Wisconsin Chancellor: Harbaugh, Meyer overpaid
Jim Harbaugh is making $7 million at Michigan this season, including a $2 million one-time signing bonus, and Urban Meyer is making $5.86 million for defending national champion Ohio State. USA TODAY Sports asked Wisconsin chancellor Rebecca Blank what she makes of Big Ten peers who are paying their coaches so much.
“Those are the choices they make,” she said in an interview for a story about coaching salaries. “That really begins to threaten the whole sense that we are not professional athletic teams. I’m not terribly happy about the fact that they made those choices. That’s my opinion.”
.....
Blank understands market forces. She was acting secretary of commerce in the Obama administration and holds a doctorate in economics from MIT.
Nevermind that Harbaugh has likely, through ticket sales and merchandising, already generated revenue in excess of his total contract. Also ignore the fact that paying Harbaugh his market value has ZERO impact on the Unversity's academic side of the coin.
If you can forget those two factors, she has a fantastic point.
October 8th, 2015 at 7:44 PM ^
Like you said Harbaugh more than earns that money. He is generating those millions.
I don't think he is oiverpaid at all. Being a head coach is a demanding job. Far more so than the average person understands. Besides the football responsibilitys a head football coach is also a face of the university--more so than even the president of the school. With that comes a lot of scrutiny and responsibility.
October 9th, 2015 at 8:10 AM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 7:30 PM ^
I get what she's saying, but only to a point. It's a lot of money, and some schools may not be comfortable making a serious investment in their programs to bring in a guy who makes that much money. And some schools are. Michigan made their decision and they're benefiting from it. We also bring in a lot of money as an athletic department, have a big nationwide alumni/fan base, and have a big ass stadium to fill. Plus, winning is important to us. Luckily, we have an AD and President who recognized exactly what we needed at Michigan and went out and made it happen. If she's unhappy that Michigan did what's best for Michigan, she can go screw.
October 9th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^
This. I was okay with her comments about what she thought should be her own university's decisions. I was less okay with her sharing the fact that she was unhappy about the decisions her peers at UM and OSU made. She has no business judging those peers, because she isn't in their positions, and their decisions were, quite properly, made for the benefit of their universities, not hers. if having peers that fulfill their obligations to their institutions makes her unhappy, she should keep that to herself.
October 8th, 2015 at 7:31 PM ^
are wholeheartedly supportive of letting the coaches make whatever the market will pay them (me too), but a few threads down, the same people are almost morally offended at the idea that players should have the same right. Lots of references to "parity" and "level playing fields" and "competitiveness" in that thread, but the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer also change the competitive balance, do they not?
Fuck yeah they do. Thank God. So why no hangups about free markets here, but howls of protest in the other case? Seriously, I'm asking.
October 8th, 2015 at 7:49 PM ^
I think you could argue that student athletes get an education in exchange for their services. That education costs out of state students around $200,000, maybe more. So I think they are being compensated. Whether that compensation is valued is another story. That's up to the individual. For some athletes, they play their four years, help the team, and go on and have great careers with no student loans to pay back. In those cases, that was fair compensation. For other athletes, school is just a stepping stone and what you get out of it can be equally valuable in terms of exposure and connections. If athletes want a paycheck, they should go pro.
October 8th, 2015 at 8:16 PM ^
on the basis of the benefit that coaches bring. Good coaches like Harbaugh bring more benefit and get accorded a higher level of compensation, which seems right and value-driven. We pay coaches differently according to what we think their value is to the University, and consider the return to the UM when making that value judgment. Why not do the same for players? In an alternative world where compensation to professionals in college athletics is standardized across the board, you could also argue that college coaching positions are just a stepping stone to more prestigious college jobs or pro jobs for the best of the best if we value amateurism so much. Why not have a set, uniform salary for all coaches in FBS, then? Unless you're saying that all players generate the same value?
And if we're not going to do the same for players, why not just let the free market add anything they can get on top in private transactions by exercising their right to contract for compensated endorsements? Why shouldn't the University just give the cost of attendance and keep their noses out anything the market wants to add to it?
The part about going pro would be more compelling if all college players had that option and the NFL didn't lock in its age restriction as a means of cultivating its minor league system.
October 8th, 2015 at 9:42 PM ^
I think, in a way, we are doing it for players. The star players - the Denards of the world - get all sorts of media attention in college. Denard practically became a household name, and not just with Michigan fans. Pro players pay a lot of money for that kind of publicity. So these players are getting publicity, lots of playing time, and good coaching. They're not just getting an education, they're also getting groomed to play in the NFL. That's pretty invaluable. But not every player gets that; it's the ones who have the most value, i.e., the ones who make plays and win games.
October 8th, 2015 at 10:37 PM ^
His ubiquitous No.16 jersey was displayed prominently in every athletic-wear shop in MI during his college career and his fame should have translated into plenty of endorsement deals (esp. with that smile) while he was in school. Your success or lack thereof in the NFL should be totally disconnected-- it's not uncommon (actually, it's more like the rule) for the college value of a player to strongly diverge from their professional value. Running QBs are a great example-- they frequently don't translate into NFL skills and never get to cash in on the platform (hello Tommie Frazier, who carried Nebraska to a title). So denying them the chance to cash in while they have the market value seems punitive for no good reason. If some Lincoln, NE car dealership wanted him to do a commercial because he was the most popular single person in the state at the time, what's wrong with that? Hell, what about Rick Leach? He didn't generate value above and beyond his scholarship?
In Denard's case, he was able to morph into an NFL RB. I love that he pulled that off. But suppose he didn't. That wouldn't change how much revenue he generated for UM, the B1G, and college football generally when in college, so if Cottage Inn Pizza wanted him to sign autographs for an hour and compensate him $10,000 bucks for it, so what? Capitalism. It's awesome.
October 8th, 2015 at 11:32 PM ^
I don't think not paying them is punitive; I just think the NCAA hasn't figured out the thing that we all argue about: how do we keep our beloved amateur college football amateur? How do we stay true to the things that we love about college football and at the same time, make sure we're not exploiting the players for the things they contribute? I like the idea of a fund that the players get after college for the reasons I already outlined. I don't think having one or two guys reaping all the financial rewards is a good thing for amateur college football. It creates divides in the locker room. It brings in an opportunistic element that's already tough to keep out of college football (and college basketball). Plus, a post-college fund gives them a security blanket. A lot of people at that age have no idea how to deal with a lot of money. This protects them, at least for a little while.
October 8th, 2015 at 7:41 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 7:44 PM ^
See, I personally think that guy is a dumbass. The positive externalities, the good feels, and the positive publicity is such a wonderful thing for the University. It brings so much more attention and displays us in the best of light. Have you ever watched a Michigan game with someone who didn't go to Michigan, and they see the Michigan Difference commercials with the Law Library and they're just amazed and how awesome our campus looks...It gets us noticed, man.
I mean, Harbaugh is making high school exams fergodsakes (link below). How many high school kids in the country know of him? How many now know something about Michigan that they didn't before?
I love Harbaugh, I love this school more than anything, so perhaps I'm biased. But stories like this where people's worth and what they bring to a university is measured solely in dollars (not even correctly) really bugs me. Harbaugh's true value, to a certain degree, cannot be measured.
/end rant.
Link to ESPN (I know..) story on high school exam and Harbaugh: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/124898/harbaugh-quote-lands-on…
October 9th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^
Which guy is the dumbass, according to you? Harbaugh?
October 8th, 2015 at 7:47 PM ^
She's former dean of the Ford School of Public Policy at Michigan. My guess -- I have absolutely no inside information -- is she was a leading candidate to replace MSC.
October 8th, 2015 at 10:00 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 10:28 PM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 7:55 AM ^
that on the topics of basic market economics, economics of athletics, or comparative compensation, I'd do OK in a debate against her, mmkay?
October 9th, 2015 at 8:15 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 9:48 AM ^
Well, smart people can sometimes say stupid things. Her position on this one is so weak, most of the people on this blog would do fine.
If the debate is expanded, then most of us would be toast...unless the new topic is the history Michigan football!
October 8th, 2015 at 7:48 PM ^
You get what you pay for. Hamburger helper sure ain't filet mignon, and Paul Chryst sure as hell ain't Jim Harbaugh.
October 8th, 2015 at 7:49 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 8th, 2015 at 7:51 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 7:58 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 8:47 PM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^
The courts are highly unlikely to make the universities pay players and, if they do, the money isn't likely to come out of coaches' salaries. Your glee at the thought of coaching salaries coming down is misplaced.
October 8th, 2015 at 11:34 PM ^
You mean your brain is that simple Dawk.
October 8th, 2015 at 8:06 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 8:00 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 8:01 PM ^
are the highest paid state employees and they coach football. Yes, they are overpaid
October 9th, 2015 at 10:29 AM ^
By how much are they overpaid? How could you tell if they weren't, according to the "highest paid state employees" criteria? Are private school coachs also overpaid, since this metric doesn't apply to them? The problem with arguments like this, that propose completely arbitrary standards of values, is that they can't actually provide any useful evaluation criteria.
October 8th, 2015 at 8:02 PM ^
It might be a lot of money upfront, but the return on that investment that the likes of Harbaugh, Meyer and Saban bring to their respective schools makes the investment more than worth it. Increased ticket sales, increased brand exposure, increased merchandise sales, increased student admission applications, increased activity and commerce in town during football season, it's all there. Football can indirectly drive a school's further success, along with the town around it. I understand it's a steep price, but to those who can afford it, it's well worth it.
Ask anyone at OSU if paying Meyer nearly 6 million a year to get that national title was too steep a price, or anyone at Alabama if 7 million year is too much to watch Saban win 3 titles and compete for many more. If Wisconsin is okay dealing out second-rate money for second-rate coaches, then that's their business.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 8th, 2015 at 8:05 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 8:06 PM ^
Solution. Let's go out and hire a coach for $100,000 in FR notes. Then watch as we have to cut 90% of our sports because football can not longer play sugar daddy. Is that what she wants?
October 8th, 2015 at 8:06 PM ^
For example if she had ever carried a bag as a sales rep she might understand that the top 2 percent of sales reps earn many times that of all the rest of the sales reps combined. It's about the same in every field no doubt exacpt maybe academia.
By this yardstick Harbaugh is vastly unverpaid. Was Hoke bringinng ia windfall to Ann Arbor public schools? Was he bringing millions to the Univerisity? to the community at large? She's clueless.
October 8th, 2015 at 10:02 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 11:43 PM ^
based on her career in academia. Oh well, new information, I change my whole thesis.
October 8th, 2015 at 11:55 PM ^
FlaWolvfan,
If a gang of marauders came to your house and knocked everyone in your family to the ground and stepped on your chests so that you could only breath to ten percent of your lungs capacity and then they let up slightly on 3 out of ten of you so that 3 of you could breath at 12 or 13 percent capacity you would cheer and celebrate them as great people who are bringing oxygen to so many people!!!
There is more than enough land, somewhat enough water, and plenty of other resources, and the ability to feed the world, and clothe them, and educate them, and give them health care, transportation etc.
However instead of people simply being able to get their share of what is nobodies property or right to control, because, you know, it's here and so are we all, everything is horded by a very very few, they dole out what isn't theirs in the stingiest ways possible, only when someone works FOR THEM to keep them controlling what isn't theirs, even though there is enough of for everybody without doing the mostly destructive work everyone does.
I'm really glad you love war and poverty and hunger and ill health and disease and stress and misery and domestic violence and ignorance and many other terrible things that stem and flow from the systems you're so enthusiastic about!
October 9th, 2015 at 7:19 AM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 8:12 AM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 10:11 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 9th, 2015 at 12:34 AM ^
Harbaugh, Meyer, Saban, they win and they bring in tens of millions of dollars. You can go through the private sector and find many parallel examples. Teachers are great, they do good work and should be rewarded, unfortunately the real world doesn't pour millions at their feet for excelling int he teaching business unless of course they are world famous surgeons or write bestsellers or create businesses with research and patents but in those cases they're in the private sector with those initiatives.
October 8th, 2015 at 8:11 PM ^
I have it on good authority that not one single coach is overpaid nor is any coach underpaid. Each and every single coach and university freely entered into the employment contract. If anyone has evidence to the contrary such as a coach holding people hostage at the point of a gun or a coach being shackled and imprisoned by their respective university, I'll certainly take that into consideration.
October 8th, 2015 at 8:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 8th, 2015 at 8:24 PM ^
Hoke was paid exactly what he was contracted to be paid. That doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid, it just makes it irrelevant.
October 8th, 2015 at 8:30 PM ^
What? Are you seriously suggesting that every salary is appropriate because that's what the employer decided to pay? Have you considered the possibility that people frequently misjudge value?
October 8th, 2015 at 8:37 PM ^
So long as the contract was entered into freely by both parties, yes, it is appropriate to both the employer and employee. How third parties view the transaction is irrelevant.
October 8th, 2015 at 9:04 PM ^
So let's say I own a company with 10 million in revenue, and I decide to pay my janitor 3 million dollars. The market value of a janitor is, let's say, 35,000 per year. My janitor is not overpaid? I alone determine value?