Some of you need to quit being such pansies. Lsu (or usc) paying a coach 100 million isn't our problem. It's theirs. It's called the law of diminishing returns. They just won a national title two years ago and are throwing bad money after bad money. We aren't trying to compete with them monetarily.
I agree with this, mostly. I think the problem is that we're forced to compete for talent in the same labor market as the LSUs. That Kelly gets 10 million is only relevant in the way that trickles down if it becomes more standard. It means P5 salaries likely increase, at the assistant level, as well. Also at issue is how quickly these numbers are increasing, and the fact that they're now largely privately funded. Steve Spurrier made 1 million in 1997, and he was the highest paid coach in NCAA football. The market has now 10xd in 20 years. Not a lot of industries where that's the case.
Maybe we'll never beat them on the field. But the fact is we can get a lot better than we are without spending lsu money, or even MORE money. We can be smart, we can make good hires and we can out recruit our peers.
This I agree with fully. We should not spend more than we do now. We should be aiming to spend less, but spend smarter, and looking at non-traditional pools of candidates.