Texas Tech Football assistant coaches at a huge disadvantage

Sep 26, 2015; Lubbock, TX, USA; A general overview of Jones AT&T stadium during the game between the Texas Tech Red Raiders and the Texas Christian Horned Frogs. Mandatory Credit: Michael C. Johnson-USA TODAY Sports
Sep 26, 2015; Lubbock, TX, USA; A general overview of Jones AT&T stadium during the game between the Texas Tech Red Raiders and the Texas Christian Horned Frogs. Mandatory Credit: Michael C. Johnson-USA TODAY Sports /
facebooktwitterreddit

Kliff Kingsbury is undoubtedly on the Hot Seat for 2017, but from an economic perspective, letting him go prematurely could be disastrous to the entire staff.

Texas Tech had opportunities to win last season, but just couldn’t become bowl eligible. A lot of the blame was absorbed by the coaching (as it should have), but as I’ve stressed all along, coaches and fans can’t teach players lessons in responsibility by misdirecting blame.

for years now, Kingsbury has taken the offense to explosive levels, but the defense has been less than spectacular. We can chalk that up to recruiting issues, an outdated infrastructure, or coaching, but at the end of the day, we can all agree the subpar results from the defense is on the coaches, who have to find ways to execute better in practices.

If the defense can’t click this Fall, and administrators are left mulling the future of the Texas Tech staff, however, from an economic perspective, it just doesn’t make sense.

If Texas Tech administrators have millions lying around to pay for a buyout, but Tech can’t put a budget together that mirrors Kingsbury’s buyout to pay assistant coaches competitive salaries, who else will want to come to Lubbock?

In a conference that’s already a tough one to crack defensively, all it takes is a handful of plays that “go your way” to decide which team wins.

The logic of firing coaches for underperforming in that environment offers a temporary fix to a situation that requires longterm dedication, and perspective.

If we were to look at how much Big 12 head coaches made in 2016, the rankings would be expected.

Note: The numbers in parenthesis ( ) are USA Today‘s national rankings.

  1. Oklahoma: Bob Stoops (retired in 2017): $5,550,000 (No. 4)
  2. Texas: Charlie Strong (fired): $5,200,000 (No. 6)
  3. TCU: Gary Patterson: $4,014,723 (No. 20)
  4. Oklahoma State: Mike Gundy: $3,775,000 (No. 22)
  5. Texas Tech: Kliff Kingsbury: $3,306,575 (No. 30)
  6. Kansas State: Bill Snyder: $3,100,000 (No. 33)
  7. WVU: Dana Holgorsen: $2,980,000 (No. 37)
  8. ISU: Matt Campbell: $2,000,000 (No. 58)
  9. Kansas: Dave Beaty: $801,109 (No. 84)

Unlisted: Baylor

Now let’s compare head coaches’ salaries to the assistant coaches’ net salaries:

  1. Oklahoma: $4,390,000
  2. Texas: $4,546,250
  3. Oklahoma State: $3,283,999
  4. Kansas State: $3,203,525
  5. West Virginia: $2,686,025
  6. Iowa State: $2,318,250
  7. Kansas: $2,300,599
  8. Texas Tech: $2,247,900

Unlisted: TCU, and Baylor (private)

If Texas Tech can’t afford to pay assistants enough to compete with the titans, how can we have expectations they’ll produce at a truly competitive level? If an assistant coach believes he’s worth $750,000 and the market trends agree, he won’t agree to take a significant reduction just to play hero. It’s nothing personal, it’s just business.

Numbers don’t lie, and the salary comparisons are shocking. But what we can’t deny is that Texas Tech assistants are operating at a significant disadvantage. The truth is, coaching is a results-driven business, and even slight improvements to both sides of the ball this Fall are reasons for Red Raider fans to be optimistic.

At the end of the day, if Tech can’t make it to a Bowl game, it’s up to boosters and administrators to decide how to move forward. That’s the reality. But it’s also up to boosters and administrators to decide if they want to take the buyout money, and reinvest it into improving (and paying) the assistant coaches to ensure they can perform at a championship level.