OT - Coaching pay

Submitted by Tha Stunna on

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090926/cm_csm/yrosenberg

Editorial titled "Why should Notre Dame's football coach make more than tenured professors?". While I agree that the Weissicane specifically shouldn't make more than a professor, the article isn't actually ND bashing and instead a proposal that universities with federal funding shouldn't be allowed to be paid more than the average for a tenured professor. The writer argues that the hypocrisy from paying coaches more than the university president undercuts the values of higher education.

I'd say that as long as the football department is self-sufficient, coaching pay is fine as is. It would be a bigger mess to try and legislate a solution. Thoughts?

teldar

September 29th, 2009 at 5:06 PM ^

People who spout off with this kind of nonsense think in terms of the AD's being supported by the schools and the tax dollars that go to them. This isn't the case for the well-to-do football schools. Case in point is M's AD giving money to the school for the general scholarship fund the last several years.

It all comes down to the football program (particularly new additions) being a money factory.

OldManUfer

September 29th, 2009 at 5:46 PM ^

I promise you RR is making more than $300,000 from the university. That may be his base salary, I don't know, but he's making a lot more than that.

Edit: Looks like his first year base salary is $300k, but he makes "at least $2.5 million annually" according to the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/sports/ncaafootball/25colleges.html)

ntclark

September 29th, 2009 at 8:03 PM ^

That spread sheet just contains tax payer money going towards their salary. Money from donors and other sources isn't in that spread sheet, because the FOIA laws don't apply to non-tax-payer money. Take it from a professor at a public institution, many of the people in that spread sheet actually make much more than it states.

tomhagan

September 29th, 2009 at 5:44 PM ^

Head Coaches are basically CEO's responsible for "companies" that bring in millions of dollars in needed revenue every year.

ShockFX

September 29th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^

Well, in fairness to Charlie Weis, his fixed salary is the same as the Notre Dame president's, it's just his floating budget for food is a hell of a lot bigger.

A Case of Blue

September 29th, 2009 at 6:02 PM ^

1. I think that good sports teams are often the key to high alumni giving rates (a major example is Notre Dame), which in turn increase the US News ranking of a school, and higher rankings draw better applicants.

2. The whole "college is about education" thing has really not held true recently in higher education. Far more of a stress on a university's budget than financially independent ADs are things like multimillion-dollar wellness facilities, enormous amounts of money spent on student entertainment, etc. When my parents' generation went to college, there wasn't so much of that sort of thing, but you could also pretty much pay your way through college by waiting tables part-time. Now that's not possible, and extra-educational expenses (plus administrative bloat) are a huge part of why that's impossible.

3. The only time I really care about coaching pay is when I hear stupid statements from coaches like "I didn't know that was in the NCAA rulebook ... that thing's 1000 pages!" Well, for $3 million a year, plus a staff of 20+ people, you'd think someone could pin it down.

jmblue

September 29th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^

Weis generates far more income for ND, and has an impact on lives of far more people, than any college professor anywhere could ever hope to. That's reality, and that's why he's paid more. And assuming that ND's athletic department is like ours, his salary doesn't come from the school's general fund anyway.

As for the "chronically underfunded research facilities" that universities allegedly have, maybe the school administrators themselves should take a look in the mirror. If you can't fund your own educational/research expenses after raising tuition 100+% in a decade, you're wasting money somewhere down the line. No business could survive the way universities treat their customers, jacking up costs far beyond the rate of inflation every year.

A Case of Blue

September 29th, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^

"If you can't fund your own educational/research expenses after raising tuition 100+% in a decade, you're wasting money somewhere down the line. No business could survive the way universities treat their customers, jacking up costs far beyond the rate of inflation every year."

Yes, yes, 100x yes.

bronxblue

September 29th, 2009 at 7:04 PM ^

Until the average college professor/president has to answer every day to dozens of reporters, thousands of donors, and millions of fans, while also doing their jobs while being directly responsible for the behavior of 90+ college men, I don't begrudge college coaches for their salaries. Should they perhaps be reigned in a bit? Maybe, but I don't think they need to be compared to the rest of the academic hierarchy.

chris16w

September 29th, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^

How much will your students earn? This is an important part of the equation that impacts the school through future donations. RR is poised to put players in the NFL who will in turn donate millions of dollars to the university.

This is also why professors of medicine, law and business make more than art professors... the university is competing with law firms, hospitals, etc. to compensate their professors. Our athletic department is competing with the NFL to keep our coaches. This issue would only be addressed as the yahoo suggests if all of us dudes decided to stop watching football.

Isaac Newton

September 29th, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^

This is largely a capitalist economy, and the economics of college football is very much capitalist. Supply and Demand remains a major force in said economy. No offense to history PhDs, but the supply of top-notch history PhDs far outweighs the demand for college professors. Not so college head football coaches.