An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.
- Victor Hugo, Histoire d’un Crime, 1852
In the kill or be killed world of Division I college football, aspiring head coaches are modern-day Jacobs, dreaming of the ladder which is set upon the earth, with one rung to another ascending to heaven, otherwise known as a 7-figure Jimmy Sexton head coaching contract.
But speaking as a 20-year designer of corporate compensation and reward systems, a question begs to be asked. Is the prevalent compensation model for big-time college football programs, which I will dub the “Rock Star and Roadies” (“RSR”) model, aligned with the goal of sustaining winning over a long period of time? Bluntly, does the extremely “top heavy” RSR compensation model work? Is the head coach, in the end, the only critical component of a football program being built to last (which is clearly the rationale with 70% or more of the compensation “investment” or salary budget being driven to the head coach)?
Well, Yes. And No. Rock stars Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer, and Nick Saban (apologies to Mick Jagger and The Boss for being lumped in with such a loathsome persona) have sated fan and booster lust for championship hardware. And yet, the incidence of repeat conference and national championships in a four-year period has proven more elusive over the past 20 years, with the improbable exceptions of SEC powers LSU and Florida in the past decade. Many sage observers of the anatomy of the post-championship decline point to the program being a victim of its success. In the wake of the publicity of the championship, talented assistants and coordinators climb Jacob’s ladder to the next level toward their own rock star compensation. Continuity is lost, recruiting pipelines fractured, and the door opens for the hungry rivals to seize the day.
Follow me into a deeper dive into the RSR compensation model with this hypothetical. To simplify analysis, we’ll use a total coaching staff base salary budget of $6,550,000, and we’ll deal with the base salary component only. We’ll exclude supporting positions such as strength and conditioning, et. al. for simplicity. The breakdown of this hypothetical Rock Star and Roadies compensation model is as follows:
| Position | Base Salary | As % of Total Salaries |
| Head Coach | $4,000,000 | 61.1% |
| Defensive Coord | $600,000 | 9.2% |
| Offensive Coord | $500,000 | 7.6% |
| O-line | $300,000 | 4.6% |
| D-line | $300,000 | 4.6% |
| Secondary | $200,000 | 3.1% |
| Linebackers | $200,000 | 3.1% |
| Special Teams | $150,000 | 2.3% |
| Wide Receivers | $150,000 | 2.3% |
| Running Backs | $150,000 | 2.3% |
| Total | $6,550,000 | 100.0% |
The above hypothetical compensation structure by position remains the prevalent practice at the big-time Division I college football programs. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with it. It mirrors the modern-day “rock star” model of Fortune 500 companies in terms of top-heavy CEO compensation systems. It is premised on the value proposition that the right head coach (“CEO”) is the straw that really stirs the drink. Coordinators and staffers can and will come and go, but if you have a proven head coach, the system rocks on, he simply reloads with the next up and coming coordinator or assistant, and the winning continues. However, the RSR system is inherently built to create a disruptive revolving door at the coordinator and staff levels. Increasingly, programs face a contradiction between what they expect assistant coaches to do and how they reward them.
Ask any college football analyst, veteran assistant, or even head coach, and they will readily acknowledge that championship seasons are accomplished in large part through the hard work, competence, and brilliance of the top two coordinators and even to an extent the position coaches who mold the fundamentals, and burn up the recruiting trails for top talent. That being the case, why do major programs (and assistants) continue to tolerate the obscene distance between head coach and coordinator salaries (8-9% of the head coaches salary in the above hypothetical)? The reason is simple: because they can. Ambitious assistants hold out hope early in their careers that they will ascend Jacob’s ladder to the rock star pot of gold. Those who miss that opportunity find themselves untrained for other lines of work and usually ride out a career as an assistant or plateau as coordinators like Mickey Andrews or Joe Kines. And $200-$400K as an assistant is hardly slave labor, unless you work for Nick Saban.
Yes, in fact, the Rock Star compensation model can work effectively, and is a perfectly serviceable reward system for a college football program (especially if you’re one of the “rock stars”). But if I were a Division I head coach or athletic director, I would design an altogether more balanced coaching staff reward system which if managed properly, would hardwire stability and continuity in your own program, even as it is disrupts and rattles the cages of rival programs. Now that is strategic compensation!
I’ll dub this alternative approach the Value-Based compensation model for a coaching staff. Salaries are based on the value of the coach or assistant, and not necessarily the market average of that position in Division I. The strategic goal of the value-based system is to foster stability and continuity in the program, and significantly reduce the likelihood of turnover of top coordinators and assistants for pay related reasons.
The most notable difference is proportion – the head coach is paid well enough, but not as dramatically out of proportion with assistants as the Rock Star model. Now here’s the rub – the value-based model only works if an AD hires a head coach who is willing to “get rich slow”. As you will see in the example below, you could not get to second base in negotiations with Jimmy Sexton for a Bob Stoops, Urban Meyer, or Nick Saban hire, nor would you want to do so. They’re rock stars with a long line of roadies waiting in line, willing to serve as replaceable grunts. And therein is the magic of the value-based approach – it is breathtakingly attractive to the coordinator and staff levels. It aligns the rewards and perquisites with the winning results that are created by the entire coaching staff, not just by the head coach.
Let’s take a look at the compensation structure (same budget of $6,550,000)
| Position | Base Salary | As % of Total Salaries |
| Head Coach | $2,400,000 | 36.6% |
| Defensive Coord | $1,000,000 | 15.3% |
| Offensive Coord | $1,000,000 | 15.3% |
| O-line | $400,000 | 6.1% |
| D-line | $400,000 | 6.1% |
| Secondary | $300,000 | 4.6% |
| Linebackers | $300,000 | 4.6% |
| Special Teams | $250,000 | 3.8% |
| Wide Receivers | $250,000 | 3.8% |
| Running Backs | $250,000 | 3.8% |
| Total | $6,550,000 | 100.0% |
With apologies to Auburn head football coach Gene Chizik and his lovely wife, Jonna, for the “pay cut”, let me play out the value-based model as a reward system that would be strategically brilliant for the current Auburn coaching staff. Coach Chizik, I submit, has little interest in the rock star glitz that accompanies the same compensation model. Make no mistake, he is driven to win and deserves the celebrity and hype that will bring, but he certainly seems more grounded as a man, and motivated by more than just cash. He also possesses the humility and intellect to grasp that the assemblage of capable, driven, competent coordinators and position coaches is what creates long-term success in a football program. Gus Malzahn, for example, has without question revolutionized almost overnight the perception of offensive football at Auburn University. Like the philosophy or not, the most talented high school athletes are swept up in the sizzle and high octane of this fast-paced system. With this one brilliant hire, Coach Chizik created a sea change in both the perception, and the results of Auburn offensive production.
Coach Malzahn, in turn, is equally humble, and smart enough to recognize that without Jeff Grimes to build fundamentally sound offensive line play, and Trooper Taylor and Curtis Luper to recruit and coach the nation’s best, success will not follow. And a revolving door of such a cohesive staff is a disruptive force that prevents a program from being “built to last” in terms of winning consistently.
The value-based system would have as a primary objective the above-market compensation of the top two coordinators. Obviously, they remain vulnerable to being lured to a head coaching position, but you would have reduced that risk to a limited number of the most attractive and well-funded programs. Instead of a probable 2-3 year tenure of a talented coordinator, this system would be more likely to retain the coordinator for 5-6 years, and even longer, depending on the head coaching vacancies that occur.
To work optimally, the system would be heavily incentive-based, but not just for the head coach. Given the head coach position being somewhat “below market” for the benefit of diverting compensation to valuable assistants, incentives for results such as 9-win + seasons, an SEC West title, SEC championship, BCS bowl game, and BCS national championship would be designed such that bonuses would drive coaching staff “total compensation” 30-40% above market for results achieved. To deter the wrong results from incentives such as illicit recruiting tactics, you build in a provision for immediate termination without buyout in the event of major NCAA sanctions.
Turnover in the coaching staff becomes more predictable, and far less destructive. Auburn becomes the destination for the most sought-after coordinators and position coaches. And meanwhile, the system is a stick in the eye for rival SEC programs, who face a dilemma . . . blow the coaching staff salary budget by matching the Auburn staff salaries, or be at continual risk of turnover of top assistants to Auburn should a vacancy occur. All the while, resentment festers on those rival coaching staffs over compensation issues.
Finally, the value-based model should not be confused with the recent, and arguably, failed “head coach in waiting” gimmickry used at FSU and Texas, in which Jimbo Fisher and Will Muschamp were given above-market salaries and practically speaking, meaningless contractual guarantees to be the successor head coach. This ended ugly at FSU as Bowden failed, and Fisher was elevated in the wake of a violent coup. At Texas, the scenario is different, with Mack Brown posturing in a coy manner as to exactly how long the “waiting” will be, and Will Muschamp working his own promotion opportunities under the radar at select programs such as Georgia. While succeeding at retaining top coordinators, the internal conflict created lacked the synergy you seek from well designed reward systems.
