Salaries, Dollars, and Sense: Making Data Driven Decisions Study Notes

Administrative Context and Institutional Leadership

Following several major and highly publicized scandals at Blue Ridge State, Ted Kemble, the Director of Student Affairs, was appointed by the University President to lead the search process and execute contract negotiations for hiring a new Athletic Director (AD) and head football coach. The primary objective assigned to Kemble was to restore Blue Ridge Athletics to a respectable standing. The search committee concluded its initial screening and forwarded the names of the top candidates to Kemble so that formal job offers could be extended.

The University President communicated clear compensation guidelines to Kemble. The President was willing to pay the going market rate required to secure high-caliber leaders who would foster a winning athletic environment, but explicitly refused to overspend. The President instructed Kemble to perform rigorous research, stating that any well-researched and informed salary recommendations would be fully supported. Priding himself on being a knowledgeable, fair, and equitable leader, the University President sought to ensure that all administrative decisions reflected these organizational values and that every dollar allocated to athletics could be rigorously justified.

Prior to the executive search, Blue Ridge State committed to reclassifying its athletic program by transitioning into the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). Shortly after this commitment was made, both the former Athletic Director and the former head football coach were terminated due to discovered improprieties. Longstanding internal friction existed within the department prior to their departure; staff and coaches frequently expressed discontent, asserting that the former AD was overpaid while the coaching staff was underpaid below market rates. The former AD earned an annual salary of $\$580,000$ , whereas the former head football coach earned an annual salary of $\$290,000$ . Departmental staff operated under the shared assumption that higher financial expenditure directly produced superior competitive performance. These conversations escalated following the announcement of the move to the ACC. Kemble recognized that the salary figures established for these two key executive positions would profoundly influence departmental morale and organizational culture.

To construct data-driven compensation packages, Kemble recognized that public employee salary records were insufficient on their own. Although state employee compensation in Georgia is public record, simply gathering a handful of localized state administrative salaries would not constitute a thorough benchmark in the eyes of the University President. Kemble reached out to Tracy Wyatt, a former classmate and finance specialist with deep expertise in sports business analytics, who was known for attending a Thursday night finance class with her face painted for a basketball game.

Institutional Profile and Athletic Reclassification

Blue Ridge State is a public university located in Blue Ridge, Georgia. Over the preceding $25\,\text{years}$ , the institution underwent substantial growth in student enrollment, physical infrastructure, and athletic programming. The university maintains a current student enrollment of $17,000\,\text{students}$ .

To elevate its institutional profile and maximize national visibility, Blue Ridge State initiated a transition from its historic Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) conference into the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) by joining the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). The FCS (formerly designated as Division I-AA) represents a competition tier below the FBS. Relative to FCS programs, FBS institutions operate with significantly larger departmental budgets, maintain state-of-the-art facilities, and offer the maximum allowable limit of full athletic scholarships.

Peer Benchmarking Databases and Executive Compensation

In consulting with Tracy Wyatt regarding quantitative benchmarks for executive compensation, two primary national athletic salary databases were analyzed: the USA Today Database and the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) Database.

The USA Today Database compiles comprehensive salary data for over $95\%$ of Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) member institutions. It tracks institutional compensation directly paid by universities alongside self-reported, athletically-related outside income where available. While the database excludes public non-FBS institutions and a significant proportion of private universities, it provides a robust, empirical basis for peer benchmarking among FBS and ACC member programs.

The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) Database serves a distinct statutory purpose, gathering institutional data to assess compliance with Title IX federal gender equity mandates rather than guiding executive HR compensation strategy. As a result, the EADA database presents two major analytical limitations for executive benchmarking. First, it does not isolate individual Athletic Director compensation because Title IX reporting evaluates overall program expenditures rather than individual executive roles. Second, the EADA database aggregates all men's and women's head coaching compensation into single institutional group means, creating severe numerical distortion.

For example, at the University of Texas at Austin, the EADA reports an average men's team head coach salary of $\$1,400,000$ . However, this mathematical mean is heavily skewed by extreme outliers, including former head football coach Mack Brown (whose compensation exceeded $\$5,000,000$ ) and former head basketball coach Rick Barnes (who earned $\$2,400,000$ )—the two highest-paid public employees in the State of Texas. Furthermore, separate Athletic Director reporting in EADA is uncommon because UT-Austin represents the sole remaining Division I athletics program that maintains separate Athletic Directors for its men's and women's athletic departments. Comparative Division I programs that previously maintained split athletic director positions merged their departments into unified structures, including the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville in $2007$ and the University of Tennessee in $2012$ .

Atlantic Coast Conference Realignment and Historical Performance

Founded in $1953$ , the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) has accumulated over $125$ NCAA national championship titles. In the $2011\text{--}2012$ athletic season, the ACC achieved its 11th consecutive year with four or more member institutions placing within the Top 30 of the final Division I Learfield Sports Directors' Cup Standings.

The Learfield Sports Directors' Cup measures broad-based athletic program success across postseason competition. Points are awarded based on playoff advancement and total bracket size within the top $10$ men's and top $10$ women's varsity sports for each institution.

The ACC structure comprises $14$ member institutions organized into two divisions: the Atlantic Division and the Coastal Division. Conference alignment experienced major structural changes between $2012$ and $2014$ . Syracuse University and the University of Pittsburgh joined the ACC in $2013$ from the Big East Conference. Notre Dame announced a partial transition in $2014$ , moving all varsity sports into the ACC with the exception of football (which retained independent status) and ice hockey (which remained in the Big East due to the ACC not sponsoring the sport). The University of Maryland announced its departure from the ACC to join the Big Ten Conference effective in $2014$ .

The institutional composition and enrollment profile of the ACC member schools are detailed below:

Atlantic Division Institutions:

Boston College: Located in Chestnut Hill, MA. Private institution. Enrollment: $14,640\,\text{students}$ . Joined ACC in $2005$ .
Clemson University: Located in Clemson, SC. Public institution. Enrollment: $20,576\,\text{students}$ . Joined ACC in $1953$ .
Florida State University: Located in Tallahassee, FL. Public institution (State University System of Florida). Enrollment: $40,838\,\text{students}$ . Joined ACC in $1991$ .
University of Maryland (leaving in 2014): Located in College Park, MD. Public institution (University System of Maryland). Enrollment: $37,641\,\text{students}$ . Joined ACC in 1953$.\n- North Carolina State University: Located in Raleigh, NC. Public institution (UNC System). Enrollment: 34,767\,\text{students} $. Joined ACC in$ 1953$.
Syracuse University (joining in 2013): Located in Syracuse, NY. Private institution. Enrollment: $21,029\,\text{students}$ . Joined ACC in 2013$.\n- Wake Forest University: Located in Winston-Salem, NC. Private institution. Enrollment: 7,351\,\text{students} $. Joined ACC in$ 1953$.

Coastal Division Institutions:

Duke University: Located in Durham, NC. Private institution. Enrollment: $14,248\,\text{students}$ . Joined ACC in 1953$.\n- Georgia Institute of Technology: Located in Atlanta, GA. Public institution (University System of Georgia). Enrollment: 21,557\,\text{students} $. Joined ACC in$ 1979$.
University of Miami: Located in Coral Gables, FL. Private institution. Enrollment: $15,657\,\text{students}$ . Joined ACC in 2004$.\n- University of North Carolina: Located in Chapel Hill, NC. Public institution (UNC System). Enrollment: 29,390\,\text{students} $. Joined ACC in$ 1953$.
University of Pittsburgh (joining in 2013): Located in Pittsburgh, PA. Public / State-related institution. Joined ACC in 2013$.\n- University of Virginia: Located in Charlottesville, VA. Public institution. Enrollment: 21,106\,\text{students} $. Joined ACC in$ 1953$.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University: Located in Blacksburg, VA. Public institution. Enrollment: $31,078\,\text{students}$ . Joined ACC in 2004$.\n\n\n# Quantitative Research Methods and Statistical Analysis\n\nEvaluating compensation data across peer institutions requires calculating fundamental descriptive statistics to measure central tendency, dispersion, and distribution shape:\n\n1. Mean (Arithmetic Average): Represented as \bar{x} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i $. The mean calculates the total sum of all salaries divided by the sample size$ n. While intuitive, it is highly sensitive to extreme high-salary outliers.\n\n2. Median: The positional middle value when salaries are ordered sequentially. It divides the dataset into two equal halves such that 50\% $of institutions fall above and$ 50\% fall below. The median serves as a robust metric that resists distortion from extreme executive compensations.\n\n3. Standard Deviation: Quantifies the degree of dispersion or variation of individual salaries around the sample mean, calculated as s = \sqrt{\frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_i - \bar{x})^2}.\n\n4. Skewness: Measures the asymmetry of the salary distribution around its mean. A positive skew indicates a right-tailed distribution where a small number of extraordinarily high compensation packages pull the mean above the median.\n\n5. Kurtosis: Measures the tail-heaviness and peakedness of the salary distribution relative to a standard normal distribution.\n\nWhen conducting longitudinal analyses between the 2012 $ACC baseline and the expanded$ 2013 $ACC conference structure, adjustments must be made for institutional data availability. As a private institution, Syracuse University publicly discloses both head football coach and Athletic Director compensation. Conversely, the University of Pittsburgh discloses Athletic Director compensation but does not publish individual coaching salaries. Consequently, quantitative coaching salary models for the$ 2013 ACC expansion sample include Syracuse University but exclude the University of Pittsburgh, whereas Athletic Director salary models incorporate both institutions.\n\n\n# Strategic Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior\n\nOrganizational compensation design in higher education athletics requires selecting an explicit competitive market posture: Lead, Match, or Lag.\n\n- Lead Policy: Paying above the prevailing market average.\n - Advantages: Attracts elite coaching and administrative talent, enhances organizational reputation, accelerates competitive success, and signals top-tier institutional commitment.\n - Disadvantages: Significantly increases operating overhead, creates potential internal equity friction with academic personnel, and heightens public and media scrutiny.\n\n- Match Policy: Paying at prevailing market medians or averages.\n - Advantages: Ensures competitive recruitment equity, maintains financial sustainability, controls labor overhead, and aligns with executive peer standards.\n - Disadvantages: May fail to attract high-demand superstar candidates who require premium financial incentives to relocate.\n\n- Lag Policy: Paying below prevailing market standards.\n - Advantages: Minimizes personnel expenditure and preserves institutional capital for academic facilities or non-revenue sports.\n - Disadvantages: Results in elevated turnover, limits applicant pools to unproven personnel, damages staff morale, and risks competitive underperformance.\n\nTo align performance outcomes with institutional compensation, universities utilize structured incentive bonuses. Performance bonuses for head coaches are tied to objective athletic metrics (e.g., win-loss percentages, postseason bowl appearances, conference championships) and academic metrics (e.g., Academic Progress Rates [APR] and team grade point averages). Athletic Director performance bonuses incorporate departmental Learfield Cup points, total athletic revenue growth, fundraising targets, and institutional compliance standards.\n\nHigh compensation dispersion within an athletics department or across a broader university setting can trigger negative organizational behavior, including reduced cooperation, low job satisfaction, and inter-departmental resentment. When coaching and executive salaries dramatically exceed general faculty compensation, leadership must mitigate friction through proactive communication. The Athletic Director and University President must emphasize that athletic expenditures generate self-sustaining revenue streams, national marketing exposure, and philanthropic donor engagement that indirectly benefit the broader academic community.\n\n\n# Student Discussion Questions and Analytical Framework\n\nResearch Methods Analysis:\n1. Construct a comprehensive report detailing central tendency (mean, median) and dispersion (standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis) for peer institutional compensation. Include empirical models examining the statistical correlation between athletic spending, coaching win percentages, and Athletic Director Learfield Cup points.\n2. Define the exact target population and sample boundaries recommended for Ted Kemble's salary analysis. Calculate mean, median, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for the chosen sample, describing the dataset distribution.\n3. Evaluate conference realignment impact:\n - Calculate and compare descriptive statistics between the 2012 $ACC (excluding Syracuse) and$ 2013 ACC (including Syracuse).\n - Determine median and mean salaries for the 2013$$ ACC featuring Syracuse and Pittsburgh (noting Pittsburgh's non-disclosure of football coaching compensation).
- Assess how realignment alters metrics of central tendency and overall salary distribution.
- Project the long-term impact of conference realignment on future executive and coaching compensation trajectories.

Statistically evaluate the empirical assumption: Does increased salary expenditure produce a statistically significant increase in winning percentage?

Human Resource Management Analysis:

Evaluate the strategic tradeoffs of adopting a Lead, Match, or Lag compensation posture at Blue Ridge State.
Formulate specific salary offer figures and strategy recommendations for the incoming Athletic Director and head football coach.
Design appropriate performance bonus structures for both executive positions, justifying the strategic rationale.
Formulate executive justification arguments for the University President, highlighting critical financial and organizational metrics.
Address internal pay equity and organizational behavior:
- Outline action steps for a new Athletic Director if existing coaches express resentment over incoming compensation packages.
- Formulate policy recommendations for the University President to address pay equity concerns among lower-paid academic faculty.
- Draft formal media responses handling inquiries regarding executive compensation and the utilization of public state funds for athletic contracts.
Identify auxiliary environmental, economic, and institutional factors that should influence final salary determinations.