10 ms·

Forget about the presidents. At least they have a real job. What about the football coaches, who make really obscene amounts? This article lists a ton of sta

Forget about the presidents. At least they have a real job. What about the football coaches, who make really obscene amounts? This article lists a ton of state school coaches making way the hell more than any president. http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17892134/michigan-wolverines-coach-jim-harbaugh-salary-tops-list-college-football-coaches http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17892134/mic...

distances 9y ago
Sports clubs should be separated from schools and universities. I've got no idea why they are bundled together.
- omegaham 9y ago
  Because the university affiliation turns minor league football / basketball into national television and gets people to spend millions of dollars on tickets and merchandise. No one watches the NBA D-league, but they're happy to watch the Tar Heels play. Similarly, no one watches arena ball, but they're happy to fill the stadium and watch Oregon State lose every week. It also serves as extremely effective advertising for the university. The fact "Bama Bama Bama, Bama Bama Bama Bama, Bama Bama Bama" is a valid sentence on ESPN week in and week out adds up to weeks of coast-to-coast advertising for Alabama, and enrollment statistics reflect.
  - gbacon 9y ago
    Roll Tide to that.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    But they are advertising the wrong thing. A university is supposed to engage in teaching and research, not sports. They can keep their Street Fighting Math and Integration Bee teams, but football needs to go, it gives the students and the public the wrong idea.
    - muninn_ 9y ago
      I think people generally associate the success of the program to the quality of the institution overall, and the ability to participate in the community of the institution is a non-0 benefit. If you are comparing two institutions with similar academic quality - the quality of sports programs, on-campus recreation, student clubs, etc. are differentiating factors. Even Ivy League schools have sports programs - there is a benefit to it. Frankly, however, I think the ire towards sports programs is generally misplaced. I'm much more concerned with the withdrawal of funding of public institutions from state governments and the overabundance of administrative staff, regulators, and various student groups than sports. Another thing I find worth mentioning is that some of the same people complaining about paying "$40/month for a gym" are the same people who would not be in favor of a pick-and-choose tax scheme at the national or state government levels. Why can't I pick and choose to not support sports, recreation, women's programs, LGBT programs, university student activity funds for college republicans, etc.? Same reason I can't pick and choose to pay for welfare, road maintenance, or parks and recreation. Please keep in mind I am not against women's programs or LGBT programs or anything I mentioned, actually, but I want to point out that mental disconnect that people make. This is especially bad for state institutions.
wehadfun 9y ago
Yea but if the football team brings in lots of $$$ I think it is fine. Now teams that are not making money is a different story
larrymyers 9y ago
What about football coaches? Div I football programs are big business, bringing in tens of millions of dollars a year: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ Most of the these football programs finance all sports for these large universities. College coaches are paid well because the programs they lead tend to be profit centers for the school.
- wincy 9y ago
  They profit off the labor of unpaid student athletes.
  - adventured 9y ago
    Separate (and valid) issue from the core issue the parent pointed out. College football programs are often very big profit centers. They typically pay for the other sports programs as well. That's why football coaches are paid the way they are. College players should obviously be compensated in some manner as well. All that will do is reduce the profitability (or increase ticket prices a lot higher to offset, which may not be possible); it's unlikely to eliminate the business being quite profitable given the scale & ticket prices.
  - geofft 9y ago
    You make a very good point, but these students also generally get scholarships to college, which is not an insignificant form of compensation at all - especially given how much having a college degree matters for future lifetime earnings.
    - avprpl 9y ago
      The graduation rate for those athletes tends to be quite low overall though, so not all of them get that benefit.
      - tomschlick 9y ago
        That's their own fault. If you're given a free/mostly free ride you should take advantage of it.
geofft 9y ago
... why do presidents have more of a "real job" than football coaches? Having been neither a college administrator nor a football player, I can explain to you exactly what a football coach does and what their work involves and how to evaluate them and how to figure out if they're running a program that's net profitable for the university. I certainly can't tell you what a college president does or how to evaluate them, given how highly abstracted their work is.
- paultopia 9y ago
  They're responsible for the success or failure of a whole lot of stuff that matters, even though that success or failure is difficult to measure. By contrast, the football coach is responsible for the success or failure of something that is easy to measure, but does not matter at all---at best, and at worst is harmful (at least to the bodies and minds of the players being exploited). That seems like a pretty good standard for "real job" to me.
  - cmiles74 9y ago
    I think it's important to keep in mind that at these high pay levels, the president is more of a figurehead whose primary role is to fundraise. In light of this, their job does seem similar in that both the president and the coach are there to help the college raise money. The responsibility you mention is delegated down to the next level.
    - paultopia 9y ago
      I'm not convinced that's true---although I'm not sure how much my perception is reliable given that I've never been inside a president's office. That being said, at least the perception within universities is that presidents are often responsible for some very consequential decisions. The most obvious example is internal budget allocation, which can make or break entire programs.
      - cmiles74 9y ago
DocSavage 9y ago
Coach salaries are rising due to competition among schools for winning (or desirable) coaches as well as increasing profit, particularly among the Power-5 football schools. Football programs at big schools make enough profit to fund other sports with some left over: http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-2016-10/#25-ucla--969-million-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-... A WSJ analysis analyzed football programs as if they were sports franchises to be sold on the open market. Ohio State topped the list at a value of $1.5 billion. The article talks about possible tax revisions to the top endowed schools, but I doubt they will revoke the ability to deduct exorbitant football seat sales from taxes. Yes, big donors to football programs can buy really expensive season tickets and deduct it from their taxes since its related to non-profit schools. That deduction as well as the huge kickbacks from TV (ESPN) to televise games are driving the money grab.
neonhomer 9y ago
As others have pointed out, Div I football programs bring in a lot of money for colleges. The real issue is what is the school spending money on that constantly increases tuition?

distances 9y ago

Sports clubs should be separated from schools and universities. I've got no idea why they are bundled together.

omegaham 9y ago
Because the university affiliation turns minor league football / basketball into national television and gets people to spend millions of dollars on tickets and merchandise. No one watches the NBA D-league, but they're happy to watch the Tar Heels play. Similarly, no one watches arena ball, but they're happy to fill the stadium and watch Oregon State lose every week. It also serves as extremely effective advertising for the university. The fact "Bama Bama Bama, Bama Bama Bama Bama, Bama Bama Bama" is a valid sentence on ESPN week in and week out adds up to weeks of coast-to-coast advertising for Alabama, and enrollment statistics reflect.
- gbacon 9y ago
  Roll Tide to that.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  But they are advertising the wrong thing. A university is supposed to engage in teaching and research, not sports. They can keep their Street Fighting Math and Integration Bee teams, but football needs to go, it gives the students and the public the wrong idea.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    I think people generally associate the success of the program to the quality of the institution overall, and the ability to participate in the community of the institution is a non-0 benefit. If you are comparing two institutions with similar academic quality - the quality of sports programs, on-campus recreation, student clubs, etc. are differentiating factors. Even Ivy League schools have sports programs - there is a benefit to it. Frankly, however, I think the ire towards sports programs is generally misplaced. I'm much more concerned with the withdrawal of funding of public institutions from state governments and the overabundance of administrative staff, regulators, and various student groups than sports. Another thing I find worth mentioning is that some of the same people complaining about paying "$40/month for a gym" are the same people who would not be in favor of a pick-and-choose tax scheme at the national or state government levels. Why can't I pick and choose to not support sports, recreation, women's programs, LGBT programs, university student activity funds for college republicans, etc.? Same reason I can't pick and choose to pay for welfare, road maintenance, or parks and recreation. Please keep in mind I am not against women's programs or LGBT programs or anything I mentioned, actually, but I want to point out that mental disconnect that people make. This is especially bad for state institutions.

wehadfun 9y ago

Yea but if the football team brings in lots of $$$ I think it is fine. Now teams that are not making money is a different story

larrymyers 9y ago

What about football coaches? Div I football programs are big business, bringing in tens of millions of dollars a year: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ Most of the these football programs finance all sports for these large universities. College coaches are paid well because the programs they lead tend to be profit centers for the school.

wincy 9y ago
They profit off the labor of unpaid student athletes.
- adventured 9y ago
  Separate (and valid) issue from the core issue the parent pointed out. College football programs are often very big profit centers. They typically pay for the other sports programs as well. That's why football coaches are paid the way they are. College players should obviously be compensated in some manner as well. All that will do is reduce the profitability (or increase ticket prices a lot higher to offset, which may not be possible); it's unlikely to eliminate the business being quite profitable given the scale & ticket prices.
- geofft 9y ago
  You make a very good point, but these students also generally get scholarships to college, which is not an insignificant form of compensation at all - especially given how much having a college degree matters for future lifetime earnings.
  - avprpl 9y ago
    The graduation rate for those athletes tends to be quite low overall though, so not all of them get that benefit.
    - tomschlick 9y ago
      That's their own fault. If you're given a free/mostly free ride you should take advantage of it.

geofft 9y ago

... why do presidents have more of a "real job" than football coaches? Having been neither a college administrator nor a football player, I can explain to you exactly what a football coach does and what their work involves and how to evaluate them and how to figure out if they're running a program that's net profitable for the university. I certainly can't tell you what a college president does or how to evaluate them, given how highly abstracted their work is.

paultopia 9y ago
They're responsible for the success or failure of a whole lot of stuff that matters, even though that success or failure is difficult to measure. By contrast, the football coach is responsible for the success or failure of something that is easy to measure, but does not matter at all---at best, and at worst is harmful (at least to the bodies and minds of the players being exploited). That seems like a pretty good standard for "real job" to me.
- cmiles74 9y ago
  I think it's important to keep in mind that at these high pay levels, the president is more of a figurehead whose primary role is to fundraise. In light of this, their job does seem similar in that both the president and the coach are there to help the college raise money. The responsibility you mention is delegated down to the next level.
  - paultopia 9y ago
    I'm not convinced that's true---although I'm not sure how much my perception is reliable given that I've never been inside a president's office. That being said, at least the perception within universities is that presidents are often responsible for some very consequential decisions. The most obvious example is internal budget allocation, which can make or break entire programs.
    - cmiles74 9y ago

DocSavage 9y ago

Coach salaries are rising due to competition among schools for winning (or desirable) coaches as well as increasing profit, particularly among the Power-5 football schools. Football programs at big schools make enough profit to fund other sports with some left over: http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-2016-10/#25-ucla--969-million-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-... A WSJ analysis analyzed football programs as if they were sports franchises to be sold on the open market. Ohio State topped the list at a value of $1.5 billion. The article talks about possible tax revisions to the top endowed schools, but I doubt they will revoke the ability to deduct exorbitant football seat sales from taxes. Yes, big donors to football programs can buy really expensive season tickets and deduct it from their taxes since its related to non-profit schools. That deduction as well as the huge kickbacks from TV (ESPN) to televise games are driving the money grab.

neonhomer 9y ago

As others have pointed out, Div I football programs bring in a lot of money for colleges. The real issue is what is the school spending money on that constantly increases tuition?