This article should be careful to mention all of the relevant facts. It is sloppy and incendiary journalism to only proffer those facts that serve to stir the ever more present populist rage against high earners. The University of Florida for instance pays Urban Meyer $4 million per year for the next 6 years. Except that it isn't the University at all that pays his salary, it is the University Athletic Association, a completely separate entity that also happens to fund all of the other University sports through the earnings of the football team while at the same time contrbuting over $17 million to the University in Meyer's tenure (2005). I would venture a guess that many other major Universities have similar arrangements.

Reply

This blog post is extremely confusing. You seem to be mixing Basketball and Football coaches/programs.

Also, while I agree that the stat about only 25 out of 120 programs (120 being a number associated with FBS football programs - there are more than 300 division 1 basketball programs) making a profit is alarming. That number is referring to the entire Athletic Department losing money as a whole except at 25 schools, Not just the football team. Football and men's Basketball make money, other sports rarely do. So only 25 schools have big enough FB and MBB revenues to account for everything they spend elsewhere - but that doesn't mean the other 95 schools have "money losing basketball programs."

The NCAA study on athletic department profits is available here - http://tinyurl.com/ykmefhv - and it includes a conclusion that "the most significant new information may be the fact that expenses appear to be growing at a rate that is comparable to revenues, if not more slowly."

I'm not sure what relationship walletpop has with CNN, but this is the second time I've clicked on a link at CNN and been directed here, and twice I've been confused by the information posted. If you're going to associate with a news network, try doing some investigation or taking some time to write clearly. I'm sure the actual article authors at USAToday (who wrote a thoroughly researched piece) would appreciate it as well.

Reply

this is hack journalism at it's best. First off elite schools do not pay coachs (football or basketball) out of the schools general fund. That money comes from the boosters who are more than willing to pay for a quality product to be put on the floor or field. And the statistics used to make the football program look like a black hole is even worse. Only 25 of 120 make money, that statistic is based on the athletic departments as a whole, not simply the football or basketball programs. Put quite simply without football or basketball revenue the swin team wouldn't have swimsuits, and the volleyball team would be without volleyballs. What this article should really say is, "thank god for good football coaches and their exhorbitant salaries otherwise all college sports would be finished."

Reply

Here's an article published in the Wall Street Journal almost a year ago that directly refutes just about everything in this blog post and in the article it is based on. (although to be fair the USAToday article doesn't draw many of the false conclusions that Zac did when he posted this).

"Who Pays the College Coach"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122853304793584959.html

For instance, at my alma mater - "North Carolina's Roy Williams earns only $260,000 in salary. The rest of his $1.6 million annual compensation is made up of a combination of funds from the school's $350,000 radio and television deal, about $500,000 from Nike, and a five-year, $3.9 million "retention" bonus that's being paid to Mr. Williams by the Rams Club, a booster group."

Reply

Those who argue that these exorbitant coaching salaries don't come out of the general budget are really missing the point.

Sure, in order to justify paying these salaries, the U. of Florida has structured athletics as a stand alone entity, with its own separate budget. But regardless of how you cut it, when the university and its students are struggling to make ends meet, all this can't help but conjure up images of a family who doesn't have money to pay the light bill, but nevertheless manages to have a shiny new Corvette parked in the driveway.

It also seems to call into question the very purpose of a public university. There was a time when public universities had something to do with public service and creating equal opportunity for all, not serving as platforms from which to launch highly elitist sports enterprises.

Reply