Overpaid college coaches?

[zzuupp]

Solution: have athletic departments receive zero taxpayer money and instead are fan and booster supported such as with LSU's TAF (Tiger Athletic Foundation)

I *think* in most places the situation is similar. Typically, the school pays the coach the salary of a professor. The athletic foundation makes up the difference.

 

[PaNsyBoy8]

These numbers are essentially correct. It is a common misconception that athletic departments at universities are making huge sums of money. A small percentage do, but the rest don't.

EDIT: I finally found the numbers I was looking for here.

While its true that athletic departments don't make a huge sum of money, what about only the football team? Most school have quite a few sports which they need to fund. We should be looking at only that football not the dept as a whole.

 

[sactoking]

While its true that athletic departments don't make a huge sum of money, what about only the football team? Most school have quite a few sports which they need to fund. We should be looking at only that football not the dept as a whole.

Fewer than 6 in 10 football programs make money. Fewer than 4 in 10 football programs make significant money relative to revenue and expenses.

 

[JS80]

Fewer than 6 in 10 football programs make money. Fewer than 4 in 10 football programs make significant money relative to revenue and expenses.

It doesn't matter if the program is profitable or not. If paying football coach less money results in higher losses than paying market price then its still worth paying big bucks for a blue chip coach.

Let me know if you still don't get it. You might not because you think government employees generate revenue.

 

[Tim]

Solution: have athletic departments receive zero taxpayer money and instead are fan and booster supported such as with LSU's TAF (Tiger Athletic Foundation)

TAF isn't getting another cent from me until Crowton is out of the program.

 

[sactoking]

It doesn't matter if the program is profitable or not. If paying football coach less money results in higher losses than paying market price then its still worth paying big bucks for a blue chip coach.

Let me know if you still don't get it. You might not because you think government employees generate revenue.

Wow, first the Mark Cuban thread, then this one? What's with all you asstards today?

1) I don't care if paying football coaches less money results in higher losses because
2) I was directly answering Pansyboy8's question
3) Pansyboy8's question didn't hinge on whatever it is you're talking about, it was a straightforward "If athletic programs don't make money, what about football teams?"
4) Even if I was addressing the relationship between coach salary and revenue (which I wasn't) there's no reliable data that I know of to show they are or are not correlated

And don't even get me started on your government employee thing...

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Fewer than 6 in 10 football programs make money. Fewer than 4 in 10 football programs make significant money relative to revenue and expenses.

And most of those are FBS schools as opposed to FCS schools, I would imagine.

 

[Capt Caveman]

These numbers are essentially correct. It is a common misconception that athletic departments at universities are making huge sums of money. A small percentage do, but the rest don't.

EDIT: I finally found the numbers I was looking for here.

From your link:

How can schools lose money when men’s basketball and football generate so much money?
Between 50 to 60 percent of FBS football and basketball programs have generated more revenue than expenses. Still, that means almost half of the so-called revenue sports don’t cover their own expenses, let alone pay for the non-revenue programs.

 

[0roo0roo]

hey you could be down 10 bucks and you'dbe not covering your expenses, but compare that to the womens sports and others. no expenses covered at all.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

From your link:

I know what the link said. As sactoking mentioned above, a decent percentage of the ones "making money" are barely doing so, hence the overall numbers for the athletic departments. I was commenting on his post regarding athletic departments, not solely on football programs.

 

[Oil]

I *think* in most places the situation is similar. Typically, the school pays the coach the salary of a professor. The athletic foundation makes up the difference.

I wasn't talking about just the coaches' salary but rather funding the whole athletic department without money from the state. But, of course, this doesn't work for most universities as they would need a large and generous fan base

 

[Oil]

TAF isn't getting another cent from me until Crowton is out of the program.

What? You're saying you don't like short side options and bubble screens?

 

[vi edit]

The part that I find particularly interesting/alarming/depressing is that football coaches are likely the highest paid public employee on a states payroll.

Chew on that one.

 

[Gothgar]

damn, I picked the wrong profession

 

[KnickNut3]

The main sources of losses in an athletic department are not from paying football coaches, they're from all the non-revenue sports, like track, crew, tennis, fencing, baseball, etc. etc. etc. The existence of Title IX, in fact, probably costs schools 10x more than "overpaid" football coaches, since sports that wouldn't otherwise exist and generate zero revenue drain on school funds.

 

[IronWing]

No. Colleges, at least public ones, should not have intercollegiate sports teams. Sports teams are a distraction from the mission.

< waves at Train ^_^ >