or now the chin strap of an opponent.

NCAA Rule Changes

January 12, 2007


The American Football Coaches Association recently held its annual convention in San Antonio, and one of the more notable topics was a series of NCAA rule changes. Most of these rule changes govern recruiting and prospect evaluation.

First, NCAA bylaw 13.1.8.9.4 says institutional staff members shall not attend any scholastic or non-scholastic activities devoted to agility, flexibility, speed or strength tests for prospective student athletes conducted at any location at any time.

In other words, universities will no longer be able to test prospective student athletes at their summer camps. In the past these camps have allowed coaches to line up prospects and test them in the 40-yard dash, vertical leap, shuttle, bench press and other agility drills. Testing of this sort allows for a direct comparison of prospective recruits and decreases a coach’s reliance on game tapes. This type of testing has been a bastion of these camps for several years and has also been a key component of the Nebraska coaching staff’s recruiting efforts. The early reaction to this change from coaches has not been positive and it will be interesting to see how they adjust.

Another key issue that is being examined is text messaging. Currently there are no rules governing the use of text messaging by coaches. However, you had to know the reevaluation of this rule was coming, as the NCAA prefers limits to be placed on all types of contacts. One of the interesting variables related to this rule, however, is that these text messages can actually wind up affecting a student athlete financially. If an athlete has a monthly service contract allowing only a limited number of texts, a flurry of messages from over-zealous coaches could result in overage charges. I suppose a change in this rule might also go along way toward preventing an outbreak of “Blackberry Thumb” among coaching staffs.

According to Rivals.com:

“The NCAA is looking at three different options, one of which was just shot down at the NCAA convention. The three options are NCAA Proposal No. 2006-40, Proposal No. 2006-41 and the status quo.

Proposal No. 2006-40 – which was proposed by The Ivy Group – would eliminate text messaging to prospects and specifies that electronically transmitted correspondence sent to a prospective student-athlete is limited to electronic mail and facsimiles.
Proposal No. 2006-41 was considered to be a middle-of-the-road solution, and it would have reduced communication via text messaging from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The times would be based upon the location where the prospect resides. However, the NCAA Management Council earlier this week defeated this proposal.

That leaves either the status quo – where there are no rules at all – or Proposal No. 2006-40 on the table for consideration. Kerin said the Management Council could be leaning toward elimination. So at this point, Proposal No. 2006-40 could eventually pass and then be in place on Aug. 1. If it doesn’t pass, nothing will happen and everything will remain as is.”


Another rule change that is already in place for the 2007 season is the override of Proposal No. 2005-54, which allowed student-athletes who received their undergraduate degree to transfer to another institution for graduate school and be immediately eligible for financial aid, practice and competition, no matter the student-athletes’ prior transfer history. According to NCAA research fewer than 1 percent of eligible student-athletes took advantage of this rule. One athlete who used this rule to great benefit was Florida DB Ryan Smith, who graduated early from Utah and then enrolled at Florida for graduate studies. Smith was named first-team all-SEC (AP) and third-team all-America (Rivals.com) after intercepting eight passes and recording 52 tackles, seven pass break-ups and two blocked kicks. Oh, and he also won a national title.

Next up appears to be a reexamination of the dreaded 3-2-5-e. A hot-button issue all season, the controversial clock rule was also a major topic at the AFCA convention. As the meetings completed the AFCA forwarded its clock-rule recommendations to the Football Rules Committee. Any changes will then be made by the by the Football Rules Committee, which convenes in February in Albuquerque, N.M. At least one important figure believes alterations to 3-2-5-e are in the offing. “My educated guess would be there would be a change,” said Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association.

Thank God for that.

Rule 3-2-5-e, I wish I could quit you!

September 7, 2006

The early analysis is in and it is clear that rule 3-2-5-e is having an effect on college football games. In case you are still unclear, the official wording of rule 3-2-5-e is:

Rule 3-2-5-e, When Clock Starts
Change: When Team B is awarded a first down, the clock will be stopped and will start on the ready for play signal.

Rationale: By starting the clock, the committee estimates it will shorten the game by about five minutes, according to studies by several Division I-A conferences.

After examining the available data, the amazing folks at cfbstats.com provided an update at the Wizard of Odds which looks like this:

…………………#Plays…….#Games…….#Plays/Game
2005 Total……..121044……718…………168.58
2005 Week 1……..8664……..52…………166.61
2006 Week 1…….10368…….69………….150.26

In other words, roughly 18 plays per game are being lost to the new rule. Oklahoma was one team that experienced a noticeable difference in their season opener. OU and UAB combined for just 110 offensive plays, the fewest in 50 years for an OU game. The previous low during that span was 112 for the 1960 OU-Colorado and the 1962 OU-Missouri games. The Sooners ran just 53 plays against the Blazers.

So what has been the impact of rule 3-2-5-e on the Huskers? Thus far it appears to have had little effect. In the opener against Louisiana Tech, Nebraska ran 84 plays and enjoyed 13 offensive drives. By comparison the Huskers averaged just 72 plays per game in 2005. One possible explanation for the increase is the attention paid to improving the team’s tempo and pace during the Fall camp. These efforts were mentioned several times in media reports and may represent the staff’s attempts at addressing this rule change. Interestingly Louisiana Tech also had 13 offensive drives, but managed just 53 plays during the opener. This means that NU and Tech combined for 137 plays which is 30 fewer than the average number of plays per game in 2005 and also lower than the aggregate average for week one of 2006.

Although Nebraska seemingly escaped the negative impact of rule 3-2-5-e in game one, Nicholls State may present a unique twist to these challenges. The Colonels triple-option attack is predicated on controlling the ball and dominating the time of possession. In his Tuesday press conference Coach Callahan addressed these issues.

“This is a team that is totally committed to running the football. They are committed to their attack and their style. They rushed the football for over 364 yards per game last year, averaging over five yards per rush. If you look at them, they validate it on film. What they try to do is secure 1st-and-10, and they go about that in a very simplistic manner. If they get that, they are on schedule as far as down-and-distance is concerned.

“Our concern is that they’ll try to limit our possessions, try to chew up clock and they’ll also try to go for it on fourth down. If you look at their attempts a year ago on fourth down, they went for it quite a bit of the time. They average about three fourth-down attempts a game. So this is a team where they try to limit you to eight possessions a game, and that’s two per quarter for the offense, and so we’re going to have to do a great job to stay disciplined, play assignment football on the defensive side of the ball and take advantage of every opportunity we can when we do get our offensive possession.”

In 2005 Nicholls State averaged 69.4 plays per game while limiting their opponents to fewer than 65 plays per game. This means that the average Nicholls State game in 2005 resulted in just 135 plays, or 33 fewer than the 2005 average. In their 2006 opener Nicholls State gained 261 yards on just 51 plays. 229 of those yards came on the ground and the Colonels finished with a time of possession of 32:32.

Southern Arkansas managed just 11 possessions in the game. This averages out to 2.75 posessions per quarter or just above the Colonels goal of limiting teams to two per period. Although Southern Arkansas ran 67 plays (16 more than Nicholls State), they had no drive lasting longer than 7 plays until 5 minutes into the second half. In addition, 28 of SAU’s plays came during two drives during the third quarter when the outcome of the game was already decided.

All of this could mean that Husker fans will begin to notice the consequences of rule 3-2-5-e on Saturday. Physically Nicholls State is no match for Nebraska. In addition, I trust our coaches’ ability to prepare the defense for the option and to make the necessary adjustments during the game. However, I feel we could see a sluggish type of game reminiscent of OU-UAB. If the Colonels can string together a few first downs, their deliberate style of play will impact the number of drives the Huskers enjoy. The end result is that NU must make the most of each of their offensive possessions in order to ensure an acceptable margin of victory over this Division IAA foe.

Dr. D – Breaking the Cornhusker Bank

August 30, 2006

So, this is my first attempt at hacking out my inane thoughts for Double Extra Point, blogger nation. I must say that I think Jeffie Husker’s blog is among the best I’ve ever encountered, especially given the fact that it’s just a few weeks old–and I would say all that even if the guy hadn’t been a close friend for the past 15 years. About me, Dr. D. I’m a Husker expat, living in Bloomington, Indiana, right near the action of a major college campus, although not as close as I would like most nights. My first piece comments on the current financial state of college athletics. Enjoy!

A recent Lincoln Journal Star article commented on the 10 year history of the Big 12 conference, with a special emphasis on the effects that the new alliance has had on Big Red. The article’s thesis was essentially that the conference has weakened Nebraska’s athletic prowess and reputation. Instead of collecting armloads of conference trophies each year, taking our picks of the litter with top prep stars and reaping other benefits accorded the conference’s top athletic power, we have been reduced to scrapping with the likes of new Big 12 conference foes Texas Tech and Texas A&M and Big 8 also-rans Kansas St, Colorado and Iowa St in vying for coveted berths in the Independence Bowl (let’s not even mention what’s become of the basketball program-men or women’s). The pre-eminent power in the new Big 12 is obviously Texas. In the new college athletics pecking order, Nebraska is now considerably behind the big boys of college athletics. Husker loyalists hear me out – I am one of you. It pains me to type these words as much as it pains you to consider the possibility that they may be true. So, before you call for my head or dismiss my blasphemous claims as baseless, I encourage you to consider the following.

Big time sports are big business. For most Nebraska fans, their first clue that the structure of college athletics was moving unavoidably toward being primarily business-centric coincided with Bill Byrne’s arrival from Oregon in the early 90s. Soon after arriving in Lincoln, Byrne began charging season ticket holders annual fees to retain their seats, aggressively pursuing apparel licensing deals and corporate sponsorships, and began removing wasteful inefficiencies from within the athletic department. It was clear to most longtime NU boosters and alums, the new mantra of athletic department operations was “Show me the money.” During Byrne’s 11 year reign at Nebraska, athletic department spending tripled. As tempting as it is to conclude, Bill Byrne is not to blame for the athletic program’s new money-first directive. Byrne’s arrival at Nebraska represented a necessary action to pull a proud and successful athletics program into the 21st century of business management. Schools all around the country were realizing the potential cash inflows possible with big-time college sports. This realization represented the new age modus operandi for athletic administrators: bring in as much cash as you can and spend as much of it as possible to build bigger, better, more recruit-alluring facilities to attract even more money. In the mold of Steinbrenner, the successful new age A.D. should be a cash sink, bringing as much money in while spending as much as humanly possible to justify the need to siphon in even more dollars. The college athletics arm race was born.

Sadly for NU, the deck is stacked firmly against us in this brave new world. Consider that Texas brought in almost $35 million more in revenue for 2004, the last year in which comparative data are available. What can you get for $35 million? To put it in context, our new multi-year fundraising project for stadium and locker room improvements had an ambitious $50 million benchmark. Even better, my current employer Indiana University drew a mere $38 million in athletic department revenue in 2004. A $35 million revenue gap is significant in a world where top coaches draw millions and 10 year old facilities are considered obsolete. In a world where success (and the millions that come with it) hinges on freshman kickers making 40-yarders into a stiff wind, every dollar counts. For instance, Nebraska’s ability to boast about the new Huskervision screen being the largest of its kind was short-lived, as Texas immediately announced it was building a bigger one — funded undoubtedly with some of that extra petty cash.

My point is not to claim that Nebraska cannot contend on the field with the big spending boys (e.g., Texas, Ohio St., Florida, Michigan, etc). However, when our current football spending ranks us #24 in the NCAA, the on the field struggles of recent years such as being , ranked the 28th best program over the past 3 years are suddenly less surprising. This pattern of results seems to follow the age old business adage that you generally get what you pay for. If we use the data available from the Indianapolis Star’s NCAA Financial Reports Database we can examine the issue of athletic spending more closely. I doubt most Husker fans would be too surprised to learn that schools like Ohio St., Auburn and Florida outspend the Big Red in football operating costs. However, I believe it is a bit eye-opening for most Husker fans to see us outspent by the likes of Virginia, Georgia Tech and Arkansas. At the very least, Husker nation may have to realize that on a year-to-year level; we may be slipping behind the big boys to the extent that on the field success is tied to spending.

My real point in drawing attention to all this is to go beyond merely stating the obvious reality that college sports generates a lot of money, and that this money is not distributed evenly among all competing schools. What bothers me about all of this is that the NCAA, the governing body that regulates every aspect of college athletics has not instituted more control when it comes to curbing the spending war. MLB, the NFL and the NBA all have luxury taxes that penalize organizations that spend excessively to try and level the playing field. Why shouldn’t the NCAA look seriously at the fairness of allowing schools to spend $35 million more than others when their stated goal is to ensure the integrity and fairness of intercollegiate athletics?

NCAA Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse

August 9, 2006

“The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency.” So said, Eugene McCarthy. You might want to keep that quote in mind as you read this post.

This is the time of year that most freshmen hit the field as their first fall camp begins. Many athletes, however, have their freshman campaign delayed by the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. Currently Nebraska is awaiting the arrival of Ricky Thenarse who was completing a summer class and will then need to be cleared by this organization. At last check USC was also anxiously awaiting the clearance of Vidal Hazelton and Jamere Holland. So just what is the Eligibility Clearinghouse and what causes these seemingly inevitable delays?

The NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse is the governing organization that officially certifies student -athletes as academically eligible to compete in NCAA Division I or Division II athletics. The Clearinghouse is not the NCAA per se, but is instead, an organization that performs academic evaluations for the NCAA. This body acts as the central “clearinghouse” of information for all colleges to verify that the student athlete meets the minimum set academic standards of participation.

Athletes are encouraged to register with the Clearinghouse at the end of their junior year of high school. To register students simply obtain an NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse application from their high school or guidance counselor. The athlete then completes the student-release form, which authorizes the high school to send his or her academic records to the Clearinghouse. The registration form and records are then sent to the Clearinghouse along with a $30 registration fee.

During the summer before the athlete’s senior year, the Clearinghouse provides them with an evaluation of their academic record. This evaluation includes information regarding what high school coursework they still need to take in order to become certified as eligible to play NCAA Division I or Division II athletics. The athletes are to then use this evaluation to schedule courses during for their senior year. Once the athlete graduates a final copy of their transcript must also be sent to the Clearinghouse to confirm their graduation and to continue the evaluation process.

The clearance process seems fairly straightforward on paper, however, as many athletes can attest; it can be anything but that in practice. As this New York Times piece relates, the problems are numerous.

“The problem lies in the failure of the NCAA, one of the richest nonprofit organizations in the nation, to evaluate academic eligibility for freshman athletes in a timely manner. From an inadequate number of telephones to answer the calls of parents, students and high schools, to its rigid policy not to inform a student until the end of his or her senior year what credits are needed for eligibility and scholarships, the NCAA’s conduct has been arbitrary and shameful, say lawyers for those who have turned to the courts.”

No one seems to benefit from waiting for a student’s grades for their entire senior year to be submitted, before informing them of eligibility problems. By then it is too late for the athlete and for the school, which can’t always determine how the Clearinghouse will rule. If an athlete is not cleared, he may not appeal his case directly and it is up to his university to do so. This too, is often not a timely process. The N.Y. Times article discusses the case of Damon Phillips, a 6-foot 7-inch basketball player from Brooklyn, who after the NCAA objected to a preliminary injunction permitting him to play, ultimately missed two-thirds of his freshman season at Fairfield.

The process is also slowed simply by the numbers involved. Each of the 24,000 U.S. high schools has their own curriculum and the Clearinghouse is often too far removed from these schools to make accurate assessments. As Daniel Sagaran, Phillips’s lawyer, stated:

“The staff liaisons of the subcommittee consist of two persons of extremely limited experience neither of whom had any training in high school teaching or course accreditation. Their actual review was woeful. No one called the school, learned about the course, determined whether it met the core course definition.”

In addition, the Clearinghouse is likely under-staffed to deal with the quantity of cases they handle. The size of the organization ranges from 25 full-time evaluators up to 100 during the summer crunch time. The number of incoming freshman they have to deal with is around 130,000, and that figure was from 1996. Cases also become increasingly complicated if students attend more than one high school, or if the student must complete summer school before his transcript is finalized.

The Clearinghouse guidelines were put into place to protect the integrity of intercollegiate athletics and the NCAA says it needs the power to evaluate courses properly and to achieve uniform eligibility standards among the nation’s colleges. But just how should that power be wielded and shouldn’t it be regulated in some manner?

“The NCAA is rigid with respect to its rules,” said Gary Roberts, professor of sport and law at Tulane University. “With every coach trying to get someone in, they have a difficult job to do. It is not surprising that it is almost a police-state type of organization.”

Surprising? No, but that is of little consolation to the players, coaches, and schools affected by the rulings. Oh and don’t forget the fans. Won’t someone please think of the fans?