Roads, Firefighters, Police...and Coaches?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Baseball has to fund its own farm league.  You pay for football and basketball farm leagues out of your tax dollars.  I'm aware that there's a such thing as college baseball, but the analogy mostly holds.

Is Your State's Highest Paid Employee a Coach?  Probably.

deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228


You may have heard that the highest-paid employee in each state is usually the football coach at the largest state school. This is actually a gross mischaracterization: Sometimes it is the basketball coach.

Based on data drawn from media reports and state salary databases, the ranks of the highest-paid active public employees include 27 football coaches, 13 basketball coaches, one hockey coach, and 10 dorks who aren't even in charge of a team.

So are my hard-earned tax dollars paying these coaches?

Probably not. The bulk of this coaching money—especially at the big football schools—is paid out of the revenue that the teams generate.

So what's the problem then? These guys make tons of money for their schools; shouldn't they be paid accordingly?

There are at least three problems.

1. Coaches don't generate revenue on their own; you could make the exact same case for the student-athletes who actually play the game and score the points and fracture their legs.

2. It can be tough to attribute this revenue directly to the performance of the head coach. In 2011-2012, Mack Brown was paid $5 million to lead a mediocre 8-5 Texas team to the Holiday Bowl. The team still generated $103.8 million in revenue, the most in college football. You don't have to pay someone $5 million to make college football profitable in Texas.

3, This revenue rarely makes its way back to the general funds of these universities. Looking at data from 2011-2012, athletic departments at 99 major schools lost an average of $5 million once you take out revenue generated from "student fees" and "university subsidies." If you take out "contributions and donations"—some of which might have gone to the universities had they not been lavished on the athletic departments—this drops to an average loss of $17 million, with just one school (Army) in the black. All this football/basketball revenue is sucked up by coach and AD salaries, by administrative and facility costs, and by the athletic department's non-revenue generating sports; it's not like it's going to microscopes and Bunsen burners.

But wait. I looked up my coach's pay in a state salary database and he wasn't on top. What gives?

Most of these databases include only the coaches' base salaries, which are drawn directly from the state fund. This is how you could be led to believe that Virginia's offensive coordinator earns more than its head coach.

[Deleted]

you only have part of the story as Paul Harvey would say

lets take part one of your issue....

Coaches don't generate revenue on their own; you could make the exact same case for the student-athletes who actually play the game and score the points and fracture their legs.

yes...but who gets the best athletes to come to the school, where they build a winning program, get into better conferences, and extract huge paydays from tv revenue
and in college....recruiting is more important than x's and o's....you cant win without talent

part 2....It can be tough to attribute this revenue directly to the performance of the head coach. In 2011-2012, Mack Brown was paid $5 million to lead a mediocre 8-5 Texas team to the Holiday Bowl. The team still generated $103.8 million in revenue, the most in college football. You don't have to pay someone $5 million to make college football profitable in Texas.

is texas the only school in the country? how about Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, etc, etc, etc
And if you think they dont have pressure to win, think again. Google the number of division 1 coaches fired in 2012 for just basketball and football
Very few coaches have carte blanche @ schools...they all have to win to keep their prestigious jobs and pay

part 3  3, This revenue rarely makes its way back to the general funds of these universities. Looking at data from 2011-2012, athletic departments at 99 major schools lost an average of $5 million once you take out revenue generated from "student fees" and "university subsidies." If you take out "contributions and donations"—some of which might have gone to the universities had they not been lavished on the athletic departments—this drops to an average loss of $17 million, with just one school (Army) in the black. All this football/basketball revenue is sucked up by coach and AD salaries, by administrative and facility costs, and by the athletic department's non-revenue generating sports; it's not like it's going to microscopes and Bunsen burners.

As far as this one, you are partly right....and totally wrong. Let me explain. Google maryland university...story about how many varsity sports had to be cancelled because there were not sufficient funds to keep them going. Now Maryland will be going to the Big X conference, and viola, all those sports are being restarted. Football and basketball pay for the majority of ALL other varsity sports at every major university. Everything from volleyball to gymnastics, to rowing and baseball. They all have costs associated with them, and part of the reason kids choose schools is not just the education, but also the fact they they can participate in sports while there. Most wouldnt be there if it werent for football and basketball paying the bills.

So maybe the revenue doesnt go to bunsen burners or microscopes, but it does go to the student body in a roundabout way

ok...stepping off my soapbox

[zdaddy]

Paul, I may not agree with you on a lot of things, but I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. My other pet peeve is how professional sports leagues expect taxpayers to pick up most of the tab for new sports stadiums - and expect that those stadiums be updated on a regular basis. Here in Seattle, we refused to play that game for the Sonics and the NBA cleared the way for Oklahoma City to steal the team. Fast forward a few years and a group of independent businessmen put together a sweetheart deal to build a new stadium with minimal taxpayer cost. NBA Commish David Stern flat refuses to accept the deal. I've heard from some sports analysts that  Stern wanted to make an example of Seattle to other cities.

[Deleted]

May 10, 2013 11:16:20 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

Paul, I may not agree with you on a lot of things, but I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. My other pet peeve is how professional sports leagues expect taxpayers to pick up most of the tab for new sports stadiums - and expect that those stadiums be updated on a regular basis. Here in Seattle, we refused to play that game for the Sonics and the NBA cleared the way for Oklahoma City to steal the team. Fast forward a few years and a group of independent businessmen put together a sweetheart deal to build a new stadium with minimal taxpayer cost. NBA Commish David Stern flat refuses to accept the deal. I've heard from some sports analysts that  Stern wanted to make an example of Seattle to other cities.

oklahoma city stole the team?

really?

stole?

or did the owner, with help from the nba, choose to move his business to a place that was more conducive to his earning a profit?

cities DO NOT have to pay for stadiums...they dont have to help fund anything

But when the owner decides to move somewhere else where the spigots of capitalism are alive, dont be mad about it

sports franchises are part of a city....but the city doesnt own them (except for green bay)

they are owned by businessmen who will always follow the dollar.....

[zdaddy]

May 10, 2013 11:41:38 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

May 10, 2013 11:16:20 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

Paul, I may not agree with you on a lot of things, but I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. My other pet peeve is how professional sports leagues expect taxpayers to pick up most of the tab for new sports stadiums - and expect that those stadiums be updated on a regular basis. Here in Seattle, we refused to play that game for the Sonics and the NBA cleared the way for Oklahoma City to steal the team. Fast forward a few years and a group of independent businessmen put together a sweetheart deal to build a new stadium with minimal taxpayer cost. NBA Commish David Stern flat refuses to accept the deal. I've heard from some sports analysts that  Stern wanted to make an example of Seattle to other cities.

oklahoma city stole the team?

really?

stole?

or did the owner, with help from the nba, choose to move his business to a place that was more conducive to his earning a profit?

cities DO NOT have to pay for stadiums...they dont have to help fund anything

But when the owner decides to move somewhere else where the spigots of capitalism are alive, dont be mad about it

sports franchises are part of a city....but the city doesnt own them (except for green bay)

they are owned by businessmen who will always follow the dollar.....

Seattle has had a long storied history of supporting the Sonics. This wasn't a "capitalism" issue since there was a strong consumer base in Seattle. It was all about Seattle and Washington State refusing to pay for a new stadium instead of having the owners/league pay for it. You know, just like most other businesses out there. Of course, it's much easier to make a profit when you don't have to pay for your own facilities/upgrades.

seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2002850641_rams08.html

I think your point about cities not having to fund stadiums is extremely naive. Stern has been very upfront about his strategy of strong-arming communities into footing the bill.

We have plenty of tax dollars to spend on luxuries like sports - but when it comes time to finding money to help hungry children, struggling schools, seniors who need medicine, etc than the answer always is "we don't have the money."

[fairlycrazy23]

The ability to strong arm communities into footing the bill is only possible because there are communities willing to foot the bill

[Deleted]

May 10, 2013 15:42:43 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

May 10, 2013 11:41:38 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

oklahoma city stole the team?

really?

stole?

or did the owner, with help from the nba, choose to move his business to a place that was more conducive to his earning a profit?

cities DO NOT have to pay for stadiums...they dont have to help fund anything

But when the owner decides to move somewhere else where the spigots of capitalism are alive, dont be mad about it

sports franchises are part of a city....but the city doesnt own them (except for green bay)

they are owned by businessmen who will always follow the dollar.....

Seattle has had a long storied history of supporting the Sonics. This wasn't a "capitalism" issue since there was a strong consumer base in Seattle. It was all about Seattle and Washington State refusing to pay for a new stadium instead of having the owners/league pay for it. You know, just like most other businesses out there. Of course, it's much easier to make a profit when you don't have to pay for your own facilities/upgrades.

seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2002850641_rams08.html

I think your point about cities not having to fund stadiums is extremely naive. Stern has been very upfront about his strategy of strong-arming communities into footing the bill.

We have plenty of tax dollars to spend on luxuries like sports - but when it comes time to finding money to help hungry children, struggling schools, seniors who need medicine, etc than the answer always is "we don't have the money."

the community has to make a choice....do they want the team there, or not?

if they do, they will be asked to "support" it financially....that is the new norm

like it, dont like it, doesnt matter....it is reality

too many cities ARE willing to build stadiums and arenas.....

why? prestige and tax dollars....sports teams bring in gobs of money for the city...hotels, restaurants, taxis, etc

and HOSTING an event like a super bowl means hundreds of millions of extra dollars....

it is the city's choice to fund what the team wants...or not

but when the city chooses not to do as asked, dont be surprised when the moving vans come in the middle of the night and "steal" your team away

you and your neighbors decided they didnt want to pay for the new arena....your choice...and then the owner made his....

the days of loyalty to a city/franchise/player are over...or hadnt you noticed

[Deleted]

Okay, so the title is misleading because the first line of your quote says that the giant coaches salaries mostly come from AD revenues not tax dollars.

But I see the bigger point.  Are sports programs a good use of school revenue?

I went to a football school.  This year they masqueraded as a basketball school, but really, they are a football school.  Technically, I went to the school with the winningest program in history (you get to say that when you have played for a very long time - it is a nice cushion for the rebuilding years), with the largest stadium in the nation that is sold out every Saturday in the fall.  They won (okay shared) the national title when I was a student there.  It was pretty exciting to be a part of that.

I also attended one of the most prestigious schools in the nation (the graduate schools moreso than the undergrad, but still).  To me, that seems like the ideal combination.  Some rich alumni make huge donations to the athletic department.  But more often, the rich alumni make huge donations to the university itself.  We had very fancy bunsen burners, and world class libraries, and endowed chairs to keep Nobel laureates on the faculty.

Since I've graduated, I have not gone back to campus for a lecture series or a reunion reception or anything like that.  I have gone back for football games.  The sense of belonging and being a part of something special that comes with the football program is pretty cool.  And if it keeps the alumni engaged and opening their wallets, maybe the fraction of the athletics budget that comes from student fees is worth it.

[Deleted]

nice post sarah

sports is not just about jocks

and college is not just about learning

the benefits of athletics are many.....and in most schools, paid for by the two big revenue giants, basketball and football

and sounds like you went to Michigan....and actually they do fairly well in both

A good friend of mine is a sparty......and no matter how many they win, it is a bad year if they dont beat Michigan

[jkapp]

If the people want to support a stadium, then why not issue bonds for people to buy?  Or they can take the Green Bay route and issue "stock." The stock has no value, except for something pretty to hang on the wall, and is only worth as much as the paper its printed on...but if a community/region supports the team, they'll buy.  If not, then you have your answer on just how popular the team is in that region

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 10, 2013 11:16:20 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

Paul, I may not agree with you on a lot of things, but I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. My other pet peeve is how professional sports leagues expect taxpayers to pick up most of the tab for new sports stadiums - and expect that those stadiums be updated on a regular basis. Here in Seattle, we refused to play that game for the Sonics and the NBA cleared the way for Oklahoma City to steal the team. Fast forward a few years and a group of independent businessmen put together a sweetheart deal to build a new stadium with minimal taxpayer cost. NBA Commish David Stern flat refuses to accept the deal. I've heard from some sports analysts that  Stern wanted to make an example of Seattle to other cities.

Yep- the NBA, IMHO, was scared to death that it would set a precedent.  Not only would it illustrate that there are private solutions, but it would mean accountability for results by investors who are putting their own money up.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 13, 2013 10:19:46 GMT -5 jkapp said:

If the people want to support a stadium, then why not issue bonds for people to buy?  Or they can take the Green Bay route and issue "stock." The stock has no value, except for something pretty to hang on the wall, and is only worth as much as the paper its printed on...but if a community/region supports the team, they'll buy.  If not, then you have your answer on just how popular the team is in that region

Being a Bears fan (It's not my fault that I and my team are from a shitstain of a city and state), it's hard for me to admit the Packers are on to something.  In fact, I think the Packers are THE model for a private system.