Cowboys owner Jerry Jones defended Dallas’ relatively low coaching spending, saying there is “zero correlation” between coach pay or staff size and winning, but he cited no study to support the claim. His remarks drew criticism as the Cowboys struggled at 3–5, with head coach Brian Schottenheimer reportedly earning about $4.5 million annually—well below the salaries of several top NFL coaches—and Jones ruling out a midseason coaching change. Critics argue Dallas could use its resources to attract top coaching talent, while noting that Super Bowl winners have included both highly paid coaches and less expensive ones. One counterpoint is that coaches often earn more after establishing a record of success, making salary comparisons alone an imperfect measure of whether spending causes wins.
Where do you stand?
What each side asserts, disputes — or leaves out entirely.
Whose framing of this story rings truest to you?
Left· 14 sources
“New York Times”Center· 10 sources
“The Macon Telegraph”Right· 7 sources
“WKZO - 590 AM - Kalamazoo”The real issue is results not budgets and Jones needs to admit the current approach is failing.
Spending more on coaches might not guarantee anything but lowballing the staff clearly hasn't worked either.
Jerry has a point since the Cowboys already pay players top dollar and still can't win consistently.