OT: Izzo salary and coaching salaries more generally
The Chronicle of Higher Education this morning posted that Tom Izzo made $8.7 million in 2006 because of one time bonuses.
http://chronicle.com/article/Bonuses-Pushed-Michigan-State/62636/
This is on the heels of Mack Brown getting basically a $2 million annual retention bonus.
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/U-of-Texas-Football-Coach-/9177/
This is at a time when American higher ed is really hurting.
Any thoughts?
December 19th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
Athletic departments run their own business, independent of the rest of the university. It's not like if they paid Izzo $1M that the other $6M would go to educational funding. It would pay for new basketballs and field hockey sticks and buses to Notre Dame, etc etc etc
December 19th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
We're lucky at M to have a completely independent, self-supporting athletic department, but not all universities have the ability to follow this model. That being said, I have no idea how MSU's athletic department runs.
December 19th, 2009 at 10:42 AM ^
College tuition increases have dramatically outpaced inflation for 25 years. And while an ever-increasing percentage of the American workforce has earned a degree, the value of a college degree (in terms of absolute earning) has declined over the same period. The fiscal problems in higher education today have exactly nothing to do with college athletics.
December 19th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
This argument is so old and so played out. The two revenue sports at big time universities pay for all of the non-revenue sports. By keeping their respective programs on the big stage and generating millions for their athletic department, it is these evil coaches who are keeping the prospect of free, higher education an option for hundreds of athletes.
Why don't you ask the men's soccer or women's water polo team how they feel about their scholarships and if they think Izzo makes to much?
December 19th, 2009 at 6:56 PM ^
The annoying duo (Greenberg & Golic) trotted out this sham of an argument earlier this week in defense of Mack Brown. My issue is that the premise for this argument seems to be that these programs would be earning nothing without these superstar coaches at their helm. But the fact is that major conference schools (Texas, MSU) would already be earning major dollars even if their teams were shitty. The true measure of the coach's value would be to take the marginal earnings of a superior team in these conferences over and above that of an average team and then compare that to the marginal cost of the coach's salary over and above that of an average team in the conference. This conversation, primarily concerning Mack brown, has been over simplified in the mainstream media. This is the same reason why some jackoff like Jack Nardelli can basically sit at Home Depot with his thumb in his ass and walk with more than $200 million.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^
I don't think anyone has a problem with these kind of payments if they are being completely covered by the athletic department. According to this link on school AD budgets, MSU spends $2.8M in funds to pay for the athletic department, the most institutional support for an athletic department in the conference.
If the AD is completely self supporting, you can pay the coach whatever you want. If the school is spending money on the department, I see no reason why this criticism isn't valid.
Link.
December 19th, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
I looked at this link and in fairness that is only “indirect” support. It looks like other schools pump in a lot more money in “direct” support, especially Minnesota (7.4 mil) and Wisconsin (3.9 mil).
Either way, it looks like Michigan is in great shape with no institutional support.
December 19th, 2009 at 3:44 PM ^
Only 5-6 athletic departments in the country are financially independent from their universities, so that clearly has little to do with football and basketball coaching salaries. UM is one of those schools, though.
December 19th, 2009 at 6:01 PM ^
Yeah, I used indirect support because I was looking on the other tab and obviously couldn't find the "direct institutional support" column. Still, I have major problems with schools that support their athletic departments and pay large sums of money to their coaches. On one hand, I understand that the prestige from athletic prowess can help make the university better. OTOH, how would you feel if you were going to CMU, getting your tuition jacked up every year and having the school paying $11+M to the athletic department every year.
Also - I would like to point out the amazing shape Michigan's athletic department is in. Not only is the AD financially independent, it actually donates money to the University every year. So the program is a benefit both publicity wise and financially the the University as a whole.
December 19th, 2009 at 2:53 PM ^
...and I don't like Izzo for what I percieve as his part in encouraging the NCAA investigation of the Ed Martin scandal, but I do have to admit that Izzo is worth every bit that much to State.
MSU had one NC during the Magic years, and none until Izzo showed up. He has turned a decent program into an elite one. The jury is still out whether he can continue to do so if UM gets all of its recruiting mojo back, thus not allowing him to have most of the state to himself anymore, but he definitely deserved that bonus.
I'm still waiting for the Pistons to offer him $5 million a year. That would be a very happy day.