Coaching and Scouting costs

[strait8]

I know that I brought this up before and not many people commented. I really believe the multiplier effect on Coaches (x7) and scouts (x45) is out of whack with the overall budget.
Highering an in demand coach or good scout will do more to harm your performance than over spending on a free agent.

I am in the year 2013 of a careeer with the San Diego.

On my Balance sheet for 2012 costs look like this

player salaries 80,890,000
player bonuses-52,900,000

Coaches salaries 92,890,000- Head coach salary 13270000 (x7)
Scouting costs 64,350,000-Scouts salary 1430000 (x45)

Total cost for 53 players who should should get the lions share are costing 133.7 million. The approximately 15 coaches and administrative staff of say 8 and total scouting staff maybe 6-8 are getting 157.1 million. It seems unrealistic.

In 2013 I resigned my scout (10th season) who is the best in the league and had offers from 5 other teams to a $2,080,000 salary for 3 years as he is 62 now.

I signed a new coach (no previous experience) to a salary of 9,170,000. There are ten coaches making more money up to 18 mil per year. here are the 2013 budget numbers.

player salaries 81,180,000
player bonuses 63,360,000

Coaching Costs 64,190,000
Scouting costs 93,150,000

A raise of 600,000 added 30 million to my scouting costs. A drop in coaching costs of 4 million subtracted 28 million from my coaching costs.

I e-mailed Jim about this. His reply was as follows:
"Since the estimated costs are always a constant percentage
based on the cap, I fail to see where there's a problem with $15 million coaches a few years down the road. If teams are determined to overpay for their staffs, they'll overpay."

I am the only person who does not see the logic in penalizing someone for hiring a sought after coach or scout.

The multiplier effect makes every 100,000 you spend on a scout cost 4.5 million. Every 100K you spend on a free agent cost less than than 100K because you amortize the bonus portion of 100K out over the length of the contract.

If this were the case Tampa would not go after Gruden, Dallas would not go after Parcells, Detroit would stick with marty morningwhig because the hit from signing Marriucci would probably put them in the red.

Two things seem to stick out in this.

If you have a stadium under 70000 you can not make money if you pay a coach more than 5 million and a scout more than a million. The total cost of 80 million would have you severly in the red.

If you do not want to get fired for poor performance you have to hire mediocre or untested or young inexperienced coaches and scouts whose salaries are not being bid up by other teams.

Am I (and possibly Marvin Glazer) the only ones think that this is an unrealistic penalty in the game?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by strait8
[Hiring] an in demand coach or good scout will do more to harm your performance than over spending on a free agent.

I presume by this you mean that it harms your performance rating more than spending on a free agent.

I think one reason why your concerns (which may well be legitimate) get glossed over here is that the performance ratings, and the game's financials in general, don't really seem to connect to much of anything tangible in the game. Lose money? So what. Are you gonna get fired? Unlikely.

I confess I haven't really paid any attention in FOF4, but in the predecessor versions of the game, there was rather little reaction to ticket price increases... so if you weren't making money, it was out of your own foolishness (not jacking up ticket prices) or your own house rules.


Some here have argued that the financial side of the game ought to be greatly expanded to make these considerations a bigger part of playing the game.

[jamesUMD]

I was going to respond but Quicksand summarized pretty much everything I was going to say. One thing I would add is that I am one of those that believes the financial accountability aspect of the game leaves much to be desired.

[QuikSand]

This seems like a fair place to launch my real life tangent...

Why don't good NFL coaches make more money? Every year, teams spend some $70 million on player salaries, and they agonize over every penny of it... how much for a punter, how much for a special teamer, etc. The salary cap makes that a touch-and-go area - you have to spend wisely.

However, with that much investment in the team's operations, not to mention countless other dollars spent on facilities and other costs... why is it that coaches (who can undeniably have a significant impact on a team's success.. which undeniably has an effect on the team's profitability) don't get astronomical sums of money?

Steve Spurrier gets a deal for $5m per year, and people practically wet themselves. Why? Set aside his particular case (make it Gruden if you like, or Parcells, or whomever is the hottest ticket in town) - if there's a coach that you think can really make your team better, how is that investment less sensible that spending $5m to get a new strong safety or wide receiver?

I would posit that coaches in the NFL, and perhaps also good GM/personnel managers, are underpaid as a class. A good one makes a big difference for your team and bottom line.... and if owners balk at paying $2-3m for a guy who can do that, they are missing the forest for the trees.

It's the same issues that you get with a tightwad place like the Cincinnati Bengals... these stories about scrimping to save a fw bucks on player-related amenities... now, nobody wants to go play there. Mark Cuban, love him or hate him, has this one right on - go blow a million bucks to install massage parlors and giant TVs in the player area - and suddenly, a guy will take $5m to play for you instead of $7m. Who's the dummy there?

[strait8]

Quicksand:

Lose 100 million two years in a row and your fired, I guarantee it.

I lost 103 million my first year on the job when I won the the league championship as a wildcard team with a 9-7 record. Of course wildcard teams play all playoff games on the road hence no income. as soon as I hit the end season button i got the "ahem" e-mail which had the brief succinct message attached"Your fired".

My point is simple if you look at the two years I posted.

My head coach and head scout salaries went down 3.25 million from 2012 to 2013. This is a drop of more than 27%. Yet on the balance sheet my overall coaching and scouting costs went up.
600,000 increase in salary to my scout added 27 million to my scouting cost and balance sheet and negated all of the almost 4 million savings on my coach.

I spend 6,000,000 on an over priced free agent it still costs 6 million. I spend 600,000 extra on a scout and it costs 27 million.

Sorry I love playing this game. I don't enven mind being penalized for hiring top priced staff, but this is out of line.

[Leonidas]

I find the best strategy is to find a decent, unsigned coach or scout and sign them as cheaply as possible for 5 years at a time. When the contract runs out, let them go and find another. I have been able to keep myself stocked with good coaches and scouts at the league minimum that way indefinitely.

However, my big desie for the future is to have OCs and DCs who run a particular style. Eliminate the head coach completely. I mean, isn't that our job running the game anyway? Then have a fuller list of OCs and DCs so we can pick a good guy whose styles may vary greatly, thus giving us more choice and fun.

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by QuikSand
This seems like a fair place to launch my real life tangent...

Why don't good NFL coaches make more money? Every year, teams spend some $70 million on player salaries, and they agonize over every penny of it... how much for a punter, how much for a special teamer, etc. The salary cap makes that a touch-and-go area - you have to spend wisely.

However, with that much investment in the team's operations, not to mention countless other dollars spent on facilities and other costs... why is it that coaches (who can undeniably have a significant impact on a team's success.. which undeniably has an effect on the team's profitability) don't get astronomical sums of money?

Steve Spurrier gets a deal for $5m per year, and people practically wet themselves. Why? Set aside his particular case (make it Gruden if you like, or Parcells, or whomever is the hottest ticket in town) - if there's a coach that you think can really make your team better, how is that investment less sensible that spending $5m to get a new strong safety or wide receiver?

I would posit that coaches in the NFL, and perhaps also good GM/personnel managers, are underpaid as a class. A good one makes a big difference for your team and bottom line.... and if owners balk at paying $2-3m for a guy who can do that, they are missing the forest for the trees.

It's the same issues that you get with a tightwad place like the Cincinnati Bengals... these stories about scrimping to save a fw bucks on player-related amenities... now, nobody wants to go play there. Mark Cuban, love him or hate him, has this one right on - go blow a million bucks to install massage parlors and giant TVs in the player area - and suddenly, a guy will take $5m to play for you instead of $7m. Who's the dummy there?

My guess is that Coaching contracts are guaranteed, while player contracts are not. Obviously there are other factors, but I always figured that was the main reason -- After all, Snyder's still paying Schottenheimer the difference on his Chargers contract.