The highest paid employees of every state are the football coaches, then basketball coaches. They're paid this much because they're worth it. Not only does football bring in a huge amount of money with tv deals and tickets/concessions but they make students more likely to attend too. That causes the all important rankings to go up. They make alumni more likely to return to campus and therefore more likely to donate.
Caltech in the 70's was notable for the average IQ of the football players being higher than their average weight. A season was considered triumphant if the team did better than 100% losses.
I never went to a game, none of my friends did, and had no idea who the players were or when the games were. It was kinda nice not being at a football collage.
The smartest man to play NFL football is Pat McInally[1] and his IQ, estimated from the wonderlic, is north of 155. He played for a little college in Massachusetts in his amateur days.
Try UCI, which does not have a football team at all. Legend has it that when land baron Donald Bren donated the land for UCI to be built on, he specifically forced the new college to agree that it will never have a football team so that he did not have to deal with drunkenness and rowdiness in the perfect little college town he was planning to build around UCI.
It worked for Donald Bren, he built Irvine, Irvine became a very safe and very expensive town, and Bren became very rich because of it. UCI, on the other hand, has had a reputation for being boring for its entire existence. But I peronally liked the absence of jocks.
You're right, but the joke about Caltech's team did not originate with me. It came from the press coverage of the team :-) Nevertheless,
The average IQ at Caltech is somewhere around 130-135. My freshman weight was 136, when I graduated it was a bit over 140. I'm around 155 today. I was hardly the lightest student. Caltech wasn't picky about who got on the team, as not many wanted to.
I'm also pretty sure that if Caltech had the ability to force students onto the team, they could have fielded one with an average IQ of 160. I knew many students that smart. I'd never met people like that before. They're amazing.
Hal Finney was one.
So yes, it was a joke. But the funny jokes are ones that have an element of truth to them.
Football making lots of money is a myth because there are many hidden costs. A big one is the cost of the stadium and this comes out of a different budget (sometimes student fees).
Not saying that there aren't some schools coming out ahead, just saying that modeling this out is a lot more complicated and often when this is done carefully by academics doing studies most programs that people think of as succesful are losing money. Similar with pro sports, often the cost of the hundred million dollar stadium, etc is not necessarily recouped.
> The renovation of Husky Stadium received the green light to proceed when the University of Washington Board of Regents approved the $250 million project in November.
> The project—*which will not use any public or University funds*—is scheduled to get under way just before the end of the 2011 football season.
...
> The Department of Intercollegiate Athletics will fund the renovation through 30-year bonds. In addition, the UW is seeking major gift donations of $50 million as well as $200 million in new revenue from naming rights, season tickets and premium seating to cover the cost.
The story is similar for the renovation of Martin Stadium at WSU, which was largely paid for with TV revenue.
It turns out that you can make a lot of money in sports if you don't have to pay the players.
UW football, at least in the past, makes a ton of money. I assume all the other sports lose money. I attended UW in the Don James era so its been awhile.
Classically, you couldn't count on local newspaper reporting about these costs either, because sports pages sold papers.
One thing that makes me feel good about living in San Diego is that we've repeatedly told begging billionaires looking to grift their stadiums out of our city taxes to go fuck themselves.
Well, they are paid that much because that money is coming in and they sure as hell aren't going to give it to the athletes. So the coach is next in line. Things would look quite different if athletes were able to negotiate salary.
Coaches also make a much bigger difference in college sports, because the athletes only have four years of eligibility, and you're lucky to get that much. The best basketball players all leave college after 1-2 years (closer to 0-1 for the very best) while football players usually need more time to develop. The best coaches can build a system that different players can slot into year after year and also recruit the best prospects coming out of high school. Meanwhile in the professional leagues, you have a decent chance of holding onto the best players for much longer than 4 years.
Well yes and no. I think college sports is much more athlete-centric because players still haven't reached the limit of their abilities. So you end up with very large disparities between the great players and the average players, and single great players are much more likely to be able to dominate the game.
But from the perspective of an individual program, that’s only going to make a difference for a couple years at most. Being able to consistently recruit great players and set them up to succeed is more valuable.
And yet back in the '90s the woman I was dating got two simultaneous fellowships from two separate sources completely legally. The university then invoked some sort of rule capping her compensation and took the rest.
But the "many are not" flies in the face of a market economy and the fact nobody is forced to pay this compensation. It's your opinion they aren't worth it and you aren't the person writing the check. You're certainly entitled to this opinion :)
Arguably, success as a professional coach is substantially more objective and less subjective than many professions. Professional sports analyze everything. Statistics is huge both for the fans and the teams. Is the team winning? For colleges especially, you have annual turnover in student ranks so more in-and-out of players than NHL, NFL, NBA, etc etc. That's got to be tricky to manage. You have to attract talent to the institution and develop it when there.
So the simple fact is these coaches are able to demand these packages (and get them!). Someone out there has to write the checks and believes the performance and outcomes justifies the cost, that they are "worth it".
But the reason these coaches are able to get these salaries is because of policy decisions made by state governments. To some extent, voters have a civil duty to decide whether they agree with this policy, and vote accordingly.
It's true that someone has to write their checks, but the point is that that someone is the state government, which is funded by our tax dollars.
On the other hand, most state schools are getting less and less money from the state as American state governments turn away from funding education.
> But the reason these coaches are able to get these salaries is because of policy decisions made by state governments. To some extent, voters have a civil duty to decide whether they agree with this policy, and vote accordingly.
Only to the most remote, infinitesimal extent, do I as a voter have any deciding power. I can’t think of a voting strategy that I, as someone who opposes education funding going to stadiums or sports, could employ to voice that opposition. No public servant on my State ballot controls coaches’ salaries or the allocation of university funds. I can’t connect the dots.
Public universities in the US are largely funded by state and federal dollars. For example, Washington State received a $565MM budget from state appropriations [1].
I feel like college coaches at good schools are probably overrated: players choose which team they play for, and school reputation is a major factor. Talent on pro teams on the other hand are much more equitable distributed due to the draft, making it easier to judge coaching talent.
Also, $50k is a weird number to choose in your example. Presumably the best players would command much more than that.
Another reason that this is possible is because these coaches are sort of state employees on a technicality. The funds are raised by boosters and paid through the athletic foundation associated with the university. Most of the largest universities have their entire athletic budgets funded through a combination of donations and revenue from live men's football and basketball games, both in-stadium and television money.
The athletic foundations aren't completely separate entities, but they operate that way for the most part. They don't donate to the general fund, but many of the ones with higher revenue donate excess money back to the university. Usually, university presidents get involved with various administrative details or when hiring a new athletic director.
But this page seems to indicate they are paid out of the state's general fund? I think? If they're paid by a foundation wouldn't that be a line item at the foundation? Not trying to be argumentative here. I'm actually interested in whether my taxes are being used to fund multimillion dollar coaches. Not appealing, even though I love football. But if it's paid through privately raised funds I don't care.
Football coaches are technically because they work for public universities, but their salary is paid by boosters and revenue the program brings in. Football and basketball programs at almost all the power 5 schools make money when accounting for donations.
I think the issue is that many feel public institutions shouldn’t be run like a business in the first place. As an example, if many government services were run with the bottom line as the primary motive, many rural citizens would find they no longer receive those services
If money is involved, it should absolutely be run like a business. But just because it is run like a business doesn't mean the bottom line is the primary motive.
And don't forget that the majority of a universities money is not government money.
Yep. I always chuckle when people are surprised by this stuff.
Florida State was about to become an all girl school in the 1970s before Bobby Bowden saved their football program.
Clemson’s applications skyrocketed in 1977 when they beat Georgia early in the year and run consistently higher any years in which the team is having success.
Donations increase. Alumni come to games, get together, see their friends, show their kids around campus, tell stories.
No matter what your major, the activities that we can all enjoy together bring us together.
The timeline is interesting, because it’s my understanding that the 1980s is when college tuition began rapidly increasing [1]. Granted, there’s many other factors like govt backed loans, but inflated coach salaries seems to coincide [2]. The 1980s seemed to mark the beginning of an era when college was run more as a business than a purely educationally minded institution. I’m not sure society is better off for it.
These head football coaches are also just as easily fired if they lose a few games, so it’s not like their salaries are easy money. They have to perform, and are just as likely not to get lucky with a good team (they have to make their own luck). It seems a bit too much pressure for me, much easier and profitable to work your way up at a big tech, or get that MD and become head of the medical school or cancer institute (the other highest paid public employees).
Hm, now that you mention it, I guess my reaction is more against the parochial choice of content, rather than the appropriateness of the headline. But s/The state of Washington/Colleges/ would might work?
It’s interesting to see how sports is orphaned in academia in the rest of the world. You either leave school to be a real sports athlete or stay at university and do sports on a more ad hoc intramural level. The sports staff and coaches, if any, make a paltry salary compared to other staff in the university.
Post-high school football and basketball should be separated from education and run like the farm systems for baseball and hockey (US). Opponents of this idea tend to drag out a "but what about the korfball team?" argument, but I don't think it'd change those sports at that level too much. With any justice the big sports would have been contributing to an endowment for the smaller sports all these years that would be used for a future without stadium sports at the university level.
A big-market sports program is not necessary. Many accredited universities offer sports management and sports marketing degrees, both undergrad and graduate, and most of the ones I just googled are at schools known more for their academics than sports programs.
If I read between the lines correctly, I'm skeptical that students majoring in sports backoffice do any work at all in the school's own sports programs. Like maybe some interships? Access to some people for research and writing? I'm thinking: not enough to justify keeping them linked, and even so, the teams/sports would still be in the area. My point is that as far as the school is concerned, the potential for any overlap at all is slight. This is proven by the success of backoffice programs at schools with uncompetitive teams.
The guy at the top won't be there next year. "In October of 2021, after refusing to comply with Washington's requirement for state employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, Rolovich was terminated by WSU."
