Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Interesting report:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013 ... l-salaries

How the Summit League got included among football conferences is a little puzzling.

Maybe it's because "instructors" can't spell "salaries"!

The University of Florida was looking for a Director of Admissions shortly after Urban was hired down there. I told our director to apply and then when they got to the part about salary, he should say "If you're paying Urban $3 million a year and he is only going to bring in 25 students, then if I bring in 4,000 new students....."

Something tells me they would have told him where to go.

The universities who lose millions a year on athletics (the overwhelming majority) undercut their arguments for more state aid and tuition by doing so.

How much do we "lose" on academics?

Supply and Demand. If the instructors were as in demand as the coaches they'd be paid accordingly. Unfortunately, they don't want to hear it, but they're a dime a dozen when compared to top echelon football coaches.

And most universities will most likely always lose money on athletics. Hell I'd almost go as far as to argue that they all SHOULD lose money on athletics. The fact that some schools are able to run it like a major business and make a profit on it is one of the big reasons that we have the competitive disparity and insane levels of corruption. The main goals of collegiate athletics are to:

A) Help young athletes develop their skills and gain an education, learn in a highly structured team environment
B) Promote the university on a grander scale
C) Promote a great campus culture that makes all students feel involved and part of something
D) Build a connection between alumni and the university

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons for athletics but these are just a few off the top of my head. And I would definitely argue that the bottom 3 all help bring in students and revenue to the university. In the case of BCS member schools they're bringing in TONS of revenue through those 3 reasons. Yet not a dollar of that revenue (except perhaps donations from alumni tagged specifically for athletics) end up on the ledger of the athletic departments.

Head football and basketball coaches are MANY times more valuable than any single instructor/professor at any Division1 university. I know how much that burns up the faculty, but it is true. In fact, they're more valuable than the presidents and athletic directors that hire them as well.

Flipper and hammb are both 100% correct.

The methodology of the "study" is also absurd. On each campus there are a dozen or so football coaches compared with hundreds (in some cases, thousands) of individuals who could be classified as instructors.

Instead of manipulating data to preach to their anti-athletics choir, they should analyze how non-instructional university staff member salaries compare to those with instructional responsibilities. I'm also curious how a chemistry professor at Central Michigan would compare the worth and value of his salary to Mr. Hirko's psuedo-academic discipline.

The purpose of a university is not to dump millions into intercollegiate athletic programs benefiting a small handful of the students. Most BGSU students don't really care that much for BGSU athletics. They care more about Ohio State and Michigan. I wonder what would happen if the university gave them the option of not having to pay the portion of their fees that go to intercollegiate athletics...

The same could be said about the course(s) you teach. Most students don't care about them, but they do care about the courses they are currently taking and many also care about the athletic programs!

Comparisons with the central mission of the university and intercollegiate athletics don't work. Intercollegiate athletics are not a necessity, they are a luxury. And when we are dumping millions into luxuries while cutting the faculty, decreasing class options, increasing class sizes and crying for more state aid and tuition, we look like we've lost sight of our priorities.

Asking students if they want some of their fees to go to athletics is a dangerous question. When I was on Graduate Student Senate, the President of GSS looked into student fees and presented it to the senate. The result? Many people felt we should have a say how our fees were spent. The problem? Everybody had a different opinion. Many felt none of the fees should go to the campus shuttle system or to dining services. I mean, almost all of us lived off campus and walked or drove, and we packed our lunch each day. Some felt we shouldn't be paying for athletics. But, then you had the students that rode the bus from their apartment everyday and ate at a dining center several times a week. You had students that went to as many athletic games as they could. People were going to get screwed over because their favorite service was going to be cut because nobody but them wanted to pay for it.

Ahhh...priorities...http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your ... socialflow

If you have a problem with coaches' salaries then clearly you have a problem with collegiate athletics on the whole. Universities have made, almost unanimously, the decision that funding and fielding athletic programs is beneficial to the greater good of the university. This has continued to hold true even as these salaries continue to skyrocket. At the most expensive sport, D1A football, teams are still begging to get in, and it seems like we add a new one to the ranks every year or two.

Like I said before, supply & demand. You cannot run competitive athletic programs without good coaching, and good coaching talent is FAR more scarce than good teachers/researchers.

I really don't see how your argument is any different than "Teachers should make more than actors because they make a bigger difference," or "doctors should make more than athletes," etc, etc. Obviously top notch faculty is imperative to run a successful university. Just like top notch teachers are imperative to developing young minds, and top notch doctors are necessary for the public health. But in the end, salary is dictated by supply and demand. The human species has shown for a very long time now the highest demand is for entertainment and entertainers...the talented people in the entertainment realm will ALWAYS make far more than what outsiders think they probably should.

professorjackson wrote:Ahhh...priorities...http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your ... socialflow

I'm kind of surprised that the hockey coach at North Dakota isn't the highest paid person in the state.