Now, mind you: I didn’t expect those presidential salaries to approach the
levels of something as important as matriculating a leather-covered prolate
spheroid down an expensively manicured, slightly convex field.
Highest Public University Football Coach Salaries in 2023 (US$M)
1.
Nick Saban
University of Alabama
$11.407
2.
Dabo Swinney
Clemson University
$10.884
3.
Kirby Smart
University of Georgia
$10.705
4.
Ryan Day
The Ohio State University
$10.271
5.
Mel Tucker
Michigan State University
$10.015
6.
Brian Kelly
Louisiana State University
$9.975
7.
Jimbo Fisher
Texas A&M University
$9.15
8.
Mark Stoops
University of Kentucky
$9.013
9.
Josh Huepel
University of Tennessee
$9
(Tie)
Lane Kiffin
University of Mississippi
$9
11.
James Franklin
Pennsylvania State University
$8.5
12.
Jim Harbaugh
University of Michigan
$8.254
13.
Luke Fickell
University of Wisconsin
$7.625
(Tie)
Mike Gundy
Oklahoma State University
$7.625
15.
Mike Norvell
Florida State University
$7.3
16.
Billy Napier
University of Florida
$7.27
17.
Brent Venables
University of Oklahoma
$7.1
18.
Kirk Ferentz
University of Iowa
$7
19.
Dan Lanning
University of Oregon
$6.624
20.
Hugh Freeze
Auburn University
$6.5
(Tie)
Bret Bielema
University of Illinois
$6.5
22.
Sam Pittman
University of Arkansas
$6.357
23.
Kyle Whittingham
University of Utah
$6.325
24.
Shane Beamer
University of South Carolina
$6.125
25.
Eliah Drinkwitz
University of Missouri
$6
(Tie)
P.J. Fleck
University of Minnesota
$6
Source: USA Today, October 3, 2023
ADVERTISEMENT
But I did wonder how much overlap or contrast there might be. If both the
chief administrator and the sports coach are making top dollar, might that
be indicative of broader regional prosperity? What does a high
concentration of well-paid coaches or well-paid institutional leaders say
about a given state?
Highest Total Pay for Chief Executives at Public Doctoral Universities and
Systems in 2022
1.
Tedd L. Mitchell
Texas Tech University system
$2,509,687
2.
Eric J. Barron*
Pennsylvania State University
$2,009,853
3.
Joyce Ellen McConnell*
Colorado State University at Fort Collins
$1,968,350
4.
Renu Khator
University of Houston
$1,663,391
5.
Harlan M. Sands*
Cleveland State University
$1,434,422
6.
Michael Ray Williams*
University of North Texas System
$1,381,655
7.
Eli Capilouto
University of Kentucky
$1,378,407
8.
Doug A. Girod
University of Kansas
$1,356,860
9.
Jay C. Hartzell
University of Texas at Austin
$1,342,718
10.
Neeli Bendapudi*
Pennsylvania State University
$1,254,063
11.
Jay A. Perman
University System of Maryland
$1,237,509
12.
Michael M. Crow
Arizona State University
$1,235,570
13.
Ashish K. Vaidya*
Northern Kentucky University
$1,234,225
14.
Kristina M. Johnson
The Ohio State University
$1,183,188
15.
W. Kent Fuchs
University of Florida
$1,159,958
16.
Richard D. McCullough
Florida State University
$1,147,486
17.
James P. Clements
Clemson University
$1,132,415
18.
Ali A. Houshmand
Rowan University
$1,113,639
19.
Ted Carter
University of Nebraska system office
$1,050,013
20.
Samuel L. Stanley Jr.*
Michigan State University
$1,035,380
21.
Brooks A. Keel
Augusta University
$1,010,154
22.
Margaret Katherine Banks
Texas A&M University at College Station
$987,432
23.
James E. Ryan
University of Virginia
$986,437
24.
James B. Milliken
University of Texas system
$983,218
25.
Mitchell E. Daniels Jr.*
Purdue University at West Lafayette
$976,587
*served less than the full year
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, August 2023
One thing jumps out immediately: While only one coach in the state of Texas
— Jimbo Fisher at Texas A&M — makes the Top 25 best-remunerated coaches
list, four of the Top 10 and six of the Top 25 university presidents can be
found in the Lone Star State. That’s the same state that routinely tops
Site Selection’s Governor’s Cups rankings for
most corporate facility investment projects in a given year, and performs
well in other rankings too.
Florida is where you’ll find two of the eight schools who have a football
coach and a chief executive in their respective Top 25s by pay:
Clemson University
Ohio State University
Michigan State University
Texas A&M University at College Station
University of Kentucky
Pennsylvania State University
Florida State University
University of Florida
But as hoops coaching legend Tex Winter and his fictional soccer protégé
Ted Lasso would tell you, it’s the triangle offense that works best. What
can we triangulate with these two lists? How about top universities by R&D
expenditure? Below are the latest available figures for all higher
education institutions (public and private). The nine schools that also
appear somewhere on one of the above two lists are in bold type.
Top 30 Institutions by FY 2021 R&D Expenditures in All Fields: FYs 2019–21
Institution
Rank
2019
2020
2021
% change 2020–21
All institutions
–
83,487
86,300
89,723
4.0
Leading 30 institutions
–
35,404
36,646
38,126
4.0
Johns Hopkins U.a
1
2,917
3,110
3,181
2.3
U. California, San Francisco
2
1,595
1,651
1,710
3.6
U. Michigan, Ann Arbor
3
1,676
1,674
1,640
-2.0
U. Pennsylvania
4
1,506
1,579
1,632
3.4
U. Washington, Seattle
5
1,426
1,457
1,489
2.2
U. California, Los Angeles
6
1,306
1,393
1,455
4.5
U. California, San Diego
7
1,354
1,404
1,425
1.5
U. Wisconsin-Madison
8
1,297
1,364
1,380
1.2
Stanford U.
9
1,204
1,204
1,274
5.8
Harvard U.
10
1,240
1,240
1,254
1.1
Duke U.
11
1,227
1,197
1,238
3.4
Ohio State U.
12
929
968
1,236
27.7
U. North Carolina, Chapel Hill
13
1,154
1,160
1,206
4.0
Cornell U.
14
1,145
1,190
1,184
-0.5
Yale U.
15
1,072
1,094
1,165
6.5
Texas A&M U., College Station and Health Science
Center
16
952
1,131
1,148
1.5
U. Marylandb
17
1,097
1,103
1,142
3.5
U. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh
18
1,081
1,106
1,135
2.6
Texas A&M U., College Station and Health Science
Center
19
969
1,051
1,125
7.0
Georgia Institute of Technology
20
960
1,049
1,114
6.2
Columbia U. in the City of New York
21
1,004
1,033
1,099
6.4
U. Minnesota, Twin Cities
22
1,013
1,042
1,073
3.0
New York U.
23
935
947
1,064
12.4
Vanderbilt U. and Vanderbilt U. Medical Center
24
777
947
1,019
23.5
Washington U., Saint Louis
25
887
920
989
7.5
Pennsylvania State U., University Park and Hershey Medical
Center
26
950
992
971
-2.1
U. Florida
27
929
942
960
1.9
U. Southern California
28
910
941
956
1.6
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
29
1,009
988
949
-3.9
Northwestern U.
30
857
875
913
4.3
Source: National Science Foundation National Center for Science
and Engineering Statistics
Do any schools appear in all three lists? Four institutions make the final
squad: The Ohio State University, Texas A&M University at College Station,
Pennsylvania State University and the University of Florida. Three of those
schools’ states were Top 10 in this year’s Governor’s Cup rankings, with
Florida and its 205 projects just outside the line. Among the Top 30 in
R&D, The Ohio State University showed the most dramatic increase in
spending from 2020 to 2021 at 27.7%.
The two Big Ten schools from Ohio and Pennsylvania are currently ranked No.
4 and No. 6 in the nation in football. They square off October 21st on the
gridiron. The research and talent from their institutions square off every
day with global competition. — Adam Bruns
The Agostini-DiMauro laboratories in the Physics Department at
The Ohio State University are named in part for physics
professor emeritus Pierre Agostini, who yesterday won the Nobel
Prize in Physics alongside two global colleagues.
These Places and Companies Lead the Way in Developing Vaccines Moderna leads all companies in vaccine candidates on PhRMA’s list, followed by such companies as Pfizer, GSK and BioNTech. Since 2000, according to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the U.S. Food & Drug Administration […]
T hey say misery loves company. When everybody is having a bad year, then one company’s troubles don’t look so bad. But even in relative terms, Lucent Technologies, along with its telecom equipment and networking rivals, has endured more than most. Lucent’s challenge of spinning off non-core businesses would have been […]
Louise Story’s article in The New York Times last month is merely the latest installment of the longstanding observation that state and local incentives amount to a zero-sum game, whereby one location’s win is another’s loss.
