|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 12, 2018 18:30:53 GMT -5
Stanford and Southern cal pay close to a million Both are private schools and rarely disclose salaries. How were you able to verify these? I'm going to give both Stanford and USC credit and assume they pay market rate for their head coaches. I'd wager one of my cars that Hambly and Crouch's combined annual salaries don't exceed a million. If they did, those athletic departments would be demonstrating horrific finance acumen, and if extrapolated to all sports would suggest impending insolvency. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 12, 2018 18:45:24 GMT -5
Both are private schools and rarely disclose salaries. How were you able to verify these? I'm going to give both Stanford and USC credit and assume they pay market rate for their head coaches. I'd wager one of my cars that Hambly and Crouch's combined annual salaries don't exceed a million. If they did, those athletic departments would be demonstrating horrific finance acumen, and if extrapolated to all sports would suggest impending insolvency. That would be an extremely safe bet. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 12, 2018 18:59:40 GMT -5
I'm going to give both Stanford and USC credit and assume they pay market rate for their head coaches. I'd wager one of my cars that Hambly and Crouch's combined annual salaries don't exceed a million. If they did, those athletic departments would be demonstrating horrific finance acumen, and if extrapolated to all sports would suggest impending insolvency. That would be an extremely safe bet. Definitely. If someone provided a total of $750K combined I would still take the under. I'm guessing Hambly makes about $350K and Crouch about $200K. Edit: Considering what Hambly made at Illinois and the COLA from Urbana-Champaign to Palo Alto, a better guess is probably $400K. |
|
|
|
Post by Heisenberg on Jul 13, 2018 6:37:33 GMT -5
That would be an extremely safe bet. Definitely. If someone provided a total of $750K combined I would still take the under. I'm guessing Hambly makes about $350K and Crouch about $200K. Edit: Considering what Hambly made at Illinois and the COLA from Urbana-Champaign to Palo Alto, a better guess is probably $400K. I would assume both coaches get other “perks” that are not counted in salary technically. These could maybe add to an overall number being a bit higher. Still don’t think it’s quite as high as a million as the original poster alluded. |
|
|
|
Post by vbfamily on Jul 13, 2018 8:03:13 GMT -5
Hambly lives in a nice house on campus (as do many of the Stanford coaches), so that's a pretty good perk.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 13, 2018 8:10:05 GMT -5
Definitely. If someone provided a total of $750K combined I would still take the under. I'm guessing Hambly makes about $350K and Crouch about $200K. Edit: Considering what Hambly made at Illinois and the COLA from Urbana-Champaign to Palo Alto, a better guess is probably $400K. I would assume both coaches get other “perks” that are not counted in salary technically. These could maybe add to an overall number being a bit higher. Still don’t think it’s quite as high as a million as the original poster alluded. Sure, but we are talking about base salaries since in most cases we can find evidence of that. You can throw in bonuses if it's in the contract. If we add in perks and ancillary income it isn't necessarily verifiable, e.g. camp income. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 13, 2018 8:11:51 GMT -5
Hambly lives in a nice house on campus (as do many of the Stanford coaches), so that's a pretty good perk. That would probably make me adjust his base salary downward. While that's certainly a nice perk, it would be an argument from Stanford to offer less salary since they're subsidizing his cost of living adjustment. |
|
|
|
Post by vbfamily on Jul 13, 2018 9:01:15 GMT -5
Hambly lives in a nice house on campus (as do many of the Stanford coaches), so that's a pretty good perk. That would probably make me adjust his base salary downward. While that's certainly a nice perk, it would be an argument from Stanford to offer less salary since they're subsidizing his cost of living adjustment. Yep, but would make cost of living not as enormous of a factor compared to buying or renting a house in Palo Alto. The family houses on campus are beautiful where the professors/coaches live. Also, plenty of kids to play with. |
|
|
|
Post by Heisenberg on Jul 13, 2018 10:45:51 GMT -5
I would assume both coaches get other “perks” that are not counted in salary technically. These could maybe add to an overall number being a bit higher. Still don’t think it’s quite as high as a million as the original poster alluded. Sure, but we are talking about base salaries since in most cases we can find evidence of that. You can throw in bonuses if it's in the contract. If we add in perks and ancillary income it isn't necessarily verifiable, e.g. camp income. For sure. I wasn’t trying to disagree with you. Instead just hypothesize the overall value. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 13, 2018 10:48:34 GMT -5
Sure, but we are talking about base salaries since in most cases we can find evidence of that. You can throw in bonuses if it's in the contract. If we add in perks and ancillary income it isn't necessarily verifiable, e.g. camp income. For sure. I wasn’t trying to disagree with you. Instead just hypothesize the overall value. The difference between perquisites and income comes down to what you have when you walk away. Income is yours to keep, and thus actually more valuable unless you are forced to spend it all just to keep being able to make it. A nice house on campus is an awesome perq, but not quite as good as the equivalent income unless you personally value living right on the spot very highly. |
|
|
|
Post by Heisenberg on Jul 13, 2018 10:52:59 GMT -5
For sure. I wasn’t trying to disagree with you. Instead just hypothesize the overall value. The difference between perquisites and income comes down to what you have when you walk away. Income is yours to keep, and thus actually more valuable unless you are forced to spend it all just to keep being able to make it. A nice house on campus is an awesome perq, but not quite as good as the equivalent income unless you personally value living right on the spot very highly. Good point. Just to play devils advocate, you could argue that you are retaining more money on the back end as a result of the housing being provided. That’s obviously harder to calculate exactly, but at least makes sense in theory. |
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jul 13, 2018 11:18:30 GMT -5
Hambly lives in a nice house on campus (as do many of the Stanford coaches), so that's a pretty good perk. HUGE PERK..............Southern Cal does the same. |
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jul 13, 2018 11:19:31 GMT -5
For sure. I wasn’t trying to disagree with you. Instead just hypothesize the overall value. The difference between perquisites and income comes down to what you have when you walk away. Income is yours to keep, and thus actually more valuable unless you are forced to spend it all just to keep being able to make it. A nice house on campus is an awesome perq, but not quite as good as the equivalent income unless you personally value living right on the spot very highly. Living in Hermosa beach |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 13, 2018 14:19:11 GMT -5
Hambly lives in a nice house on campus (as do many of the Stanford coaches), so that's a pretty good perk. HUGE PERK..............Southern Cal does the same. |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 13, 2018 21:38:23 GMT -5
That would probably make me adjust his base salary downward. While that's certainly a nice perk, it would be an argument from Stanford to offer less salary since they're subsidizing his cost of living adjustment. Yep, but would make cost of living not as enormous of a factor compared to buying or renting a house in Palo Alto. The family houses on campus are beautiful where the professors/coaches live. Also, plenty of kids to play with. I'd estimate renting an equivalent house In Palo Alto at $8K/month. Kevin can walk to work which is such a luxury in California. |
|
