Staffs have also grown by leaps and bounds (albeit, a lot of that growth is for young “coaches”/grunts that don’t earn a ton). So that could suppress long-term growth since arguably, if one considers total dollars spent by teams for coaches (both those working and those being paid to NOT work), there very well could be growth in total dollars spent. ![]() Further, coaching contracts (unlike player contracts) are generally guaranteed. If they were awful in try #1 and get a second bite at the apple, it doesn’t seem reasonable they should have their compensation increased–in fact getting a second opportunity is probably more important if they were abject failures round one (though this may be age dependent, too, since younger coaches can afford the long play and rebuild their reps before taking a second bite). For those unjustly canned due to circumstances outside their control but who otherwise did a good job, they tend to do better on their contracts with a second bite at the apple. If you think about it, the large majority of those mid-level coaches will be OUT in 2-4 seasons. The fact there isn’t growth for mid-level coaches shouldn’t be all that surprising. But given the fact they never go anywhere, it probably follows they’re being well compensated. ![]() I would venture to say that the guys at the top have seen substantial increases in their salaries–but I can’t prove that either. Given the lack of transparency on the salaries of the true top end coaches, one can’t conclude they’re is no growth there. Regardless, it will be interesting to see whether other teams will once again embrace the “no salary cap in coaching” mantra, and behave accordingly. Or maybe the league is looking the other way, in an effort to help the Raiders thrive in their eventual new city. The NFL necessarily colludes in a variety of ways, and it’s fair to wonder based on the failure of the coaching market to grow in a manner commensurate with other objective indicators like the salary cap and player compensation whether owners have a wink-nod understanding that coaches won’t be getting paid as much as maybe they should or could.ĭavis, in a desire to exit Oakland and enter Las Vegas the right way, is ignoring whatever preferences may have been communicated from the Management Council to the teams about blowing the curve on coaching pay. Really, what makes more sense, spending $25 million per year in a capped environment on Derek Carr or spending $25 million in the absence of a cap on Bill Belichick? And based on the lack of growth in the coaching market relative to the salary cap and player compensation, there’s plenty more money that could be and should be paid to the best coaches. And I think one of the big differences in teams is the front office or the coaching staffs and those things. ![]() “The National Football League has a salary cap for players, and so it’s very competitive,” Raiders owner Mark Davis said during Tuesday’s press conference (re)introducing Jon Gruden. For the first time in a long time, an NFL owner publicly pointed out that NFL teams have no spending restrictions when it comes to paying coaches. ![]() That may be changing, at least in one NFL city. Or, more accurately, teams decided not to acknowledge that a coach doesn’t have that much value, by not investing that kind of value in coaches. At some point since the Buccaneers underscored the importance of a head coach by giving up two first-round picks, two second-round picks, and $8 million for the rights to Jon Gruden, teams decided that a coach doesn’t have that much value. Once upon a time, teams aggressively relied upon the lack of a salary cap for coaches to justify spending as much as they wanted in order to attract the head coaches and assistant coaches they needed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |