U.S. senator: Jim Harbaugh’s pay illustrates ‘civil rights crisis’ in college football
I wonder how some of these people get elected. He’s a little late to the game. To me, he appears to be one of those that wants to be seen walking into the game instead of actually watching the game.
His thinking is convoluted (IMO) for the most part, even though he had 1, maybe 2 good points.
(I agree that $55M on a facility is absurd, but, the big schools need to keep pace to entice the talent.)
Maybe he/politicians should give 80% their fundraising cash back to serve the people instead of using it to get re-elected.
I wonder why he didn’t go after a company in his state, ESPN, for helping to cause many of these financial disparities.
He “inadvertently” forgot to say:
Most states have enacted, or are in the process of enacting laws, allowing “student”/athletes to benefit off the field.
The “student”/athletes do receive the room/board and the opportunity to earn an education.
The “student”/athletes do not have to accept any scholarship, if they so choose.
My guess is that Coach Harbaugh/U of M would like to have lower costs/salaries, but the real problem is that the TV companies and sponsors (Nike, Coke, Under Armour, etc...) are the ones driving the high prices. The senator should start here, just like the sponsors put the pressure on the Washington team of the NFL.
More like 95%.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:53 AM ^
You didn't veer. You seagulled by shitting on politics with a poorly researched take then didn't stick around to take your lumps.
Seagulling.
August 3rd, 2020 at 12:20 PM ^
Have you ever considered the implications of people refuting your opinions with facts every time you venture into talking about politics?
Maybe a little introspection could help you solve this issue.
August 3rd, 2020 at 12:22 PM ^
That kind of attitude is why American politics suck right now. Someone is wrong about something and instead of thinking "ah. my mistake. Thanks for the info", it devolves into defiance and name-calling
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:17 AM ^
He used Jim Harbaugh because he knew it would get headlines, but really this is just a position on the NCAA and paying student-athletes. Nothing really to see here.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:19 AM ^
Right, but using Sabin or Dabo would get even bigger headlines. See my response elsewhere here.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:58 AM ^
He's a senator from CT, UMich is a bigger brand (large alumni base, academic prowess attracts high school seniors) so it's more likely to hit home the point vs Alabama or Clemson, southern football schools where this could be expected.
Saban...maybe. Dabo not even close even if we're talking nationally. But regionally, Harbaugh is even more well-known in the tri-state area.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:15 AM ^
True statement
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:18 AM ^
I wonder (for real) why Harbaugh is the only coach he mentioned.
This is a guy from the Northeast, too. Why not put Sabin / Dabo front-and-center?
I suppose the senator thinks that attention to his issue could be diverted elsewhere (to the larger culture war that has SEC country opposed to parts of the Northeast and Upper Midwest) if he picked on someone out of his political region.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:45 AM ^
It’s simple: Saban and Dabo have won, Harbaugh hasn’t and he’s more likely to find people out there that would agree Harbaugh is overpaid because of that, which makes it easier to stir the pot. Clickbait 101.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:46 AM ^
Ton of UMich alums in NYC metro area and New England. Alabama doesn't have the same cache out there.
I doubt Sen. Murphy knows Harbaugh's record or cares. That wasn't the point.
August 3rd, 2020 at 12:58 PM ^
Harbaugh is the third highest paid coach, so it is not really that much of a stretch to choose him over Dabo/Saban. Between coaching in a super bowl against his brother, the Kaepernick connection and the khakis, I would also argue that Harbaugh probably has more name recognition amongst non-football fans than the other two - definitely higher than Dabo but I could see Saban possibly more well known. There is zero chance my mom would know Dabo's name but its possible she might know who Nick Saban is.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:19 AM ^
So it's not just MSM who use Harbaugh's name to generate clicks, politicians are now doing it as well.
The fact that he chose Jimmy over the coaches making MORE money than him at far less academically renown schools (looking at you Nick Saban) certainly speaks to the national recognition of Harbaugh now doesn't it?
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:24 AM ^
and easier to justify a lower salary for a coach who has never won a conference or national championship
But who has been to a Super Bowl.
Oh and he did in a conference title at San Diego.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:26 AM ^
I mean, explain which part is wrong there?
The reason coaches like Harbaugh and Saban and Swinney are getting the kinds of huge pay increases is because the sport makes more money than ever while still keeping the labor costs absurdly low. If the cost of labor remains capped at a far below market value, it warps the market value of the people who do not have capped compensation, so the top coaches/administration end up with absurd salaries, and coaching staff/admin get bloated staffs that are not necessary and exist solely because "well we've got all this money."
Players don't give a shit about facilities, every former player will tell you the facility stuff was cool on their freshman visit and never a thing they thought about again. Every single player would train shiny new facilities every couple of years for a paycheck. But again, if you're not allowed to pay guys their market value to come do a job, you gussy up all the stuff you can control even if it's a 100x less efficient to do expensive construction projects that often have massive overruns instead of just paying the 5 star what he's worth.
They know paying players means less of the pie for them. This is not the complicated issue people make it out to be, it's the oldest issue there is: management wants to keep all the profits and pay the working guys company scrip that has minimal real world value.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:49 AM ^
Kids play football because they love playing football.
August 3rd, 2020 at 12:33 PM ^
No they don’t. They play football because 1) it is a culturally dominant sport revered across class lines in America and 2) it pays well. When boxers were the highest paid athletes in America and football players made $2500 a year in the nfl, the Rashan Gary’s of the world became pro boxers. You can chart when the heavyweight boxing champion became more likely to be from Europe and see how well it lines up with football players making good money.
College football is the gate you gotta cross to play in the league.
I'll make a note to remind my kids, their friends, and all my buddies who played in college that they only thought they loved the game, when in fact they were just being manipulated by the system.
My soccer and lacrosse friends will be glad to hear that their motives were pure.
You're both kind of correct. "Kids" do play sports because they enjoy it, but at some point and depending on how you define kids (age and skill level), most of them play it for a potential scholarship/payday.
Soccer and LAX are good examples in the US. If/when a good athlete with a chance at a scholarship in the US faces a decision to have to focus on soccer/LAX or football/basketball, they're choosing the latter almost every time because of the higher earning potential.
That's exactly why the US isn't very competitive in soccer despite having a larger population and having better athletes than any other developed country. The best athletes (and really their families because it starts early) choose the sports with a higher chance of payoff.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:51 AM ^
Facilities don't matter until they do. If players were allowed to be paid would you go to the school without them or with them? Work environment, doesn't matter what the work environment is. The one that provides the best for you to be the most successful is the one you go to. And don't get me wrong, we are speaking about those that are sought after.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:27 AM ^
Players do “give a shit about facilities”. I think a majority of players would much rather have a tricked out locker room and workout facility with TVs and expensive equipment rather than some inexpensive high school level workout room.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:47 AM ^
Players give a shit about facilities the same way a white collar worker cares about benefits. Until the pay is about equal, the benefits aren't swaying you one way or another.
If Job A is offering $150k a year and Job B is offering $75k a year but Job B has slightly better medical coverage, 401k matching, vacation time, etc you're still going to take Job A any day of the week.
In the same regard, players would much rather get paid than have better facilities, just like you'd rather get paid double rather than an extra % of 401k match or $1k lower deductible
How is a freshman worth anything? Value is proven by performance. Freshman and sophomores often haven’t proven that.
Rookies at least have 3-4 years of experience at P5 level to show value.
The enormous gap between high school and college is being left out of the discussion. In HS players are mostly going up against kids who are greatly overmatched. How in the world can a person possibly judge value?
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:30 AM ^
The sentiment is not wrong. This is evidence #1 of how messed up the college sports empire is. This, and the hundreds of millions of dollars schools are dumping into everything (stadium upgrades, player facilities, growing staffs) except for the ahtletes themselves.
Harbaugh's name only came up because he probably threw a dart at a list of highly paid coaches.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:24 AM ^
Your argument is flawed because you say “The hundreds of millions of dollars schools are dumping into everything except for the athletes themselves” and then you list some of things that money funds “stadium upgrades, player facilities, growing staffs”. But don’t all those things help the athletes not only sports wise but also educationally? Stadium/locker room Upgrades give athletes more amenities and have become more than just locker rooms. Player facilities are there to help the players fulfill both there academic and athletic needs with tutors and workout rooms. Finally growing staffs are there to help develop players and most of the time hold players accountable educationally. If you look at it the money is going to the student athletes just not directly.
Ah, the old "the players are paid via their scholarship" argument.
Nope, these things are great benefits to the players. But none of the money goes to them in any tangible way.
So if a student athlete has a career ending injury, family crisis, or any other situation where they can no longer play, they are still flat broke for all their sweat equity.
Giving them a locker with a flatscreen and free haircuts ain't gonna pay the bills if you don't sign a contract at the next level.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:45 AM ^
TIL there are still people who think room and board is fair compensation for D1 athletes
For everyone other than the top ~25 football players and top ~8 basketball players at a major P5 school - it's probably overpaying.
Room and board for Denard Robinson? Not fair compensation.
Room and board for the 3rd string QB? Probably well above market value.
Room and board for the backup goalie on the Field Hockey team? Way above market value.
And all but the top few will go pro so that degree is actually worth a lot as well.
This notion of 'all D1 athletes should be paid' is absurd. Letting them make a bit off NIL might be ok but you will have to cap it somewhere. It will get outta hand fast.
Think about the lineman who doesn't make shit off NIL busting his ass day-in day-out to create holes for an RB so he can make even more than he is already pulling in.
This wouldn't be equitable.
If I am the OL, I tell him to share the wealth or there will be nowhere to run.
And this would be shitty to watch. Could ruin the game.
Agreed. So them give them SOME of the money, based off how you use their name and likeness.
Just because not all players are revenue generating doesn't mean the ones who are shouldn't be paid.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:45 AM ^
Generally, question motive. Motive is relevant.
Why does some senator from Connecticut care about what UM's football coaches salary is or uses the UM coach example.... in lieu of Alabama, Clemson, osu, for their example?
The example of "if the coach made less and that money was 'divided out' over the players to provide some equity" - can be used with ANY big time coach/program. All big time program coaches make huge coin which "could be divided over the players"....
- - why did the Senator use MICHIGAN as the example?
Why Harbaugh? Why Michigan? Question Motive.
Us against the world.
Go Blue.
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:57 AM ^
This applies to everything. If the Apple CEO didn't get $80 Million in salary, bonuses, stock options and then take that across the board of directors and every way over top executive then the company would be able to pay significantly more money to employs.
Why did the EPI Pen manufacturer CEO get an $18 Million dollar pay raise years ago? Because they could.
Nick Saban, what did he say when he was questioned about his salary? He told the reporter to look at Athletic Department revenues before he got there and each year since he has been there. Then asked the reporter about readers and ratings covering alabama football with him there vs the few years before? He then told them he gets paid the money because he can prove he is worth it and generates the money driving the financial boom for Alabama Athletics.
The premise is right, sure you don't have to pay them but the moment you don't, someone else will!
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:12 AM ^
chill lol, Michigan is one of the big football brands. It also is a big academic brand, and is a target school for the east coast prep school types (which, hello, Connecticut) Not to mention NYC area has a ton of alums.
Ergo, Michigan would catch more attention, even if we're a mild example compared to Bama, Clemson et al
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:23 AM ^
Sure, CF is an easy target, Michigan the big brand to get lots of attention from a Connecticut writer and put Jim Harbaugh's name to it. We know that, it's obvious. It's also weak minded writing when making a premise about a when it applies a to z in every sense.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:41 AM ^
No I agree with you, perhaps you mistook my comment as a response to yours. It's clear the Senator had the tweet ready to go, he was just looking for a good example and lucky for him, that article about Harbaugh had just the right SEO lol. Notice it's from October 2019...
August 3rd, 2020 at 10:50 AM ^
I get why Harbaugh's name being used instead of any of the other highly paid head coaches feels like a dig at Michigan specifically, but he's making a point about college sports as a whole.
Whether his point is correct is a different discussion, but this doesn't seem like a targeted swing at U-M.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:23 AM ^
Would Murphy be making this complaint about Jim Calhoun if he were pulling down a 3 million dollar salary coaching MBB at UConn? No. Fuck him.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:41 AM ^
No, because Jim Calhoun wins championships.
2 minutes worth of research and you could have noted that Dan Hurley is making $3 million to coach at UConn. I guess you make up for that with the “fuck him”, definitely strengthened your argument.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:31 AM ^
1) Picking out only Jim Harbaugh is ridiculous. What about some of the other over paid college coaches? (IA comes to mind)
2) A politician making a political statement on this subject, so no one should take this seriously. It doesn't matter to me what side of isle the Senator is on.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:36 AM ^
Harbaugh's salary is eye popping, but in the supply and demand of head college coaches, it's what the market bears. If we're looking at performance vs salary, likely the most overpaid coach in college football is Mel Tucker at $5.3 million per year, nearly a million more than the greatest coach MSU ever had (at least according to most of their fans) made the year before. But, nobody knows who Tucker is, so he's not going to make headlines, and, in his defense, he was able to make that salary because MSU was so desparate to get somebody to accept the job. Brohm at $6.6 million also seems excessive, but he was a hot commodity when his contract was renegotiated and Purdue had to pay up to make sure he didn't end up elsewhere. By comparison, Ryan Day seems criminally underpaid, except where could he go and get similar results? MSU could have probably offered him 10 million per year and he would have been smart to stay at OSU for the 4.5 million he's making.
Or $757,142 per career NCAA victory.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:43 AM ^
UConn record has sucked the last few years and their coach makes over $1M per year.
August 3rd, 2020 at 11:44 AM ^
Complaining about how much someone else makes...one guess as to which...
August 3rd, 2020 at 12:06 PM ^
His general point (that schools spend obscene amounts of money of stuff like staff salaries and capital expenditures largely so they can claim to not have money at the end of the year) makes sense. And yeah, if Harbaugh only got paid $1M the guys on the team would get a nice stipend without hurting anyone else. And he's been involved in the licensing rights for athletes for some time, so he's not coming to this late.
This is going to inevitably devolve into the usual argument about player compensation but...he's right that it's weird we keep pushing these athletes to take additional risks so that a bunch of people can spend millions of dollars.
The season should be cancelled.
You don’t need to pay Harbaugh only one million. You could do it by stop using football money to fund other sports.
August 3rd, 2020 at 12:17 PM ^
I see RIGHT through this guys antics...clearly he is upset that we have been dominating the 3* talent in New England lately and he resents that
/s
Again, I think this is someone over-simplifying the pay-the-players argument. Lots of FBS programs lose money. Most NCAA sports lose money period. It's not as simple as dividing the top programs' coaches' salaries and doling that out to players. What about EMU that loses money? Do they players owe EMU money for that? I know that's not a totally fair argument, but I hate it when people just yell "jUsT pAy ThE pLaYeRs" without acknowledging that it's an immensely complicated process to sort out
August 3rd, 2020 at 12:22 PM ^
It is not surprising that Senator Murphy fails to cite the wasteful and misguided athletic spending in his own state of Connecticut. Any criticism of UConn might cost the Senator votes.
The University of Connecticut in recent years had over $80 million in annual expenses for its athletic programs and revenues of less than half this amount. UConn women's basketball Coach Geno Auriemma makes $2.4 million annually (>60% of women's basketball revenue) for a sport that generates less than $4 million in revenue and has an operating loss of over $4 million. In contrast, in recent years Harbaugh's salary of about $8 million annually is 7% of Michigan football revenue and about 10% of the profit from football.