A part-time head coach has led his team to an impressive #2 national ranking! Here’s a look at the 2023 total pay for head coaches with teams ranked ahead (UCLA) and just behind Fordham in the latest polls:
UCLA – $264,167
Cal – $211,550
UC Irvine (2 teams) – $191,710
UC Davis – $145,458
Long Beach State – $111,657
San Jose State – $80,699
UC San Diego – $75,450
UC Santa Barbara – $96,304
This data reveals a significant disparity in coaching compensation, especially when comparing part-time and full-time roles. Despite Fordham’s head coach achieving a top 2 ranking, his presumed part-time status and salary are a fraction of what other coaches earn, raising questions about the necessity of high salaries in programs with robust institutional resources.
If a part-time coach can deliver such high-caliber results, it suggests that well-funded institutions may not need to rely as heavily on high salaries to attract top-tier talent. Often, the prestige and facilities of institutions like UCLA or Cal inherently draw strong recruits, indicating that it may be the strength of the institution rather than coaching pay alone that drives success.
This dynamic invites a reassessment of resource allocation in collegiate sports. By optimizing compensation strategies—particularly in programs with a strong brand advantage—institutions could channel funds into broader athletic and academic investments, benefiting the school community as a whole.
This can’t be a serious post… instead of maybe celebrating Fordham’s success or legitimately wondering whether the ranking will be justified when they actually play the big 4, you decided to trivialize the program by suggesting that it somehow happened magically without a serious comment to the program? You then proceed to insult the real commitment made by some of the top programs in the country by implying they pretty much run by themselves…. Yes - must have been a joke
We’ll find out come tournament time, but the Pacific game showed they’re not a fluke. Impressive season so far.
The rest of the rankings seem to be settling in about right…curious to see what Cal does with guys a little more healthy and their goalie situation sorted out. Big games this weekend
And having 10 seniors/grad students does not hurt. How many of them are over 22? James O turns 24 in Feb. Playing against 18 year old boys. Same with most of UOP starters.
Why consider it distasteful? Yes, a serious post. No, not a joke. The entire college sports landscape is evolving rapidly, and in our niche sport—where programs are more at risk of being cut than expanded—isn’t it relevant to highlight that a part-time coach can recruit and develop a team to reach #2 in the nation? Isn’t fostering thoughtful discussions the purpose of this message board, especially when supported by compelling facts?
Do you know how much time the Fordham coach spends on the team? Since you refer to his as a “part time” coach? . How does that compare to the time other coaches spend?
Do you know how much those other coaches make after bonuses are included? Do you know how much their staff gets paid? Do you know how much the Fordham coach makes when you refer to it as a fraction of the other coaches? Etc.
you don’t seem to have the full picture (neither do I) which makes your post pretty meaningless. And as the other post points out you infer neither group is working that hard, (one being “part time” and the others on auto-pilot) which is in fact insulting
Isn’t this the last year of COVID rules, so a lot of teams have guys on 5th years, Grad students, etc? Looking at Fordham’s roster I see two guys who are grad students, only one is a starter, and I don’t believe they’ve redshirted any players. Btw who are these teams you’re referring to that are all 18 year olds?
Ah, I see you’ve decided to bravely enter the debate without having the ‘full picture’ yourself—an interesting approach, to say the least. My post raised questions to foster discussion, but you’ve managed to infer quite a lot from it without offering a single new piece of information. I suppose your strategy is to criticize while admitting you’re equally in the dark, which ironically reinforces my point: speculating without facts doesn’t contribute much at all, does it?
Also, it’s amusing how you interpret my words as an insult to the coaches’ work ethic rather than as a critique of resource allocation or time investment. Coaches can be dedicated and still limited by factors outside their control, like time or budgets. But perhaps nuance is lost when you’re more focused on defending assumptions than discussing realities. If you’re truly aiming to add value to the conversation, maybe try offering more than just indignation mixed with your own lack of ‘the full picture’.
At the end of the day, the difference between us is that I’m questioning the system while you’re questioning my right to ask questions. If you’re content with defending ambiguity over insight, that’s your prerogative. But dismissing a conversation as ‘meaningless’ just because it challenges the status quo speaks more to a lack of perspective than to any lack of facts. Perhaps when you’re ready to add depth instead of just defense, we can have a real discussion.
Some good and some not so good points are made here and arguments are being made with out all the facts!
In my opinion, the fundamental issue centers on roster composition and European recruitment trends. Take Fordham as a prime example since it is being in the center of the argument : their roster features 13 international players, including 6 seniors - highlighting the growing internationalization of US college teams.
An often overlooked reality is that coaching these teams may be more straightforward than many assume. Whether part-time or full-time, any coach with solid water polo knowledge can effectively lead a team of 10-12 elite players from established water polo powerhouses like Hungary, Greece, Italy, Croatia, and Spain. These athletes arrive with highly developed skills and tactical understanding.
The current system’s evolution presents a concerning trend: it not only allows but actively incentivizes increased European recruitment. With numerous talented European players eagerly awaiting opportunities to join US collegiate programs, the pipeline of international talent shows no signs of slowing. While the long-term impact on USA Water Polo remains debatable, one immediate consequence is clear: American youth players will face increasingly stiff competition for roster spots in the years ahead. This shift raises important questions about the future development of domestic talent in US water polo.
Sorry did not intend to insinuate that they are playing teams that are all freshmen. However they probably have the highest number of first and second string 5th years in the NCAA. And I watched them play UCSB, their “top” freshmen did not score and was excluded 3 times. Without the depth of older players would these freshmen have the same effect on the game? My answer would be no. They are free to counter all day long and get to move laterally mostly unguarded as their centers demand more than one persons attention at all times. IT is a great team don’t get me wrong, just noting the large number of seniors vs most other schools. It will be interesting how they reload next year. They have a strong base but will need to add depth. One season at a time, I am rooting for them!
Thanks for clarifying. How many Fordham students are 5th years? I think the vast majority of their seniors are 4 year players. Oriskovich being an exception, I’m not sure Napolitano is, I believe he’s same age as the other seniors
Agree they will have to replace a lot of depth. Wrt the freshmen, not sure what happened vs UCSB but they have been great players
I think this gets more to the heart of the matter than the original post.
When it comes to EC schools, I imagine the challenge is getting top level California kids to go east, especially when the cost of in-state CA schools is even cheaper. So they are faced with either maintaining a fringe Top 20 program, or recruiting Europeans who further the program and make the school an attractive destination for WC kids. wrt the impact on development of US water polo, the players being displaced are good but not going to affect the standing of US water polo on the national or international stage. I do imagine there is a some impact on the local kids, but perhaps over time seeing great local water polo could grow the quality of those feeder systems. Greenwich has certainly become one, and you can bet those kids showed up to watch #7 Princeton play #9 Fordham
Imo a bigger roadblock to development of US water polo talent is the hoarding of top players that happens at the Big 4. UCLAs #7-12 could probably be a Top 8 starting team, and I bet the guys beyond that are really good but don’t see much playing time in 4 years. How much high end talent doesn’t reach it’s potential? I bet a lot more than on the EC
I’d add one more point. Bringing top European kids to play water polo in the US can help grow the sport over time if those guys get jobs here and raise families. Their kids probably will be much more likely to keep playing, and at High level, than the kid of someone who played casually
The name of the game in college is recruiting - on a 10 point scale, if only American 5’s are looking at my school, then I’m going to go get an International 7 or 8. You can get mad at the coaches for targeting foreigners, but your anger would be better served if directed at the American 7’s and their parents/club coaches that steer those domestic kids towards the big-4. Hopefully the roster limits clean this up.
RB, you wrote, “RPI won’t make much difference.” Agreed, a dozen other sports have discarded RPI over the years. In this case, Pacific being ranked even higher over UCLA is evidence of model flaw, likely linked to conference.
Did you see the recent announcement about transitioning to a rating called NPI? It had positives but also huge drawbacks. In the end, no model should be introduced in season without extensive and open testing so coaches can weigh in on its component weightings and measurements.
Has the water polo championship committee recently made a bad call, on the men’s or women’s side, that would have been avoided by consulting a rating system?
What’s also really interesting is the number of EC players now playing in top teams in California. Just last weekend you had:
Stanford: G West, R Ohl and J Merrill
UCSB: K Ross
UCI: T Cass
Pepperdine: C Wilson
UOP: M Pemberthy
Add to this, J.P. Ohl and G Malloy at Princeton and you may well have a top 8 team right there especially if you allow me to have Lauren Steele in goal!
All Greenwich and CT Premier products.