I'm not sure what you don't buy as to what I said? I'm going to assume that Diaco is going to get paid more. But that was not my point (my bad). I simply meant to suggest that teams will come after the coaches, not that they'll always be able to offer better money.
And that article is pretty suspect. It points to the two highest-payed assistant coaches not leaving for particular openings as "a trend" and, despite not mentioning any other assistants, goes with the headline grabber "many of college football assistants."
It argues that Smart and Morris had offers at "some of the nation's better programs," which I assume means "BCS caliber," then compares their current salaries with head coaching salaries at non-BCS schools. Not sure why the author decided to make that comparison, given both (a) the unique circumstances of Kirby and Morris and (b) their purported high-caliber (BCS) offers. I suppose it may support other coaches, but he doesn't point to anyone else.
It goes off on a tangent about TV contracts and "rich getting richer," but I'm going to assume that teams that pay their assistants larger contract will still ALWAYS pay their head coaches more in any case. Again, doesn't explain Smart or Morris' "high caliber offer" turn-downs - our purported trend-setters.
I think the article incorrectly assumes that money is the primary factor for coordinators moving to head coach and the "risk" of failing is too much given better assistant salaries. Besides, it mentions that coordinators can fall back into those roles even if they fail as HCs (as it questionably states, they never lose those skills).
Didn't mean to insinuate that Diaco "left for the money" by suggesting teams are "throwing money" at our assistants. I should have said attempting to lure them with promise of, you know, being "more than assistant." Maybe that's fine for Kirby and Morris. But I realllly doubt it.
